posted
^^LOL Sorry! I meant to say "just as the Somalis in here have said". So you think I said the Somalis in here (this forum), including YOU were sold as slaves?!
A Somali in here, I'm not sure if it was you or someone else said that Ethiopians like Oromos and even Habeshas were sold to Arabs by Somalis themselves.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^LOL Sorry! I meant to say "just as the Somalis in here have said". So you think I said the Somalis in here (this forum), including YOU were sold as slaves?!
A Somali in here, I'm not sure if it was you or someone else said that Ethiopians like Oromos and even Habeshas were sold to Arabs by Somalis themselves.
Nah somalis never sold slaves, pastoralist are not by nature interested of slaves and those kinda of business. It doesnt offer value for nomadic lifestyle.
However their were some few somalis who had oromo slaves such as the Marehan, that is pastoralist oromo slaves who fitted their lifestyle, they enslved them after they took land when they expanded south and south west,Somalis use to always raid nearby communities, you know most of southern somali use to be Oromo land before they got expelled by somali nomads, thats why we have cities called "Gal-kayo" which litteraly means "expell the Galla=Oromos"(btw that name needs to be changed in the future for public relations.) it was actually the British who put halt to the somali expansion southwards.
And also we have somali landowners such as the Majerten who were given bantu slaves by the Omani sultan and Zanzibar Swahilis. But it was mostly the Banadir who imported Bantu slaves from the swahilis of zanzibar, ethnic Somalis beside some few sub-clans didnt have much interest in it.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery was minimal among Somali, it was more widespread among Ethiopians...It's safer to check facts before stating some information posted here... GambA
Posts: 182 | From: I Forgot | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GambA: Slavery was minimal among Somali, it was more widespread among Ethiopians...It's safer to check facts before stating some information posted here... GambA
posted
According to Mordechai Abir, with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, Ethiopia became the primary source to buy slaves for the Muslim world. Who sold them to the Arabs? GambA
Posts: 182 | From: I Forgot | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I know is that Persians and Indians called slaves from Africa 'Abasi' which is derived from Habesha.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The origins of the Pre-Aksumite Culture have usually been related to South Arabian colonizers, who settled on the Abyssinian plateau and mixed with the local people introducing their way of life. To-day both archaeological and epigraphical evidence seems to suggest that the **Pre-Aksumite culture was an African one, subject only to South Arabian influence**. The archaeological remains show infact a few definite South Arabian features, including some architectural and artistical elements, seals, small altars and some types of pottery. On the other hand most of the pottery shows African features. The epigraphical evidence in turn demonstrates that an independent kingdom with Tigrean chiefs flourished in this period in Tigrai and Eastern Eritrea. This evidence therefore **offers no support** to the hypothesis of a direct colonization of Ethiopia by South Arabia. On the contrary, all the indisputable South Arabian elements may derive from a cultural influence, which hardly changed the true African component of the Ethiopian cultures involved. The development of Pre-Aksumite civilization seems to be characterized by a progressive increasing followed by a succesive decreasing of Sabean elements. In Phase I we can recognize no definite Sabean element. In the lowest layers at Matara were found an obsidian microlithic industry associated with black topped, black polished, red brown, red slipped and cream ware. The black polished, red brown and cream ware are also decorated with engravdgeometrical patterns which are sometimes comparable to those of Jebel Moya. Moreover the engravings on the polished black and cream ware are sometimes filled with a white paste, like Nubian C-Group pottery. The earliest pottery at Yeha also show no typical South Arabian features and is completely different from the pottery at Matara, except for the red slipped ware. The most typical pottery at Yeha are the red orange ware and the red and black one, both of uncertain origin. Towards the end of this phase some pots appear which are comparable to South Arabian types, i.e. the jars with vertical lugs and arib running parallel to the edge. In Phase II Sabean features become more numerous and suggest cultural influence from the kingdom of Saba then at its peak. At this time the kingdom of D'MT flourished and stretched from Tokonda to Southern Enderta, with a nuclear area between Aksum and Yeha. During this phase iron was also introduced in Ethiopia. In Phase III the black-topped pottery, typical of the previous two phases, disappears, Sabean elements become less important whereas some Meroitic elements appear. Proof of Meroitic influence might be the small temples at Haoulti, the temple with an outside wall at Melazo, some elements of the throne and statues found at Haoulti. Contacts with Meroe, in Phase II, are documented by the amulets discovered at Matara and Haoulti. It is also possible that during Phase III contacts with Ptolemaic Egypt started. The stele of Ptolemy I1 copied by Cosmas Indicopleustes at Adulis indicates a Greek-Egyptian presence on the Eritrean coast in the IIIrd cent. B.C., and it is interesting to observe that the garment on the statues at Haoulti is similar to the one on the statue of a Ptolemaic queen exhibited in the Museo Egizio, Turin (ltaly) and dated to about 250 B.C. Unfortunately there is not yet any evidence about the possible mutual links between the Pre-Aksumite people and the other Ethiopian populations, except for the presence of many scrapers of Upper Palaeolithic tradition mixed with Pre-Aksumite pottery at Safra Abun near Yeha.
Very interesting. I wonder if he continues to hold these views or if they've changed.
In his conclusions, however, he seems to assume again a mixed Ethio-Sabaean elite and heavy foreign influence, as he has recently, despite his earlier affirmations of autochthonousness.
The cultural history of Northern Ethiopia between the 1st mill. B.C. and the 1st mill. A.D. was characterized by the development of a complex society, which arising from an **autochnous African background** evolved under **many external stimuli** into the Aksumite cultural pattern which formed the foundation of Abyssinian civilization. The most important stimulus undoubtedly was **trade**. Already in the middle of the IInd mill.B.C. Southern Sudan and perhaps Northern Eritrea were involved in trade with Egypt, as suggested by the reliefs of the expedition to Punt in Hatshepsut's temple at Reir el-Bahalri. In the first half of the 1st mill. B.C. the products of these regions probably were also requested by the Achemenids. The stela of Darius a t Suez mentions that travel to Punt had started again. The inscription at Naqs-i-Rustem (486-485) says that payment was made by the Pau(n)tiya , the inhabitants of Punt. Moreover on the reliefs of the Apadana in Persepolis, three "Ethiopians" are represented offering one pot, one ivory tusk and one okapi.
The identity of the peoples living at this time in Northern Ethiopia Ls not well known. The inhabitants of Eritrea were likely herders linked with the Sudanese people. Those of inland Ethiopia were mixed farmers related to the people of Eastern Africa. About the VIth cent. B.C. contacts with South Arabian traders started. **They probably wished to control the ivory trade, ** because in the VIth - Vth cent. B.C. ivory was more and more in demand by the Greek world and Greek traders were surely in direct contact with the inhabitants of Southern Arabia. **As a result of these commercial exchanges** a local kingdom in Northern Ethiopia came to life in so far that **autochthonous chiefs wanted to control the trading activity.** It is possible also that the **South Arabian traders themselves, after settling in Ethiopia and intermarrying with the natives, gained political power and became the ruling class as the Islamic traders in Wolloga in the XVIIIth - XIXth cent.**Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will go with the Bibilical viewpoint, that Saba was a son of Kush. Therefore, Saba came from Africa, and not the otherway around. That is the Biblical viewpoint..................
So Yom, do me(us) a favor and give us some names of some Afrocentric Ethiopian scholars(I don't necessarily want to put people in a category, just some scholars in Ethiopia who have rejected the eurocentric interpretations of history)
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GambA: According to Mordechai Abir, with the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, Ethiopia became the primary source to buy slaves for the Muslim world. Who sold them to the Arabs? GambA
Ethiopians sold slaves, but rarely were they themselves slaves. One notable example of someone of true Ethiopian heritage (I think) and not simply sold by Ethiopians is Bilal, as he was incapable of pronouncing "sh," which would fit with the fact that Ge'ez lost that sound and merged it with "s" by that point (although the modern languages do).
Most slaves were Nilotic from the Western Borderlands:
Richard Pankhurst. The Ethiopian Borderlands: Essays in Regional History from Ancient Times to the End of the 18th Century (Asmara, Eritrea: Red Sea Press, 1997), pp.432.
quote:The borderlands were likewise a major source of slaves. Captured for the most part in the course of raids from the central or northern highlands many came from the western, north-western or south-western periphery. Slaves from these borderlands were a common sight in many other areas.
p.363-5
quote:Our first detailed descriptions of the "Shanqellas", and the way in which they were enslaved and entered the Emperor's military service, is provided by Bruce, who saw many of them at Gonder. Though patronising his account is substantially fuller than that in the chronicles. He describes them as "flat-nosed and flat-ipped, very black, best shaped in the upper parts, but with bad knees and legs".
quote:Slave-raiding in Bruce's day was still largely based on Gonder, and resulted, he believed in a "prodigious effusion of blood". Whenever a settlement was surprised the men were "all slaughtered". Many of the women were also killed, while others would "trow themselves down precipes, run mad, hang themselves or starve, obstinately refusing food". Such action evoked little or no compassion on the part of the Gonder citizens who still regarded the "Shanqellas" as unworthy of consideration. This is apparent from the Scotsman's statement that a great lady of the city, Weyzero Aster, proudly told him of a prophecy that there would arise a Saviour-king, called Tewodros during whose reign the "Shanqellas" and other enemies would all be destroyed.
Raiding, the traveller claims, was then still considerable, and "all the countries" bordering the "Shanqella" lands, from the country of the Bahr Negash in the north to the Blue Nile in the west, were "obliged to pay a certain number of slaves" as taxes to Gonder.
Another group of "blacks" from whom slaves were then being captured but who were also engaged of raiding of their own, was the Ginjar, near Ras el-Fil, in the far west.
quote:Slave troops were prominent at Gonder throughout the second half of the eighteenth century. Bruce reported that so many "Shanqellas" had been brought to the capital that "every department" was "full" of them. They were looked after with great care. Boyus and girls under the age of seventeen or eighteen, the younger the better, were "taken and educated by the king", and were "servants in all the great houses". Such youngsters were "instructed early in the Christian religion", and "the tallest, handsomest, and best inclined" were the only servants allowed to attend the royal person in the palace.
The most important slaves at Gonder were the Emperor's "black" cavalry, in Bruce's day three hundred in number. They were "all clothed in coats of mail, and mounted on black horses; always coommanded by foreigners entirely devoted to the King's will". These slaves were exceedingly well treated. "Strict attention" was paid to their morals, all bad examples were removed from them, and premiums paid to those that read most and best. The king took "great delight and pleasure" in conversing with them. In "firmness and coolness in action" they were "equal perhaps" to any in the world, and the monarch encountered the "greatest difficulty" in keeping them, for "all the great men" wanted to have one of them in charge of his door, a position of "very great trust among the Abyssinians".
posted
Here's some more data from the actual book (not online info) that I got the other two articles from.
The following is an excerpt from the article "Ancient Interaction across the Southern Red Sea" by Matthew C. Curtis, pp.57-70 (excerpt from 60-2)
Call for a new perspective
Despite over 6,000 extant Sabaean inscriptions documented on the southern Arabian peninsula (Breton 1999), there are no epigraphic data from South arabian sites that mention, even in the most cursory manner, the existence of colonies or vassal polities in the northern Horn of Africa during the first millenium BC. Pre-Aksumite inscriptions from the northern Horn of Africa provide limited detail of sociopolitical formations and record only fragmentary references to personal names and places. Lengthy textual description of any sort is absent. The inscriptions mention royal titles similar to those found in ancient South Arabia, list the names of probable deities closely similar to some in ancient South Arabian panthea, record possible clan or lineage names and provide possible names of ceremonial objects such as incense burners. Some inscriptions make reference to the polity of D`mt (Daamat).17 The inscriptions from sites such as Addi Galamo (Caquot & Drewes 1955) and Enda [PAGE OF IMAGES] Cherqos (Schneider 1961) mentioning Daamat and pre-Aksumite rulers include the South Arabian royal/religious titles of MKRB (mukarrib) and MLK (malik) and make reference to connections with the Sabaean polity, as evident in the phrase 'MKRB of Daamt and Saba'' (See Contenson 1981:353-354).18 While these inscriptions have been used to support the South Arabian colonist migration model for the origins of pre-Aksumite complex society, it is necessary to consider a couple of questions. Why must pre-Aksumite use of the terms MKRB and MLK in describing Daamat's leaders and the linking of Daamat with Saba' necessarily imply a south Arabian mode of authority? Do such general terms, used within relatively unspecific contexts, provide definitive South Arabian signatures of identity on the pre-Aksumite landscape? Similar challenging questions have been posited indirectly before in a critique of the South Arabian colonist migration model (Isaac & Felder 1988), but no compelling alternative suggestion for an explanatory framework has been offered.
The author contends that we should consider whether the use of such terms might suggest the appropriation manipulation, and elaboration of south ARabian symbols of authority by the pre-Aksumite elite to legitimate rule by stressing their relationship to the wider cultural and economic network of the southern Red Sea. The deliberate use of the term MKRB, and the reference to Daamat in conjunction with Saba' in the phrase 'MKRB of Daama and Saba'' is, perhaps, not unlike that employed by other Red Sea polities, such as the South Arabian kingdom of Himyar. As Jean-Francois Breton has pointed out (Breton 1999: 178), the Himyarites, although removed both spatially and temporally from the Sabaean state, appropriated Sabaean titles for purposes of prestige and legitimisation. Pre-Aksumite use of South Arabian royal/religious titles need not necessarily suggest that pre-Aksumite leaders viewed Saba' as a patron state or political and cultural model. Rather, South Arabian titles may have been appropriated because their use served to further differentiate a leader from subjects and rival elites through connection to the exotic and to a perceived wider economic prosperity. The use of foreign-inspired titles may have served to reinforce claims to esoteric knowledge of distant peoples, landscapes, technologies and sources of wealth.19 The use of the written Sabaean language by Himyarite political and religious leaders and by other peoples of the southern Arabian peninsula suggests a widespread recognition of the prestige associated with ancient Sabaean script. Alfred Beeston, for example, has stressed that Himyarites may have used Sabaean (Sabaic), 'as a prestige language for inscriptional purposes, in somewhat the same way that the NAbataeans and Palmyrenes used Aramaic for their inscriptions, though they probably spoke Arabic themselves' (Beeston 1988: 100). Beeston's basic point is important and generally applicable to the context of the northern Horn of Africa in the first millenium BC. We need not assume that pre-Aksumite communities used a South Arabian language as the daily vernacular. Indeed, pre-Aksumite inscriptions are used in very limited and formalised ways and are largely restricted to elite political titles and religious terms. There is a general absence of epigraphic information concerning administrative function, trade, accounting or other more mundane, but essential, aspects of pre-Aksumite society. Writing in South Arabian-like script should not imply ipso facto wide-scale pre-Aksumite adoption of a South arabian language, nor should it necessarily imply the existence of Sabaean migrations, colonisation and/or direct acculturation.
As with the focus on a small number of fragmentary inscriptions, much attention has been paid to similarities in monumental architecture between South Arabian and pre-Aksumite ceremonial centres. In particular, the temple and large Grat Be`al Gebri structure at the pre-Aksumite site of Yeha, in Tigray, has been compared to South Arabian forms.20 The Yeha temple is a rectangular structure whose existing remains measure 18.5 by 15 m in area and more than 11 m in height. The building is constructed of ashlar masonry of large rectangular sandstone blocks fitted without mortar. The outer faces and corners of the structure's walls are finely dressed. The walls sit on a seven-stepped podium base. A carved frieze of ibexes that is now incorporated into a more recent adjacent building was likely an element of the ancient temple. Denticulate plaques and South Arabian inscriptions found at the site may have also once decorated the walls. The monumental Grat Be`al Gebri structure at Yeha possesses a number of large monolithic pillars of massive square-sectioned form. This structure seems directly associated with the temple, but its function is unclear. Although the overall plan of the temple structure is distinct in important ways from South Arabian examples, the temple's stepped base, ashlar masonry and rectangular form are similar to temple structures in YEmen. In particular, Yeha's monolithic pillars resemble those of monumental temple known as the Awwam temple near Marib. Similar pillars have been documented at the pre-Aksumite sites of Kaskase (Dainelli & Marinelli 1912) and Hawlti Melazo (de Contenson 1963), suggesting that Yeha's monumental architectural forms are not unique in the northern Horn of Africa.
posted
Here's a short excerpt from "The Tihamah Coastal Plain of South-West Arabia in its Regional context c. 6000 BC - AD 600" by Nadia Durrani (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs No. 4), p.116-7.
I used [brackets] around my comments, and left out italics and superscript for simplicit. The excerpt is regarding pre-Aksumite inscriptions:
quote:Over 200 epigraphic texts, dated to the pre-Aksumite period, are distributed throughout the known pre-Aksumite sites (Bernand et al. 1991a). Most of the pre-Aksumite inscirptions consist of a few words or letters and only a handful of the monumental inscriptions exceed more than two or three lines in length. Inscriptions occur on monuments, ashlar blocks, rock surfaces, pottery, metal plaques, statues, and votive altars. Potsherds inscribed with ESA letters are poorly represented in pre-Aksumite contexts and are only known from Matara (Bernand et al. 1991).
The pre-Aksumite epigraphic corpus has been divided into two groups, labelled Group I and Group II (Drewes 1962). The former consists of 15 monumental inscriptions, written in pure Sabaic (Anfray 1990), albeit with a few unique elements of vocabulary (Irvine 1978). About 200 Group II inscriptions have been published, of which about 45 are monumental inscriptions, and about 150 are represented by rock-graffiti (Bernand et al. 1991a; 1991b). Some of the latter are drafted in a form of 'monumental cursive', while others are in an unclear 'derivative' script that seems to be related to this cursive script (Drewes 1962). Group II inscriptions are written in a language that contains major innovative features in grammar, vocabulary, phonology, and onomastics (Irvine 1971, 1978). Despite the linguistic differences, epigraphers have argued that the Group II monumental texts are related to Sabaic, while the poorly understood (Schneider 1978) 'derivative' Group II cursive texts are also thought to owe their origin to Sabaic (Irvine 1978). [An odd conclusion, IMO, since Ge'ez is definitely not descended from Old South Arabian, and Anfray connected the "peculiarities" of Group II with Ge'ez]
Group I inscriptions are only known from Yeha, Matara, Gobochela and Enda Cherqos (Irvine 1978). They comprise family names, place names and names of deities (de Contenson 1980). The deities mentioned in the Group I inscriptions - i.e. Athtar, Almaqah, Hawbas, Dhat Himyam and Dhat Badan - belong to the South Arabian pantheon (de Contenson 1981). The family names mentioned in Group I inscriptions are Semitic and some of the named individuals are argued to have originated in the Sabaean area (Schneider 1976). For example, the authors of two texts from Matara claim to come from Marib and Hadaqan (24km north of Sana'a) (de contenson 1980;Robin 1995), while two inscriptions from Yeha and Melazo record that the stone-masons originate from Marib (Muller 1990).
A few Sabaean names, together with possible non-Semitic names (e.g. wdgly, ssrwm) (Irvine 1978), occur in Group II inscriptions. Deities belonging to the South West Arabian pantheon plus otherwise unknown - possibly local - deities appear in Group II texts. Such 'local' deities include Yf'm (Littmann 1913), Sdgn and Nsbthw (Drewes and Schneider 1970). All 13 royal pre-Aksumite inscriptions are written in monumental ESA, in the language characteristic of Group II inscirptions (Schneider 1976). They record kings with names and titulare unknown from Saba (Schneider 1978, 51; Bernand et al. 1991a). The royal inscripions are drafted in the palaeographic styles A and B; most are in Type B, and five have been specifically defined as Type B1 (Bernand et al. 1991).9 [Type A is the oldest style of ESA]
The content of the royal inscriptions has been used to reconstruct the pre-Aksumite political organisation (de Contenson, 1981), as discussed in Section 6.8.3. In brief, they refer to the d'mt kingdom (transliterated as D'iamat), and indicate that the local monarch was 'king of D'iamat'. Three inscriptions expressly identify him as the 'maitre des Sabaeans' (Schneider 19760. The D'iamat kingdom is only attested in the Group II pre-Aksumite inscriptions, and is unknown from the ESA corpus from South West Arabia (Irvine 1978) or from the Ethiopian inscriptions dated to the Aksumite period (Bernand et al. 1991a). Of the four pre-Aksumite rulers known to date, the earliest was W'rn Hywt, who only bore the title mlkn (king). He was succeeded by three leaders Rd'm, Rbh and Lmm, who use the paramount South West Arabian title, mukarrib (Schneider 1976c). This may have been a hereditary monarchy since the fourth dynasty (Lmm) is referred to as the son of Rbh. The last two leaders both bore the title "King Sr'n of the tribe of Yg'd [Ag'azi] mukarrib of D'iamat and of Saba' (Schneider 1973; de Contenson 9181). An inscription asserts that mukarrib Rbh descended from a Sabaean tribe (de Contenson 1981). The sovereign Lmm is also mentioned with Sumu'alay, which was a dynastic name of the Sabaean mukarribite (Schneider 1965a; Von Wissmann 1976; de Contenson 1981; Kitchen 1994; Robin 1995).
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: Comparison of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions as a means of investigating the evolution of the Semitic language family.
A. Kitchen et al.
Inference of the history of the Semitic language family has long been controversial. In order to address this problem, we have taken an interdisciplinary approach in which genetic and linguistic evolutionary relationships are compared through independent phylogenetic reconstructions of genetic and lexical data.
Our phylogenetic analyses of genetic data (mitochondrial control region DNA sequence from three Semitic-speaking populations) demonstrates that Ethiopic Semitic populations are basal relative to non-African Semitic-speakers. While greater antiquity of African populations relative to non-Africans is not surprising, genetic diversity has never been explicitly compared between African and non-African Semitic-speakers. This result suggests that if Ethiopian Semitic did originate in Arabia, it may have been introduced to Ethiopia in the absence of significant gene flow from a less diverse and evolutionary younger non-African population.
Concurrent analysis of lexical data (Bender’s modification of Swadesh’ 100-word lists for 15 Ethio-Semitic populations) using phylogenetic techniques borrowed from evolutionary systematics allows us to contrast population history, gene-flow and linguistic evolution within Semitic populations. Applying maximum parsimony and distance phylogenetic reconstruction methods to our lexical dataset, and comparing the resulting lexical and genetic phylogenies, we test alternative hypotheses of Ethio-Semitic language evolution. Our results largely support Bender's original classificatory scheme of Ethio-Semitic languages. Comparative analyses of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions of Semitic-speaking populations should help resolve questions concerning the genetic and geographic origin of the language family.
Linked by Dienekes, but does anyone have access to the original study? I have no idea how to find it.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: Comparison of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions as a means of investigating the evolution of the Semitic language family.
A. Kitchen et al.
Inference of the history of the Semitic language family has long been controversial. In order to address this problem, we have taken an interdisciplinary approach in which genetic and linguistic evolutionary relationships are compared through independent phylogenetic reconstructions of genetic and lexical data.
Our phylogenetic analyses of genetic data (mitochondrial control region DNA sequence from three Semitic-speaking populations) demonstrates that Ethiopic Semitic populations are basal relative to non-African Semitic-speakers. While greater antiquity of African populations relative to non-Africans is not surprising, genetic diversity has never been explicitly compared between African and non-African Semitic-speakers. This result suggests that if Ethiopian Semitic did originate in Arabia, it may have been introduced to Ethiopia in the absence of significant gene flow from a less diverse and evolutionary younger non-African population.
Concurrent analysis of lexical data (Bender’s modification of Swadesh’ 100-word lists for 15 Ethio-Semitic populations) using phylogenetic techniques borrowed from evolutionary systematics allows us to contrast population history, gene-flow and linguistic evolution within Semitic populations. Applying maximum parsimony and distance phylogenetic reconstruction methods to our lexical dataset, and comparing the resulting lexical and genetic phylogenies, we test alternative hypotheses of Ethio-Semitic language evolution. Our results largely support Bender's original classificatory scheme of Ethio-Semitic languages. Comparative analyses of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions of Semitic-speaking populations should help resolve questions concerning the genetic and geographic origin of the language family.
Linked by Dienekes, but does anyone have access to the original study? I have no idea how to find it.
This article sounds ludicris. How can you associate genetics with linguistics.
Any results from using these methods are suspect for two reasons:
1. The time frame associated with genetic events are usually (+,-) in the thousands of years. There is no way you can obtain reliable dates for population movements and language relations given the time factor.
2. Lexico-statistics can provided little if any insight into the separation of Semitic languages because of the basic roots shared by all Semitic languages in the basic vocabulary.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This article sounds ludicris. How can you associate genetics with linguistics.
Do you not that all the time, Clyde? Like attributing Dravidian languages to African haplotypes and such??
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by X-Ras: Comparison of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions as a means of investigating the evolution of the Semitic language family.
A. Kitchen et al.
Inference of the history of the Semitic language family has long been controversial. In order to address this problem, we have taken an interdisciplinary approach in which genetic and linguistic evolutionary relationships are compared through independent phylogenetic reconstructions of genetic and lexical data.
Our phylogenetic analyses of genetic data (mitochondrial control region DNA sequence from three Semitic-speaking populations) demonstrates that Ethiopic Semitic populations are basal relative to non-African Semitic-speakers. While greater antiquity of African populations relative to non-Africans is not surprising, genetic diversity has never been explicitly compared between African and non-African Semitic-speakers. This result suggests that if Ethiopian Semitic did originate in Arabia, it may have been introduced to Ethiopia in the absence of significant gene flow from a less diverse and evolutionary younger non-African population.
Concurrent analysis of lexical data (Bender’s modification of Swadesh’ 100-word lists for 15 Ethio-Semitic populations) using phylogenetic techniques borrowed from evolutionary systematics allows us to contrast population history, gene-flow and linguistic evolution within Semitic populations. Applying maximum parsimony and distance phylogenetic reconstruction methods to our lexical dataset, and comparing the resulting lexical and genetic phylogenies, we test alternative hypotheses of Ethio-Semitic language evolution. Our results largely support Bender's original classificatory scheme of Ethio-Semitic languages. Comparative analyses of genetic and linguistic phylogenetic reconstructions of Semitic-speaking populations should help resolve questions concerning the genetic and geographic origin of the language family.
^Interesting.. So according to this it would be pretty safe to say that the pre-askumite/askumite population was for the most part indigenous Tropical African variants, and despite any cultural transfer that may have occurred, it wouldn't of been accompanied by any sudden and substantial gene flow.(?) Apparently any (non-indigenous) diversity currently seen in Ethiopia is a result of interaction over time and not by any sudden mass colonization of say, Sabeans, which seems to be confirmed by previous studies. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n5/41578/41578.web.pdfPosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That study is useful for lending support to the understanding that the 'Ethio-Semitic populations' are 'basal' in comparison to their 'non-African' Semitic speaking counterparts, which as you've correctly observed, goes against the idea of these populations being formed in the region largely by phylogenetically younger [from the genetic standpoint] 'non-African' settler groups. Undoubtedly, genetic reconstructions can be correlated with linguistics reconstructions, as part of the interactions of respective disciplines within a multidisciplinary approach, to come to the most logical conclusion about the provenance of the said groups...as done here, for example: Berber and Afro-AsiaticPosts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the inscriptions around the 500 BC monuments in Ethiopia are Sabean, does that not give credence to a Sabean origin at least for some kings in D'mt? It does not seem far fetched. Likewise, how close ethnically were the Sabeans and Ethiopians at this time? Many people point out that the ancient South Yemenis were more like the Ethiopians than modern lighter complexioned Arabians. After all, Sheba was supposedly home to a famous black Queen named Sheba, so what does that say about the overall make up of Sabean and Ethiopian civilization at this time?
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Given that the inscriptions around the 500 BC monuments in Ethiopia are Sabean, does that not give credence to a Sabean origin at least for some kings in D'mt? It does not seem far fetched. Likewise, how close ethnically were the Sabeans and Ethiopians at this time? Many people point out that the ancient South Yemenis were more like the Ethiopians than modern lighter complexioned Arabians. After all, Sheba was supposedly home to a famous black Queen named Sheba, so what does that say about the overall make up of Sabean and Ethiopian civilization at this time?
These issues have been discussed earlier in this thread. Maybe Yom will eleborate.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Given that the inscriptions around the 500 BC monuments in Ethiopia are Sabean, does that not give credence to a Sabean origin at least for some kings in D'mt? It does not seem far fetched. Likewise, how close ethnically were the Sabeans and Ethiopians at this time? Many people point out that the ancient South Yemenis were more like the Ethiopians than modern lighter complexioned Arabians. After all, Sheba was supposedly home to a famous black Queen named Sheba, so what does that say about the overall make up of Sabean and Ethiopian civilization at this time?
These issues have been discussed earlier in this thread. Maybe Yom will eleborate.
.
I read those excerpts but I feel that it is overly simplistic to say that it is purely an example of linguistic "borrowing". At the same token I dont say that it means a wholesale migration of new populations from Yemen to Africa either. However, some kings and other high officials may have been from Yemen...
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no queen named Sheba. Sheba, like Saba, is the name of a kingdom. Perhaps the queen you want to name is Bilqis/Makeda? She was queen of a Two Shored kingdom/empire. Both Itiopis and Yemenis claim her as theirs.
posted
That both Yemenis and Ethiopes claim Makeda as "theirs" is an indication of the problem addressed concerning where Axum, Dm't and Seba originated. None of this is helped by the legendary status of Makeda and the fact that legends take prominence in many aspects of her story, versus archaeological fact. To my knowledge there was a claim that the tomb of Makeda/Seba has been found, but nothing in terms of finding a body or anything about actual anthropology on the ethnic origin of the queen itself. This is a good example of the overall issue concerning the ethnic identity of the Sabeans and Axumites themselves.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we get it right after just explaining it even?
Makeda is a person. Seba is a kingdom. There can be no "tomb of Makeda/Seba."
Yeminis don't claim Makeda. They claim Bilqis. Precise nomenclature requires precise citation. It shows one is truly familiar with the source material that is otherwise carelessly bandied about.
And once again, Sheba is not Saba is not Seba. They are three different kingdoms. There are both cultural similarities and differences on either side of the Bab el Mandel. Then pick either shore, and still minute cultural differences delineate the general shared culture such that we can see distinct polities.
Cross fertilization is the key here.
One thing for sure. The Arabs are quite sure that the first populations of the peninsula were not the people who for the most part inhabit it today.
The Sabaeans were not today's Mustaribes.
It's unneccessary to try to drive the kind of rift between the Two Shores empire of antiquity that exists today between Arabs and Africans. That kind of anachronism only compounds confusion in positing defensive ethnically biased theories.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Given that the inscriptions around the 500 BC monuments in Ethiopia are Sabean, does that not give credence to a Sabean origin at least for some kings in D'mt? It does not seem far fetched. Likewise, how close ethnically were the Sabeans and Ethiopians at this time? Many people point out that the ancient South Yemenis were more like the Ethiopians than modern lighter complexioned Arabians. After all, Sheba was supposedly home to a famous black Queen named Sheba, so what does that say about the overall make up of Sabean and Ethiopian civilization at this time?
500 BC is the minimal chronology date; 800-700 BC is more often used and also supported by certain archaeological finds.
Doug, if you read the articles and thread more carefully, we know which inscriptions were made by Sabaeans and which by Ethiopians. Group I is written in Sabaic, probably by Sabaeans (e.g. one such inscription states that its author is from MRYB = Marib). Group II is written in a different language that has features found later in Ge'ez, and is the work of Ethiopians (Drewes 1962).
All of the royal (D'mt) inscriptions are in Group II.
Where do you get the idea of linguistic borrowing, btw? What is this in regard to?
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can we get it right after just explaining it even?
Makeda is a person. Seba is a kingdom. There can be no "tomb of Makeda/Seba."
Yeminis don't claim Makeda. They claim Bilqis. Precise nomenclature requires precise citation. It shows one is truly familiar with the source material that is otherwise carelessly bandied about.
And once again, Sheba is not Saba is not Seba. They are three different kingdoms. There are both cultural similarities and differences on either side of the Bab el Mandel. Then pick either shore, and still minute cultural differences delineate the general shared culture such that we can see distinct polities.
Cross fertilization is the key here.
One thing for sure. The Arabs are quite sure that the first populations of the peninsula were not the people who for the most part inhabit it today.
The Sabaeans were not today's Mustaribes.
It's unneccessary to try to drive the kind of rift between the Two Shores empire of antiquity that exists today between Arabs and Africans. That kind of anachronism only compounds confusion in positing defensive ethnically biased theories.
Unfortunately in most popular literature, Bilqis/Makeda/Sheba are considered as references to the same person. I have never seen any of these sources make any distinction of any sort between the three. But I appreciate the clarification. The issue for me about this has always been one of legends and myths springing up around the Queeens of Africa and South arabia and being used and abused by various peoples at various times for different reasons. Remember the whole lost city of Sheba in West Africa thread?
So, suffice to say, it is that legacy that I speak of when I say the whole story has been "appropriated" by various groups for various reasons, with historical facts being of least importance.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Queen of Sheba/Makeda/Bilqis are in reference to the same, probably mythical or legendary, person.
Sheba/Sheva is the Hebrew version of a South Semitic place called SB' or ŠB' or ŚB'. There are multiple places with this root on both sides of the Red Sea. The most prominent, of course, is the Kingdom of Saba' in Yemen. There are others, however, including the late antiquity/early medieval city of Sabo/Saba in the Meroite kingdom. There are also multiple cities with this root in Ethiopia (presumably known in antiquity, I'm not sure when they were first referenced), including one named Sabe'a in Ethiopia, and another Saba' on the western coast of the Red Sea. Another is the "SB'" in the inscriptions of D'MT. While there are references to the Sabaean kingdom, the meaning of "SB'" in the formula "king of D'MT and SB'" is not yet fully understood. It could refer to Sabaeans living in the domain of D'MT, or another SB'.
Regarding Makeda, it's important to note that we know all of the queens of D`mt along with their male counterparts (so far we only know 4 kings and 4 queens, however), while women don't seem to have played such an important role in Saba' at the same time:
From Rodolfo Fattovich, "The 'pre-Aksumite' state in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea reconsidered," p.73, from the same book that I got the Curtis article from; this is from the full version of the article that I posted earlier.
quote:The earliest monumental inscriptions record queens who were accorded very high status, and who were possibly equal to kings. Queens do not seem to have played such an important role in South Arabia, but high status queens are numerous in the ancient and traditional kingdoms of sub-Saharan Africa, such as in the Nubian kingdom of Kush.22
Note that in the sentence before he also says that "[t]he textual evidence however points to an indigenous origin for the pre-Aksumite state." The "however" necessary here, as he was just discussing evidence of Sabaeans in Ethiopia.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Queen of Sheba(Sa'ba) could have Black and still have lived in Yemen. Ethiopia and Yemen are so close...
Interesting you mention that, in so far as the Kebra Negast puts it that...
Priest Azariah speaks to the Queen and her subjects...
"Ye are black of face - but if God illumineth your hearts, nothing can injure you,..." - Kebra Negast, chapter 90.
I have come across accounts of Ethiopian legend positing the birth of the Queen of Sheba [Makeda to Ethiopians] in Ophir, while the Queen was supposedly educated in Abyssinia [Ethiopia].
quote: The fame of the wisdom of SOLOMON reached the ends of the earth, chiefly because he traded with merchants from the sea coast and from the countries to the south of PALESTINE on each side of the RED SEA. These merchants brought the precious woods and stones, and the scents, and the spices, and the rich stuffs and other objects with which he decorated the Temple and his own palace, and when their caravans returned home their servants described to eager listeners the great works that the King of ISRAEL was carrying out in JERUSALEM. Among the masters, or leaders, of these caravans was one TÂMRÎN, who managed the business affairs of a "Queen of the South", whom Arab writers call "BALKÎS", and Ethiopian writers "MÂKĔDÂ"; but neither of these names is ancient, and it is very doubtful if either represents in any way the true name of the southern queen.
It is doubtful also if she was an Ethiopian, and it is far more probable that her home was SHĔBHÂ, or SABA, or SHEBA, in the south-west of ARABIA. As she was a worshipper of the sun she was probably a princess among the SABAEANS. On the other hand, her ancestors may have been merely settlers in ARABIA, and some of them of Ethiopian origin.
The KEBRA NAGAST says that she was a very beautiful, bright, and intelligent woman, but tells us nothing about her family. A manuscript at OXFORD (see DILLMANN, p. xliii Catalogus Bibl. Bodl., p. 26), says that five kings reigned in ETHIOPIA before MÂKĔDÂ, viz. ARÂWÎ 400 years, ANGÂBÔ 200 years, GIEDUR 100 years, SIEBADÔ 50 years, and KAWNÂSYÂ 1 year. If these kings were indeed her ancestors she was probably a native of some country on the western shore of the RED SEA. [/color]Be this as it may, she must have been a woman of great enterprise and intelligence, for having heard what TÂMRÎN, the captain of her caravans, had told her about SOLOMON'S wisdom, she determined to go to JERUSALEM and to put to him a series of difficult questions that were puzzling her.
From the following though, I get the impression that southern Arabia was considered a property of the Emperor of Ethiopia, legitimized by being a lineage of Shem; in other words, southern Arabia was considered part of the Ethiopian empire. If this is what the Kebra Negast presents, then it would appear that the Ethiopians looked upon southern Arabia as part of "Ethiopia", while the southern Arabians on the other hand, considered that at some point in time, perhaps in the lead up to and during Makeda's reign, Abyssinia was a part of the southern Arabian kingdom. Anyway here goes the excerpt, and let the reader draw his/her conclusion from it:
Concerning the Division of the Earth
quote:
From the middle of JERUSALEM, and from the north thereof to the south-east is the portion of the Emperor of RÔM; and from the middle of JERUSALEM from the north thereof to the south and to WESTERN INDIA is the portion of the Emperor of ETHIOPIA. For both of them are of the seed of SHEM, the son of NOAH, the seed of ABRAHAM, the seed of DAVID, the children of SOLOMON. For God gave the seed of SHEM glory because of the blessing of their father NOAH. The Emperor of RÔM is the son of SOLOMON, and the Emperor of ETHIOPIA is the firstborn and eldest son of SOLOMON.
So again, "Sheba" in the context of the Queen of "Sheba" needs to be defined. Many have attributed this particular "Sheba" to southern Arabia. Since the Ethiopians themselves didn't use the term, at least to my understanding, it is not possible at this point to contextualize the term from the Ethiopian perspective. What we do know, is that Makeda was considered queen of "Ethiopia", but this doesn't necessarily mean that she couldn't have also been queen of "Sheba". This in turn, doesn't necessarily mean that, since she was considered queen of "Ethiopia," that "Sheba" automatically implies "Ethiopia"; in other words, "Sheba" and "Ethiopia" don't necessarily have to be one and the same, although it is possible. Abysinia could have been part of "Sheba". Likewise, "Sheba" could have been Abyssinia, with southern Arabia being part of it. But what needs to be taken into consideration, is the timeline. The name "Sheba" during the timeframe closer to the emergence of the local Aksumite empire, was attributed to which place? Was it considered a continental African empire, or that of "Arabian" peninsula?
Bottom line: The origins of highly complex culture in the African Horn, should be looked at from a multi-disciplinary approach, i.e., via historical accounts, in association with archeological evidence, as well as linguistic and bio-anthropological insights. Few scholars like Stuart Munro-Hay have made strides towards correcting earlier [in some cases, ongoing] attempts to posit extra-continental origins of complex culture in the African Horn, by using archeological evidence, along with evidence from other disciplines. Nobody doubts southern Arabian influence in the African Horn to varying degrees and vice versa, since historic migrations from southern Arabia to the African Horn and vice versa, have been attested to via archeological, linguistic, and bio-anthropological finds. The question should rather be centered on the primary origins of complex culture in the African Horn, and thus far, the far more convincing case has been towards its primary African base and origins!
Essentially, the D'mt complex is viewed as one that had evolved from a pre-existing indigenous cultural complex, but came under influence of the burgeoning south Arabian Sabean complex on the other side of the Red Sea. It came under influence, because the South Arabian complex managed to get monopoly over key trade routes [see Fattovich piece, posted earlier in the discussion], and it appears that through their relationship with the Sabean complex, the D'mt complex itself grew as well. So this relationship appeared to be mutually beneficial, because not surprisingly when the glory or the golden age of the Sabean complex waned, so did the D'mt thereafter, to be succeeded eventually by pre-Aksumite and Aksumite complex. There was a relative brief period of 'dark age' [meaning less archeological and anthropology info in that period] between the D'mt and the Aksumite complex.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Makeda" is not an "ancient" name in the sense that we have evidence of existence prior to the 7th century, but it is the name used in the Kibre Negest, and can be said to be "medieval." The Kibre Negest could possibly be dated to the 6th century (as believed by Gianfrancesco Lusini), or at least parts of it, such as the last Chapter on Kaleb and his two sons.
These are the queens of D`mt of whom we know, btw:
ʿArky(t)n, wife of Wʿrn Ḥywt Smʿt, wife of Rdʿm Yrʿt, wife of Rbḥ ʿAdt, wife of Lmn
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
The KEBRA NAGAST says that she was a very beautiful, bright, and intelligent woman, but tells us nothing about her family. A manuscript at OXFORD (see DILLMANN, p. xliii Catalogus Bibl. Bodl., p. 26), says that five kings reigned in ETHIOPIA before MÂKĔDÂ, viz. ARÂWÎ400 years, ANGÂBÔ200 years, GIEDUR100 years, SIEBADÔ 50 years, and KAWNÂSYÂ 1 year. If these kings were indeed her ancestors she was probably a native of some country on the western shore of the RED SEA. Be this as it may, she must have been a woman of great enterprise and intelligence, for having heard what TÂMRÎN, the captain of her caravans, had told her about SOLOMON'S wisdom, she determined to go to JERUSALEM and to put to him a series of difficult questions that were puzzling her.
Take note of the time span of reign by the said Ethiopic rulers, i.e. the unusually long years implicating extraordinary lifespans, which seem to get higher as one moves away from the 'contemporary' period of the Kebra Negast. The said figures might have well actually lived, but at some point were taken to mythic proportions. While the "100" years is plausible, the time span of [50 years] reign by the second to the last King and onward are the least questionable, and hence, the most realistic ones of that bunch...and understandably so, since they are relatively closer to the historic period whence the Kebra Negast's modern/contemporary history proceed.
...and I made note of this earlier:
Cultures of antiquity like Kemet and Mesopotamia, had characters/kings listed which proceeded from a mythological to a historical period, with the succession of true kings accurately recorded. The earliest kings belonged to a mythological period, often having extraordinary life spans of thousands of years. Historians were able to separate the lists into mythological and historical portions...
The highly structured and politically centralized ancient culture that developed in the African Horn is no exception in this regard, i.e., transition from mythological period to historical period.
posted
Note that "Arawi" is "Arwe," the mythical serpent who ruled Ethiopia that we discussed elsewhere on this site. It should also be noted that The Prince of Punt was said to be a Serpent-king, as noted in the "Shipwrecked Sailor."
Angabo was said to be Makeda's father, who in some versions slayed Arwe. Makeda later ressurects him because the people won't acknowledge her rule (as she is a woman?) and kills him again to gain the throne. In other versions, Makeda is the first to slay him. Note that Angabo is also attested as a place-name in the Aksumite Empire in an inscription of Ezana (4th century).
Giedur is a reference to the king GDRT, aka Gadarat, Gadara, etc. He is also remembered in the king-lists as Agdur, Zegdur (= Ze-gdur; "ze" = "of," and is an element in some Ethiopian names, like "Za-Yohannes"), etc. His reign was around 200-230 and was the first king of Aksum known to have interfered militarily in South Arabian affairs.
I have no idea to whom Siebado and Kawnasya could refer.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Note that "Arawi" is "Arwe," the mythical serpent who ruled Ethiopia that we discussed elsewhere on this site. It should also be noted that The Prince of Punt was said to be a Serpent-king, as noted in the "Shipwrecked Sailor."
The point isn't that Makeda and Bilqis refer to the same person, we know that.
But when we speak of Abyssinian traditions about her we must use Makeda.
When it's Arabian folklore under examination Bilqis is the one.
And for the last time Sheba is not and never has been the name of the Queen of Sheba any more than England has been the name of any queen of England.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can we get it right after just explaining it even?
Makeda is a person. Seba is a kingdom. There can be no "tomb of Makeda/Seba."
Yeminis don't claim Makeda. They claim Bilqis. Precise nomenclature requires precise citation. It shows one is truly familiar with the source material that is otherwise carelessly bandied about.
And once again, Sheba is not Saba is not Seba. They are three different kingdoms. There are both cultural similarities and differences on either side of the Bab el Mandel. Then pick either shore, and still minute cultural differences delineate the general shared culture such that we can see distinct polities.
Cross fertilization is the key here.
One thing for sure. The Arabs are quite sure that the first populations of the peninsula were not the people who for the most part inhabit it today.
The Sabaeans were not today's Mustaribes.
It's unneccessary to try to drive the kind of rift between the Two Shores empire of antiquity that exists today between Arabs and Africans. That kind of anachronism only compounds confusion in positing defensive ethnically biased theories.
Unfortunately in most popular literature, Bilqis/Makeda/Sheba are considered as references to the same person. I have never seen any of these sources make any distinction of any sort between the three. But I appreciate the clarification. The issue for me about this has always been one of legends and myths springing up around the Queeens of Africa and South arabia and being used and abused by various peoples at various times for different reasons. Remember the whole lost city of Sheba in West Africa thread?
So, suffice to say, it is that legacy that I speak of when I say the whole story has been "appropriated" by various groups for various reasons, with historical facts being of least importance.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: Wait, Yom... Reading the wikipedia article, it says that the Sabaen influence on Dm't didn't extend beyond a short-lived group of immigrants that lasted for no more than a few decades. So really, exactly how did Saba influence Dm't? And where did the similarities in religion come from? Was it from Sabaen influence on Dm't, or some sort of cultural cohesion from the ethiopians who migrated to Arabia thousands of years back?
Hopefully this thread already has the answer to your first question (how much influence). As to religion, most of the Gods attested in D'mt inscriptions are also found in Sabaean inscriptions and can probably be safely attributed to Sabaean influence, although it is possible that earlier contact between the two groups resulted in the shared gods. Some of the D'mt gods are not attested in South Arabia, however, and were likely local gods.
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: Double posting because I can't edit my old post, but I've been looking for some concise info on Axum for so long....
Few questions-
If you say that Sabaen influence didn't extend beyond the "elite" level, where is Munro even getting his ideas about so much of Dm't being influenced by Saba? I think I've heard somewhere that Munro wasn't fully qualified to speak about the pre-Axumite period.
Well the elite level is the most evident in all civilizations and is influence nonetheless. What parts of D'mt that Munro-Hay said were influenced do you not think were influenced based on the fact that it's limited to the elite level? Munro-Hay is a specialist on Axum more so than the D'mt period, which is why he's brief in describing it in Aksum, but I wouldn't say that he's not qualified to comment.
quote:The wikipedia series is one of the most lengthy pieces on Axum, but there's alot of conflicting points. The Wikipedia article states that Sabaen influence never extended beyond a handful of transient immigrants and a short-lived trade/military colony, yet here, and from you and Munro, I'm hearing something completely different. What's the influence really? What about the architecture and other pieces Munro mentions?
That citation is in fact from Munro-Hay. Actual Sabaean presence is postulated to only have existed at a few sites and they are thought to have left or been absorbed after a few decades. There are architectural connections, but I'm not very knowledgeable on this issue. Can you enumerate the "other pieces [that] Munro[-Hay] mentions" for me?
quote: What do you mean by "elite"? Wouldn't something influencing their own religion count as something substantial? How did they manage to influence something as major as their religion?
Well, the non-elite levels are the houses and culture of the majority of the population, such as the pottery, which shows no Sabaean influence.
quote:And what's the deal with Ge'ez? Wikipedia again states that it's indigenous, as do many other sites, but then there's several linguistic articles on Wikipedia that state Ge'ez is derived from a widely used semetic alphabet.
You're mixing up language and alphabet. The language is indigenous and not descended from any Old South Arabian language, and perhaps descended from the language of the D'mt inscriptions (all but 15, which are in Sabaic), which have features found in Ge'ez. The alphabet is descended from Epigraphic South Arabian, but this alphabet is found around the same time in Yemen and Eritrea/Ethiopia starting around the 9th c. BC.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Hopefully this thread already has the answer to your first question (how much influence). As to religion, most of the Gods attested in D'mt inscriptions are also found in Sabaean inscriptions and can probably be safely attributed to Sabaean influence, although it is possible that earlier contact between the two groups resulted in the shared gods. Some of the D'mt gods are not attested in South Arabia, however, and were likely local gods."
I meant "cultural cohesion" in reference to the east africans who migrated to South Arabia thousands of years ago and gave birth to the semetic language- but I really can't say. I'm just saying that, despite how you quote those researchers who say "thousands of sites" with no sabaen influence beyond the elite level... well, having so many sabaen deities in the place of something as important as religion would seem to suggest large influence, wouldn't it? What are the theories as to where so many of these deities came from? And exactly how much cultural heritage would Dm't owe to Saba, in the case with so much religious influence? How much would these religious similarities have influenced Dm't culture?
And are they sure these didn't arise somehow from the Ethiopian migrations, thousands of years back?
"Well the elite level is the most evident in all civilizations and is influence nonetheless. What parts of D'mt that Munro-Hay said were influenced do you not think were influenced based on the fact that it's limited to the elite level? Munro-Hay is a specialist on Axum more so than the D'mt period, which is why he's brief in describing it in Aksum, but I wouldn't say that he's not qualified to comment."
As someone else mentioned in the previous thread- Munro mentions Sabaean influence constantly, to the point where he might as well say Dm't was a wholly Sabaean intervention.
And what you said on the Wikipedia discussion page of Axum:
"He's referring here to the D'mt kingdom, not to Aksum. Other authors (e.g. Fattovich) have dealt more specifically with the relations between D'mt and Saba', but that's beyond the scope of this article. As to Askum itself, however, Munro Hay is unambiguous in his assessment, at least in his article on Aksum and its development in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (A-C, 2003). I don't have it on hand, but I'll replace that citation from Aksum, since I can't find (in the online version) what the citation might be referring to. "
What did you mean here?
"That citation is in fact from Munro-Hay. Actual Sabaean presence is postulated to only have existed at a few sites and they are thought to have left or been absorbed after a few decades. There are architectural connections, but I'm not very knowledgeable on this issue. Can you enumerate the "other pieces [that] Munro[-Hay] mentions" for me?"
Wait.... Now Munro is the one who put off the idea that Sabaean influence only lasted a few decades? Although someone mentioned that Munro didn't believe Axum to be the product of Sabaeans, he bespeaks as if the Sabaeans influenced Dm't in virtually every aspect of their culture. Just go back and read the thread, Sundiata cites the "sabaean cultural influences" excerpts all the time.
This is just obnoxiouslly confusing, I'm sorry.
Let me reiterate-
If Munro was the one who pushed off the idea of the "few decades immigration", attested to by only a few sites.... why does he mention heavy Sabaean influence SO MUCH? Likewise you cited some people who said there's been thousands of excavations, with no influence extending beyond the elite level- and someone else mentioned other academics who truly proved Axum was "indigenous"- so where does Munro even fit into this?!? What I'm getting at is that, although I keep hearing Axum is an indigenous development, there's constant mention of Munro's work who always mentions "heavy sabaean influence", yet then you say he was the one who came up with the short-term immigration hypothesis, and then you go off and mention researchers- although a decade after Munro's magnum opous- who find no Sabaean influence beyond religious and elite levels.
Do you see where I'm getting at? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry to say.
"Well, the non-elite levels are the houses and culture of the majority of the population, such as the pottery, which shows no Sabaean influence."
That's what I thought, but was Munro reffering to the WHOLE of Dm't in his assessment? And have there been later researchers that have proved Munro's assertions wrong?
What was the biggest piece of evidence for an indigenous origin of Axum anyway?
"You're mixing up language and alphabet. The language is indigenous and not descended from any Old South Arabian language, and perhaps descended from the language of the D'mt inscriptions (all but 15, which are in Sabaic), which have features found in Ge'ez. The alphabet is descended from Epigraphic South Arabian, but this alphabet is found around the same time in Yemen and Eritrea/Ethiopia starting around the 9th c. BC. "
I see- I always thought that, in reference to the Ge'ez script, the Ethiopians developed their entire language on their own. Still, when did this alphabet come over to Ethiopia, and how? Was it a baseline alphabet like the Bronze Age one?
Posts: 8 | From: gsfg | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Is there any concise information on Axum's architecture? I've yet to find anything beyond those obelisks, and a painting "depicting" an Axumite town- though it's rather blurry, and just shows off what appear to be typical traditional african huts, only made out of stacked, simple stone masonry.
And what of their technological advancement? They minted their own coinage and launched their own Red Sea and Indian Ocean-spanning fleet very early in their history, so that bespeaks a good deal of development. But I can't find anything else.
Posts: 8 | From: gsfg | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zorn, can you use quote boxes or at least italics? It's hard to follow with all the quotation marks.
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: I meant "cultural cohesion" in reference to the east africans who migrated to South Arabia thousands of years ago and gave birth to the semetic language- but I really can't say. I'm just saying that, despite how you quote those researchers who say "thousands of sites" with no sabaen influence beyond the elite level... well, having so many sabaen deities in the place of something as important as religion would seem to suggest large influence, wouldn't it? What are the theories as to where so many of these deities came from? And exactly how much cultural heritage would Dm't owe to Saba, in the case with so much religious influence? How much would these religious similarities have influenced Dm't culture?
And are they sure these didn't arise somehow from the Ethiopian migrations, thousands of years back?
I didn't say "thousands of sites" (nor did any of my sources), AFAIK, but I don't see where all your confusion is coming from. You have to realize that nothing in this field is certain yet, and large reinterpretations can easily happen as more information comes to light. We don't even know for sure that Proto-Semitic originated in the Horn of Africa; no one has reconstructed any Proto-Semitic pantheon or a Proto-Afro-Asiatic one, and even if we had, given the non-vocalized nature of most scripts then, determining whether a god was re-introduced by Sabaeans or still kept would be a difficult task.
As to whether adopting Sabaean deities represents a "large influence" or not, that's up to you (actually the experts) to determine.
Here are a few of the deities attested (that I know of) in D'mt, with an asterisk next to those also attested in South Arabia (+ for goddesses). There are a lot more in non-royal inscriptions as well, and I'm probably missing a few more (I don't have the Annales d'éthiopie on me right now, so it's hard to make a full list).
(Inscription 1 in Recueil des inscriptions de l'éthiopie des périodes pré-axoumite et axoumites: Tome I - les documents
quote: "Well the elite level is the most evident in all civilizations and is influence nonetheless. What parts of D'mt that Munro-Hay said were influenced do you not think were influenced based on the fact that it's limited to the elite level? Munro-Hay is a specialist on Axum more so than the D'mt period, which is why he's brief in describing it in Aksum, but I wouldn't say that he's not qualified to comment."
As someone else mentioned in the previous thread- Munro mentions Sabaean influence constantly, to the point where he might as well say Dm't was a wholly Sabaean intervention.
And what you said on the Wikipedia discussion page of Axum:
"He's referring here to the D'mt kingdom, not to Aksum. Other authors (e.g. Fattovich) have dealt more specifically with the relations between D'mt and Saba', but that's beyond the scope of this article. As to Askum itself, however, Munro Hay is unambiguous in his assessment, at least in his article on Aksum and its development in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (A-C, 2003). I don't have it on hand, but I'll replace that citation from Aksum, since I can't find (in the online version) what the citation might be referring to. "
What did you mean here?
He does mention Saba' too much when discussing Aksum, but if you read his article in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (I don't have it on me), he is clear in his assessment of Aksum as wholly indigenous. It's not him who stated that D'mt was indigenous, though, but other researchers who are more knowledgeable in that period (see e.g. the quotation by Fattovich I included earlier on this page). What part don't you understand?
quote: Wait.... Now Munro is the one who put off the idea that Sabaean influence only lasted a few decades? Although someone mentioned that Munro didn't believe Axum to be the product of Sabaeans, he bespeaks as if the Sabaeans influenced Dm't in virtually every aspect of their culture. Just go back and read the thread, Sundiata cites the "sabaean cultural influences" excerpts all the time.
Munro-Hay also says this (basically a summary of his description on the period, from Aksum)
It seems that these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so — or perhaps even only a few decades — as a separate and identifiable people. Possibly their presence was connected to a contemporary efflorescence of Saba on the other side of the Red Sea. Their influence was only in a limited geographical area, affecting the autochthonous population in that area to a greater or lesser degree. Such influences as did remain after their departure or assimilation fused with the local cultural background, and contributed to the ensemble of traits which constituted Ethiopian civilisation in the rest of the pre-Aksumite period. Indeed, it may be that the Sabaeans were able to establish themselves in Ethiopia in the first place because both their civilisation and that of mid-1st millenium Ethiopia already had something in common; it has been suggested that earlier migrations or contacts might have taken place, leaving a kind of cultural sympathy between the two areas which allowed the later contact to flourish easily. The precise nature of the contacts between the two areas, their range in commercial, linguistic or cultural terms, and their chronology, is still a major question, and discussion of this fascinating problem continues (Marrassini 1985; Avanzini 1987; Pirenne 1987; Isaac and Felder 1988).
quote: This is just obnoxiouslly confusing, I'm sorry.
Let me reiterate-
If Munro was the one who pushed off the idea of the "few decades immigration", attested to by only a few sites.... why does he mention heavy Sabaean influence SO MUCH? Likewise you cited some people who said there's been thousands of excavations, with no influence extending beyond the elite level- and someone else mentioned other academics who truly proved Axum was "indigenous"- so where does Munro even fit into this?!? What I'm getting at is that, although I keep hearing Axum is an indigenous development, there's constant mention of Munro's work who always mentions "heavy sabaean influence", yet then you say he was the one who came up with the short-term immigration hypothesis, and then you go off and mention researchers- although a decade after Munro's magnum opous- who find no Sabaean influence beyond religious and elite levels.
Well, I can't provide the quotation from the Munro-Hay article right now. As to why he mentions Sabaean influence so much when he considers Aksum indigenous is a question only he can answer, now from beyond the grave, unfortunately. Part of it may be the fact that he seems to be sort of hyper-diffusionist, since he still considered Jacqueline Pirenne's ideas on Saba' possible.
quote: Do you see where I'm getting at? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry to say.
Well, the non-elite levels are the houses and culture of the majority of the population, such as the pottery, which shows no Sabaean influence.
That's what I thought, but was Munro reffering to the WHOLE of Dm't in his assessment? And have there been later researchers that have proved Munro's assertions wrong?
You have to remember that Munro-Hay was more concerned with Aksum, not D'mt. E.g., he thought D'mt could have been related to the Aksumite territory of Tiamo/Tsiyamo, which is clearly based on his misunderstanding of the spelling of D'mt (D`MT, not Ḍ`MT, which could allow for his interpretation).
Also, elite structures always attract the most interest in research; much research hasn't and hadn't been done on non-elite structures, so it's unlikely that he would have taken that into account. AFAIK, Munro-Hay makes no assertions of his own on this period. He simply reiterates and sums up some of the hypotheses (remember that a lot of our interpretation of this period is tentative and can change significantly with new findings) that have been proposed in the past.
quote: What was the biggest piece of evidence for an indigenous origin of Axum anyway?
What's the biggest piece of evidence for an indigenous origin of the Han dynasty? It's the absence of evidence for foreign influences and a predominance of local features that have been maintained to present times (architecture, legends about the period, pottery, traditions, political structures, etc.). There might have been some Meroite influences in pottery, and Adulis had a number of merchants from throughout the ancient world, but there aren't really any visible foreign influences (maybe the vocalization of Ge'ez was inspired by Brahmic scripts, but the manner of vocalization is very different).
quote: I see- I always thought that, in reference to the Ge'ez script, the Ethiopians developed their entire language on their own. Still, when did this alphabet come over to Ethiopia, and how? Was it a baseline alphabet like the Bronze Age one?
Well, languages aren't "developed" in the sense of created. Ge'ez (the language) is the descendant of an even earlier language (perhaps the non-Sabaic language of the D'mt royal and D'mt-era inscriptions and graffiti). The alphabet is the descendent of Epigraphic South Arabian (which evolved into archaic forms of Ge'ez script ~400 BC), itself the descendent of some yet-undiscovered Bronze Age South Semitic script. I'm not aware of any inscriptions older than ~800 BC (middle chronology), although there may be some instances of alphabetic graffiti dating to the late 2nd millenium BC in South Arabia. I'm researching more into this topic myself, actually.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Zorn, can you use quote boxes or at least italics? It's hard to follow with all the quotation marks."
I would if I knew how to use quotations- where are they? I've never used this forum software before.
"I didn't say "thousands of sites" (nor did any of my sources), AFAIK, but I don't see where all your confusion is coming from. You have to realize that nothing in this field is certain yet, and large reinterpretations can easily happen as more information comes to light."
Er, you mentioned it here:
"Moreover, there seems to have been almost zero Sabaean influence beyond the elite level. It seems that there were close contacts between the D'mt and Sabaean elite, which resulted in the spreading of certain cultural features, but the non-elite archaeological findings show absolutely no Sabaean influences from thousands of sites excavated thus far."
What did the original article say then?
"We don't even know for sure that Proto-Semitic originated in the Horn of Africa; no one has reconstructed any Proto-Semitic pantheon or a Proto-Afro-Asiatic one, and even if we had, given the non-vocalized nature of most scripts then, determining whether a god was re-introduced by Sabaeans or still kept would be a difficult task."
Off-topic, but I thought that it was overwhelmingly accepted that semetic was derived from the an african substrate of afro-asiatic?
"He does mention Saba' too much when discussing Aksum, but if you read his article in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (I don't have it on me), he is clear in his assessment of Aksum as wholly indigenous. It's not him who stated that D'mt was indigenous, though, but other researchers who are more knowledgeable in that period (see e.g. the quotation by Fattovich I included earlier on this page). What part don't you understand?"
I simply didn't understand how Munro, who's cited so often, bespeaks of heavy Sabaen influence in the Dm't period. If others have come up with Dm't being indigenous... where did Munro get all of his ideas?
"Munro-Hay also says this (basically a summary of his description on the period, from Aksum)"
It's just rather off, since being there for only a few decades would leave room for profoundly minute influence- wouldn't it?
Just one last question- I think Munro mentions that the overall evolution of Axumite ubran centers isn't well known, but how much did trade really effect Axum's wealth and development? Axum retained strong cultural homogenity throughout it's reign, and it's population growth and expansion seems to have been too slow to have much to do with outside influence. It reminds me of the case of west african countries in their trade with the Europeans, where most of their economies were so robust, they saw little effect by anything gained from the slave trade.
And how did Axum's level of development, at the end of it's reign, compare to when it first arose?
Posts: 8 | From: gsfg | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Zorn, can you use quote boxes or at least italics? It's hard to follow with all the quotation marks.
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: I meant "cultural cohesion" in reference to the east africans who migrated to South Arabia thousands of years ago and gave birth to the semetic language- but I really can't say. I'm just saying that, despite how you quote those researchers who say "thousands of sites" with no sabaen influence beyond the elite level... well, having so many sabaen deities in the place of something as important as religion would seem to suggest large influence, wouldn't it? What are the theories as to where so many of these deities came from? And exactly how much cultural heritage would Dm't owe to Saba, in the case with so much religious influence? How much would these religious similarities have influenced Dm't culture?
And are they sure these didn't arise somehow from the Ethiopian migrations, thousands of years back?
I didn't say "thousands of sites" (nor did any of my sources), AFAIK, but I don't see where all your confusion is coming from. You have to realize that nothing in this field is certain yet, and large reinterpretations can easily happen as more information comes to light. We don't even know for sure that Proto-Semitic originated in the Horn of Africa; no one has reconstructed any Proto-Semitic pantheon or a Proto-Afro-Asiatic one, and even if we had, given the non-vocalized nature of most scripts then, determining whether a god was re-introduced by Sabaeans or still kept would be a difficult task.
Perhaps not specifically in the African Horn, but preponderance of evidence points the homeland of Proto-Semitic being in Africa, in northeast Africa...likely somewhere in the vicinity of Upper Egypt/Sudan/Chadic general region. From there, movements of populations via the Nile Valley corridor [including movements southward within Africa] occurred , not excluding multiple dispersals along the Red Sea region from the African continent.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Though it obviously has old information, this caught my eye:
"The Aksumite Kingdom enriched itself with the Greek culture, which it had much exposure. Tekle Tsadik Mekouria,11 wrote that, "There were considerable commercial and cultural exchanges between the two countries." The Greek and South Arabian scripts were used until Aksum developed its own written language, Ge'ez, in the 5th century. "The Alphabet," Kobishanov tells us, "is generally regarded as the outstanding achievement of the Aksumite civilization."12 New England historian, Graham Connah pointed out that the, "syllabry used for inscriptions grew less and less like the South Arabian form which it had originated, and more and more like Ge'ez, the ancestor of the Ethiopian languages…At first a consonantal syllabary, it was not until the fourth century AD that a system of vocalization was introduced and this was clearly an Ethiopian development."13"
This is the first time I've heard of Greek influence on Axum- where does that fit in with what you've read? And did the fully developed Ge'ez alphabet really come in that late?
Posts: 8 | From: gsfg | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
S. Munro-Hay's assessment is not inconsistent with those of other researchers who have published studies on the D'mt complex in the sense that D'mt evolved from pre-existing socio-cultural organization in the African Horn; this has already been noted in this very thread. At the same time, these researchers have been confronted with archeological indicators which suggest that its [D'mt's] relationship with the Sabean complex across the red sea, which was experiencing its golden age then, allowed the Sabean complex's good fortunes to spill over to D'mt. It has to be kept in mind that "having influenced" is not the same thing as "being responsible for the origins" of an entire cultural complex. Both regions on either side of the Red sea have influenced the other side at some point or another over the course of history.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: "Zorn, can you use quote boxes or at least italics? It's hard to follow with all the quotation marks."
I would if I knew how to use quotations- where are they? I've never used this forum software before.
^Simply click on the 'quotation marks at the top of the post(in order to quote some one); multiple quotes will require that you copy and past the "quote symbols" to their corresponding positions(with the text in between those two symbols) when you need to quote someone more than once. If you can't figure that out yet, simply put their quotes in italics by clicking the italics button directly below the post window, and pasting your quote inside of the two symbols([I][/I]).
quote: I simply didn't understand how Munro, who's cited so often, bespeaks of heavy Sabaen influence in the Dm't period. If others have come up with Dm't being indigenous... where did Munro get all of his ideas?
^That through me off somewhat also but to Munro-Hay's credit, I don't recall him ever implying that Dm't was not indigenous, and the major flaw that I saw in that[his constant mention of Sabean influence/contact] more than anything was redundancy, but not bias or historical inaccuracy(that I know of, since I'm not qualified to disagree with his approach, nor dispute his data).. Yom also alluded to the fact that Hay is more so an expert on Askum while other sources can be relied upon(as is attested in this thread) to elaborate on the historical dynamics of Dm't. Briefly reviewing the relevant literature of this thread, I don't see Hay contradicting them at all, again, his problem was more or less with redundancy, as it concerns his book, 'Askum'..
quote:This is the first time I've heard of Greek influence on Axum- where does that fit in with what you've read? And did the fully developed Ge'ez alphabet really come in that late?
As Mystery Solver has just pointed out to you, influence does not in any way equate with "having started"(something). There isn't one civilization that hasn't seen "influence" from at least some other people, cultural complex, and/or neighboring Kingdom. This distinction is very important to make, especially given the fact that in this case the "influence" was most certainly mutual and stretched back millenia. Also again(reiterating what Yom explained already), Ge'ez is an indigenous language, the Ge'ez alphabet and the Ge'ez language are two completely different things.
quote:The Ge'ez language is classified as a South Semitic language. It evolved from an earlier proto-Ethio-Semitic ancestor used to write royal inscriptions of the kingdom of Dʿmt in Epigraphic South Arabian. As a member of South Semitic, it is closely related to Sabaean, and the Ge'ez alphabet later replaced Epigraphic South Arabian in the Kingdom of Aksum (although Epigraphic South Arabian was used for a few inscriptions into the 8th century, though not any South Arabian language since Dʿmt). Early inscriptions in Ge'ez and Ge'ez alphabet have been dated[6] to as early as the 5th century BC, and in a sort of proto-Ge'ez written in ESA since the 8th century BC. Ge'ez literature properly begins with the Christianization of Ethiopia (and the civilization of Axum) in the 4th century, during the reign of Ezana of Axum.
Though it obviously has old information, this caught my eye:
"The Aksumite Kingdom enriched itself with the Greek culture, which it had much exposure. Tekle Tsadik Mekouria,11 wrote that, "There were considerable commercial and cultural exchanges between the two countries." The Greek and South Arabian scripts were used until Aksum developed its own written language, Ge'ez, in the 5th century. "The Alphabet," Kobishanov tells us, "is generally regarded as the outstanding achievement of the Aksumite civilization."12 New England historian, Graham Connah pointed out that the, "syllabry used for inscriptions grew less and less like the South Arabian form which it had originated, and more and more like Ge'ez, the ancestor of the Ethiopian languages…At first a consonantal syllabary, it was not until the fourth century AD that a system of vocalization was introduced and this was clearly an Ethiopian development."13"
This is the first time I've heard of Greek influence on Axum- where does that fit in with what you've read? And did the fully developed Ge'ez alphabet really come in that late?
No, Ge'ez didn't come that late. As I said above, it evolved from ESA around the 4/5th century BC (it was a gradual process; see "Akkele Guzay" by Rodolfo Fattovich in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica) and was vocalized by the early 4th century AD. Ezana's inscriptions are the first with a fully vocalized Ge'ez alphabet, but we have traces of vocalization even earlier, such as a vocalized letter (sadis, i.e. a "sixth" order vowel) in a coin of Wazeba (who ruled before Ezana's father). See Grover Hudson, "Aspects of the history of Ethiopic writing" in Bulletin of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies 25, 2001, pp. 1-12.)
Greek influence wasn't that substantial, however. There are a few loanwords, like the word for "table," which is T'erep'eza from Greek "Trapezius" and the word "debtera" for a biblical scholar from the Greek "diphthera" (prepared hide/parchment), which is pretty widespread (daftar in Arabic and Persian, defter in Turkish). I can't think of any other loanwords, but the Ethiopian numerals are derived from modified Greek letters. Any Greek influence that can be found outside of this is in regards to Christianity and not particularly significant when you look at the larger picture, though.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yom: ^^Sundiata, I wrote most of that particular passage at Wikipedia, which answers.com mirrors for most of its content.
^Well you did a good job and as long as it's properly cited, then it is a reliable source of information. I actually don't like linking to wikipedia for some reason, even though some of those other sites as you've stated, mirrors them.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia has to be approached with caution - verifying with primary sources if necessary, which in some cases are linked therein. The editing function of the site, while meant to be there as a tool for updating, also means that info can be changed by just about anyone who chooses to do so.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zorn: Er, you mentioned it here:
"Moreover, there seems to have been almost zero Sabaean influence beyond the elite level. It seems that there were close contacts between the D'mt and Sabaean elite, which resulted in the spreading of certain cultural features, but the non-elite archaeological findings show absolutely no Sabaean influences from thousands of sites excavated thus far."
What did the original article say then?
My mistake, I don't know why I said that. The article I'm thinking of in particular is a single site in Aksum (city) that would be expected to show at least some influence but ended up having none. It's in "Trade and Travel in the Red Sea Region" and is by Jacke Phillips.
quote: Off-topic, but I thought that it was overwhelmingly accepted that semetic was derived from the an african substrate of afro-asiatic?
It is, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Proto-Semitic is native to the Northern Horn of Africa or even Africa, since a later derived form (but not yet Proto-Semitic) of Afro-Asiatic could have entered West Asia before evolving into Proto-Semitic.
[qipte\ I simply didn't understand how Munro, who's cited so often, bespeaks of heavy Sabaen influence in the Dm't period. If others have come up with Dm't being indigenous... where did Munro get all of his ideas?
It's just rather off, since being there for only a few decades would leave room for profoundly minute influence- wouldn't it?[/quote]
I think Sundiata's explanation above is the best. He doesn't seem to introduce Sabaean influences where there are none, or even really emphasize them, but he just mentions it redundantly.
quote:Just one last question- I think Munro mentions that the overall evolution of Axumite ubran centers isn't well known, but how much did trade really effect Axum's wealth and development? Axum retained strong cultural homogenity throughout it's reign, and it's population growth and expansion seems to have been too slow to have much to do with outside influence. It reminds me of the case of west african countries in their trade with the Europeans, where most of their economies were so robust, they saw little effect by anything gained from the slave trade.
Well, apparently it gained a significant amount of wealth from trade given its native coinage, but I don't think it was crucial. An analysis of Aksumite trade from the Bieta Giyorgis site in Aksum (Andrea Manzo, "Aksumite Trade and the Red Sea Exchange Network" in "People of the Red Sea") supports this. In the proto-Aksumite period (400 BC - 50/40 BC), about 0.5% of wares are foreign and they are all Sudanese (Meroite). This is also around the time when King Harsiyotef of Meroe campaigned in the East around Beja lands. One of the places he claims to have defeated was a city called Habasa whose inhabitants were called Metin. Perhaps this attack was what resulted in the fall or splintering into petty kingdoms of D'mt? Anyway, the Early Aksumite period (50/40 BC - 150 AD) has about 1%, mainly amphorae (i.e. from the Greco-Roman world), but also some Sudanese ceramics. During the Classic Aksumite period (150-350 AD), the figures are still low at around 1% (still mainly amphorae, no Sudanese, but now also some African Red Slip), but they increase for the Middle Aksumite period (350-500/550 AD) to about 7.5%, again almost all amphorae, but with some African Red Slip, Amphorae, and even some Blue Glazed types. It's still high at about 6% for what Andrea Manzo calls "Late Aksumite," which is AD 500/550-700 (in reality, Late Aksumite runs until the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty in the 12th c. or the rise of Gudit in the 10th), mainly amphorae still but with the same other types found in the "Middle Aksumite" period. They drop off again for his "Post-Aksumite" period (after 700 AD) to less than 0.5%, which are amphorae and African Red Slip.
quote:And how did Axum's level of development, at the end of it's reign, compare to when it first arose?
What do you mean by "level of development?" The palaces, villas, tombs, churches, monasteries, and the like of Aksum are pretty well developed throughout the whole period and continue to be so well into the Zagwe and Solomonic dynasties. We don't have that much contemporary info on its political structures, though. A few inferences from inscriptions, outside works, and medieval references and inferences, but not enough to get a sense of evolution.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Proto-Semitic is native to the Northern Horn of Africa or even Africa, since a later derived form (but not yet Proto-Semitic) of Afro-Asiatic could have entered West Asia before evolving into Proto-Semitic.
I don't follow this. If this "later derived" form moved into "southwest Asia", wouldn't this essentially be "proto-Semitic"? And you do realize that by raising the possibility that "proto-Semitic" is of extra-African origin, you are also saying that Ethio-Semitic origins lay outside of Africa? If so, what set of evidence are you going by?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic