posted
I want to know the best argument for a South Arabian colonization vs. indigenous development. I believe state formation in Eritrea/Ethiopia was the result of indigenous peoples, but would like to see more evidence from both perspectives. Any comments?
Posts: 26 | From: In a Lagoon | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I heared Yemeni Sabeans had a hand in Ethiopian culture too. I really don't know either. Any scholars on this subject?
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Our resident authority on Ethiopia, Yom, is quite knowledgeable on the topic, but unfortunately we haven't heard from the guy in months. Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure who made contact first but the Sabeans came under control of the Aksumites. They made an alliance in which intermarriage occurred between the royal family. It appears the Aksumites were dominant since it was the princesses from Sabean that were sent to the Aksumites. This should not be surprising since the Nubians had contact with the pre-Aksumite people. Considering the advance state of civilization posessed by the people of Meroe which was far more advance than then Yemeni of this time, it is quite likely that the pre-Aksumite people were in a good position to militarily control parts of Yemen.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ One could possibly say that the Sabaeans or early South Arabian predecessors had contact with Ethiopia and the Horn first as seen by the presence of Asiatic lineages such as J in Ethiopia and even K and L being found in the Horn since neolithic times. Whatever the case, contact between the Horn and Yemen was very early. I don't think you can tell which group was more dominant simply based on which princesses were sent to whom, especially considering that both societies were not as patriarchal as you think and were actually more matriarchal. Even the Sabaean clans were apparently matrilineal in that age. As far as 'Nubia' or more specifically Meroe, the tables obviously turned since the last Meroitic kingdom was sacked and destroyed by late Aksumites.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yvesfigueroa: I want to know the best argument for a South Arabian colonization vs. indigenous development. I believe state formation in Eritrea/Ethiopia was the result of indigenous peoples, but would like to see more evidence from both perspectives. Any comments?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ One could possibly say that the Sabaeans or early South Arabian predecessors had contact with Ethiopia and the Horn first as seen by the presence of Asiatic lineages such as J in Ethiopia and even K and L being found in the Horn since neolithic times. Whatever the case, contact between the Horn and Yemen was very early. I don't think you can tell which group was more dominant simply based on which princesses were sent to whom, especially considering that both societies were not as patriarchal as you think and were actually more matriarchal. Even the Sabaean clans were apparently matrilineal in that age. As far as 'Nubia' or more specifically Meroe, the tables obviously turned since the last Meroitic kingdom was sacked and destroyed by late Aksumites.
Yes it is unfortunate that the rise of Aksum resulted in the destruction of the last great Egyptian cultures. By that time the Romans had pretty much altered Egytian culture to the point it was no at all indigenous but the Nubians were still practicing it mixed with their own Sun worshiping culture.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ One could possibly say that the Sabaeans or early South Arabian predecessors had contact with Ethiopia and the Horn first as seen by the presence of Asiatic lineages such as J in Ethiopia and even K and L being found in the Horn since neolithic times. Whatever the case, contact between the Horn and Yemen was very early. I don't think you can tell which group was more dominant simply based on which princesses were sent to whom, especially considering that both societies were not as patriarchal as you think and were actually more matriarchal. Even the Sabaean clans were apparently matrilineal in that age. As far as 'Nubia' or more specifically Meroe, the tables obviously turned since the last Meroitic kingdom was sacked and destroyed by late Aksumites.
Agreed, the Sabeans had setup trading colonies in pre-Aksumite territories.
Here is a timeline from Yemeni history showing when Aksum had militarily conquered parts of the Sabean territories (they did so twice in their early history). The Aksumites had actually been the dominant force during early Aksum H.
25BC The Romans encouraged by the civil war in South Arabia attempt to invade the region, but fail to survive the Arabian desert. 25BC Sabean civil war, Himyar closes in on Saba and takes over most of the Sabean central highlands, red sea coasts territory. Saba breaks into two smaller states in the northern highlands and the desert region around the capital Marib.
1st century AD the kingdom of Aksum dominates East Africa and takesover the Sabean trading/military colonies. In the 1st century BC Himyar allied itself with most of the Qahatni tribes of the lowlands and central highlands, annexing most of Saba and Southern Qataban, but Hadhramout repels them.
1st century AD the Kahlan tribes remain as the only tribes still loyal to the Sabean state at Marib, Kahlan tribes cornered to the area between Sana'a and Marib in the North of Yemen. 2nd century AD Jews settle Yemen. 200 AD Himyar captures most of Qataban. 200 AD Himyar annexes the Sabean state of Marib. 200 AD after the loss of Marib Saba Kahlans septs Azd , Hamdan , Lakhm , Tai headed north except for the Hashid and Bakil tribes of Hamdan of Gurat Saba and Kindah in the ramlah desert. 211 AD Hadhramout allies itself with Qataban and Aksum attacking Himyar from the West and the east. 217 AD while the Himyarites are fighting the Hadhramout/Qataban alliance in the east, the Aksumites capture the Himyarite capital Zafar, . 221 AD Hadhramout annexes Qataban and reaches its height of power. 222 AD the Aksumites attempt to capture Hadhramout from the coast. 225 AD during the reign of Sha`irum Awtar the Himyarites/Sabeans attack the Kingdom of Hadhramout from the East and capture their capital. 227 AD the Gurat Sabeans and Himyar ally themselves against the Aksumites and retake Zafar. The Aksumites lose all their territories in South Arabia except for Tihama. 229 AD Himyar recaptures Southern Tihama and controls the Major East African ports across from Muza'a. The Aksumites keep the Northern strip of Tihama. 229 AD The Kahlani Imran bin Azd branch expel the Persians from Oman.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the responses. I am more in favor of an indigenous Aksumite state because of archaeologists such as Fattovich who claim the early cultures of the region owe something to Nile Valley groups like the C and Kerma civilizations.
Posts: 26 | From: In a Lagoon | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic