quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Tocharian was a trade language.
If it was a trade languge it was a trade language of the The Tocharian inhabitants of northern edge of the Tarim Basin (modern Xinjiang, China).
It seems strange with so many nations and cultures in between that there would be a connection between in the Sudan region and people in China
It only seems strange when you ignore the fact that 1) Blymmys are mentioned in Buddhist text, 2)Asoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Egypt, 3) Petrie's discovery of Buddhist at Memphis,Egypt; and 4)Philostratus' : The Life of Apollonius of Tyana mention Buddhists in Egypt/Meroe.
Ashoka sent missionaries to Ptolemy
This means the Meroites were buddhist ?
A mention in a Buddhist text of Blemmyes means the Blemmyes were Buddhits?
what is the name of the text and the quote where they are mentioned ?
Meroites played an important role in Buddhism because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka.see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474. Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " we have a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]would it be accurate to say that Jesus represented a Middle Eastern philosphy of strict "one God only" monotheism rather than African?
No. Jesus was against temple religion.
All african religions are based on monotheism. all africans are taught that there is One god, like Catholicism Africans believe there are intermediaries who are closer to GOD, who can get their prayers to GOD rapidly. In many ways it is similar to the Christian method of group church prayers, which are ended with the phrase "grant my prayer/request in Jesus's name".
This is not accurate. In African religions there is often a main creator God and there are also good, bad and nature dieties. They have independant powers and are not simply relayers of messages to God. It's not montheism and saints The Abrahamic religions from before the time of Christ forbid that.
Granted, the African deities had powers but the main god was supreme. This is the same as Catholic Saints who are suppose to have powers to perform miracles that's why they are considered Saints.
Are you saying that Christ followed the religion practiced by the Hebrews of his Day? The Bible says otherwise.
"Therefore, the man who infringes even the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:17-19).
_______________________________
In John 4:21-26 Jesus identifies himself as a Jew:
John 4:21-26 King James Version (KJV) 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
_________________________
The word "Messiah" had a different meaning than it has today. Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual figure. Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e., Roman) rule, bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher in an age of universal peace. A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar-Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva, made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness. Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word "Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as dangerous and decided to crucify him. That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime, KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and political direction of his activities.
There is nothing in these quotes about temple worship. That is why Christian churches go to the Old Testement to support paying dues to the church.
Obviously the Meroitic language in the funerary texts include many Egyptian cognates. For example:
Meroitic Egyptian
Khi khat 'body, external body, spirit'
Kha ka 'the abstract personality of man'
Kho, Khe khu 'a shinning or translucent spirit soul.
The Khu, was suppose to reside in heaven when a man dies. In the Meroitic inscriptions there is constant mention of the khi; kha; kho and the Ba 'soul'.
The Kha was seen as the supreme offering of the deceased. It was to be taken along the ate (path), to be judged by Isis and Osiris as eligible for rebirth. The ate was the path taken by the Kha's ascent to rebirth.
In the archaic Meroitic text we find mention of the mlo, 'inner heart'. The mlo is often referred to as the mlo ol 'grand inner heart'. The heart of the departed Meroite was therefore weighed for goodness.
The Meroitic texts indicate that the mlo was suppose to determine if the Meroites piety was great enough to guarantee his Kha's transmigration. It would appear from the Tañyidamani text that the Good of a man was believed to be contained in the inner heart. The migration of the inner heart from the tomb full of the deceased person's Kha, was meant to elevate the Good Meroite to a high status. This indicates that the deceased Meroite was suppose to be free of wrong doing and a full supporter of the divine order, if s/he was to enter the afterworld kingdom of Osiris.
Thusly the mlo ol, was recognized as a guide down the grand path (ate) to a new vivification of the deceased. The mlo ol, was the guide, sent ahead of the Kha, to insure the departed person's rebirth. This was necessary because if the deceased person's Kha and mlo ol were found to be full of n(a)ne (Goodness), s/he was granted a revitalized soul and rebirth.
It would appear that a major function of the škh was to also prop up Good. The škh was therefore often made an offering to the Meroite gods.
It appears from the Meroitic funerary text that the (Kho), would remain with the body until its flesh decayed, then it would wither away, leave the tomb or hunt it. The deceased person usually requested that Isis and Osiris escort this Kho, safely to one of the Meroite afterworlds.
In the funerary inscriptions we also find much mention of the Ba or Be. I have interpreted the term Ø ba #, as 'soul'. The ba, united the conception of the Kha, and the Khe/Kho. The best place to find this term in the Meroitic funerary literature include the Tañyidamani, Armina West and Karanog steleas.
In the Tañyidamani stela, for example, the Ba,Am and Kha, had to play specific roles. In the ancient Meroitic text the term am meant 'spirit soul' (Winters, 1999). In the late and transitional Meroitic text there is very little mention of the am. The Kho replaced it.
In the Tañyidamani stela , line 146, we discover that the ŝkh (spirit body) and the kha , were to be released from the body to protect his soul. Upon release the Ŝkh was to prop up Goodness. It was also suppose to be an offering to the Meroitic gods.
The spirit body of the King was to sustain Good at the burial site. For example the Ba of Tañyidamani was to remain at Jebel Barkal (Tañyidamani stela, lines 33-34) for a period of time continuing to serve Aman, while it represented a talisman of blessing for the pilgrims that visited his tomb. According to the Tañyidamani stela ,line 139, the Ba was a gift to Aman (Winters, 1999). This may explain the placement of the Meroitic carved items such as the ba statues and funerary tablets outside the Meroite tombs. (Adams 1977: 377-378) Placement outside the tomb probably tolerated the ba's effortless access to flight.
In the late Meroitic text. The Ba, was no longer forced to stay at the tomb. In these inscriptions it is made clear that the Ba, retired in B(a)ne.
THE GODS
Many Meroitic gods were formerly worshipped in Egypt. These gods include Isis, Osiris, Mash, Bes, Nephthys and Anubis. Other Meroitic gods were of Meroitic origin. These gods include Apedemak and Sebewyemeker (Sbomeker). Sebewyemeker is believed to have been recognized as the creator god by some southern Meroites. The Lion-god Apedemak was the warrior god.
In the steleas and offering tables of the Meroites we find mention of the various characteristics of their gods. But there are two sacral inscriptions, which provide us with important information about the Meroitic gods, which we will discuss in detail below.
AMAN
The principal god of the Meroites was Amun or Aman. Aman had been worshipped by the Kushites since the Kerma dynasty. The long worship of Aman by the Kushites may explain his high standing throughout the Meroitic Empire (O'Connor 1993:79). This would explain the establishment of large Aman temples at Jebel Barkal and Meroe.
The center of Aman worship was Napata. Aman, the hidden god was closely connected to Meroitic kingship. as a result there are Aman temples in Meroe City, Napata and Kawa.
Millet (1984:116-117) believes that the Meroitic king was probably recognized as a "trusted and privileged paramount agent of the gods than either their brother or their servant". The Meroitic inscription on the other hand make it clear that both the Meroite king and commoners all recognized themselves as the ŝ 'servant’, 'patron' of the gods.
Napata was the main religious center of the Kushites. Jebel Barkal was both the companion site of Napata , and the sacred mountain of the city of Napata. It was identified as the holy southern abode of the god Amon. Jebel Barkal, was considered the southern most center for Amun/Amon worship in north Africa. Reisner excavated this rock outcrop between 1913 and 1916.
Aman had long been worshiped by the Kushites. The Kushites/C-Group people of Kerma first worshiped Amun long before the founding of the temple of Aman at Jebel Barkal.. Many of the Meroitic kings were buried at Jebel Barkal after 300 B.C.(1). The Egyptians called Jebel Barkal, dw w Ʒ b 'holy mountain'. At the foot of Jebel Barkal, the Egyptians erected the great temple of Amon in the 15th century B.C.
Aman was recognized by the Kushites as a supreme creator god, the god of the Sun, and progenitor of the king. In addition to Aman, the Kushites also worshipped the Egyptian gods Isis and Osiris. The goddess Isis watched over the rites of metamorphosis, while Osiris was suppose to lead the dead to paradise.(2).
Aman was also referred to as Amani and Amnpe or Amanape. The term Amanape probably should be interpreted as Amn p-ne or 'Aman the foundation (of Good)'. The Meroites often called the god Aman, Amani. Amani was recognized as the creator of the Kushites and supporter of all existence in the inscriptions from Armina West (Trigger 1970).
The Meroites recognized Aman as a god that 'inclined' man towards good. Aman was also considered a guide to the rebirth. The Meroites believed that Aman had the ability to make his
s 'patron, supporter', a sign of honor. In the Armina West inscription (Trigger 1970), we see the following passage:
Si ye qo wi-ne nt-ne Amni se-ne-a bo y /or/ 'Content to live everlasting bowing in reverence to Amani, (who is) supporting (now) all existence'.
ISIS AND OSIRIS
The most popular gods in the Meroitic texts were Isis and Osiris. On the offering tables we also find the goddess Nephthys and the god Anubis depicted pouring libations for the departed.
Among the Meroites Osiris was recognized as the maker of merit. He was also the guide to the Meroitic afterworld.
It would appear that Wos-i (Isis) was responsible for giving the dead person's Kha, the right to leave for paradise while she watched over other aspects of the metamorphosis of the Meroitic King into the Kha, Ba, Khi, and Am.
Wos was responsible for the deceased person's transmigration. It was Isis who authorized a new vivification for the departed. In Armina West stela no. 1, Side B, lines 14-15 (Trigger 1970), we discover that:
(14) Te s-ne Wos p e y ke /or/ 'Bring the new vivification Isis, give (its) foundation, make (its) authorization'.
(15) S-ne-l qe te h no ne-i hre. 'The new vivification to give birth to the Kha anew, in truth and dignity'.
The Napata inscription-statue no.75, gives us some very interesting information about Isis. Napata statue no.75 is made of black granite. This statue depicts Isis on a throne nursing Horus.(3). This Meroitic piece is found in the Berlin Museum (Inv. no.2258).
TRANSLITERATION OF NAPATA STATUE NO.75
1. ALE E QE S-NE E QE E TER.
2. TK Ŝ W-NE SOH-NE ATe RE.
3. KE-B E-NE TeNE KEL HENEL.
4. TeM WI-NE S E Y-S-NE-I D I.
5. PQ ODE NE-I PL-E-TO NENO-B.
6.TeNE KL NE I PL MK L-TONE.
7. ATER LK-E BO KE TEM OTE.
8. TO E W-NE EK-TE R L-TE E TE.
9. Ŝ D TeM OTE NE WOŜ NE-TE W-NE.
10. W E O I TE LO-NE-TE NEK EL.
11. S S N S LI-NE-L NO.
12. KED D-NE ATeR-E ŜB.
13. TeL-NE Te W WI-NE PL-E.
14. Te S-NE WOŜ PE Y KE.
15. S-NE-L QE Te H NEI HRE.
16. S-NE KE K-NE...WOŜ QO.
17. Ŝ-NE AB ENE...TO.
TRANSLATION OF NAPATA STATUE NO.75
"(1) Give noble renewal (Oh Isis) to the new vivification. Give renewal--give (its) erection. (2) Reflect (on) the patron (and) guide good prosperity (on the) good path indeed. (3) Desire (patron) the bestowal of a rebirth to resound in Henel.(4) (4) (Goodness) come(s) into being as an Object of Respect (for) the patron. Give existence to the new vivification. Go (now) and give (it) leave. (5) Fashion wonderment (and) order (Oh Isis)--you will commence (to make wonderment) in abundance. (6) The good Supporter even go(es) to wipe out much non-existence. (7) The hero to behold all. Act (now) to bear approbation.(5) (8) You give guidance and nourishment. This (is done) by transmigration--give (its) existence. (9) The disciple indeed to reflect (on) Isis the good,(she) puts ( on you guidance). (10) (Isis) lead(s). She commences to arrange your transmigration. Arrange now the gifts. (11) The patron (of Isis) s/he (is) to be exalted, like new. (12) Spread the bequeathal of the hero in a pile. (13) Rise to arrange and guide (us to) honor (Oh Isis). Much praise go(es) forth, (14) Isis (is) to also bring authorization for the new vivification. (15) The new vivification to give birth to the Kha anew in truth and dignity. (16) The Patron has permission to realize (it)...Isis (is) to make it (happen) (17) (For) the good patron, the ancestor, (and) the Commander...."
Meroites played an important role in Buddhism because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka.see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474. Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " we have a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465). [/QB]
without the example it is just an obscure claim. The quote above doesn't say Blemmyae played an important role in Buddhism. It only says Blemmya are mentioned in prominant Buddhist texts. That doesn't mean they necessarily had a role in Buddhist ideas.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Meroites played an important role in Buddhism because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka.see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474. Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " we have a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465).
without the example it is just an obscure claim. The quote above doesn't say Blemmyae played an important role in Buddhism. It only says Blemmya are mentioned in prominant Buddhist texts. That doesn't mean they necessarily had a role in Buddhist ideas. [/QB]
LOL. I never said the Blemmyae influenced the ideas of Buddhism, because these ideas are of Buddha himself.
The fact is Blemmyae, i.e., East Africans were familiar with Buddhism at an early date and explains the presence of Buddhists in Meroitic Empire and Egypt. A presence noted by greco-Roman writers.
From The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and Egypt, C. 690 664 BC by Jeremy W. Pope (2014)
In textual form:
quote:At the outset, it is necessary to eliminate one point of potential distraction. For scholars specializing in regions beyond the Middle Nile, the assertion that the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty originated at Meroë may appear a natural one, for it has been routinely observed in the literature that the dynasts themselves bore Meroitic nomina.13 Yet the apparent linkage between these two points is based upon a confusion of geographic and linguistic terminology. The Meroitic language was first named as such by Heinrich Brugsch, because the texts available to him had been collected by Lepsius from precisely the Meroë region.14 To the ancients, the language was more likely designated by some variant of ’Ikš, “Kushite.”15 The “Meroitic” label has been retained in later scholarship as a convenient means of periodization: the grammar of the language first assumed written form during an era when the kings were buried in the vicinity of Meroë City at the Begrawiya North cemetery.
quote:In all other respects, there is nothing distinctly Meroitic about the language which bears this name, for the Meroë region would seem to correspond neither to the language’s area of origin nor to its geographic range of distribution , insofar as both have been reconstructed in recent scholarship. Based upon the linguistic principle of least moves and certain suggestive lexical considerations, Claude Rilly has argued that Proto-North Eastern Sudanic—the sub-family of the Nilo-Saharan phylum from which Meroitic and Old (medieval) Nubian equally derive—may have spread from the region between Dongola and Darfur , as the Wadi Howar succumbed to increasing aridity during the middle of the third millennium BC and its inhabitants dispersed in search of more favorable conditions along the Middle Nile and the southern savannah.16 By the first half of the second millennium BC, an early form of the Meroitic language appears to have been spoken already by Kushite individuals known to Egypt’s Hyksos regime, for Papyrus Golenischeff at Krokodilopolis lists several anthroponyms with recognizably Meroitic linguistic features.17 Given the political landscape of that era, the residence of the individuals named in Papyrus Golenischeff would seem to be in the vicinity of Kerma, home of the Hyksos’s Kushite allies and terminus of the desert routes leading from the Fayum. Thus, the later use of Meroitic nomina by the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty no more proves their origin from Meroë than it does their origin from Kerma, where the language had likely been in use for a millennium. Consequently, the authors who have proposed Meroë as the origin of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty have not done so on exclusively linguistic grounds.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: More about Meroitic
From The Double Kingdom Under Taharqo: Studies in the History of Kush and Egypt, C. 690 664 BC by Jeremy W. Pope (2014)
In textual form:
quote:At the outset, it is necessary to eliminate one point of potential distraction. For scholars specializing in regions beyond the Middle Nile, the assertion that the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty originated at Meroë may appear a natural one, for it has been routinely observed in the literature that the dynasts themselves bore Meroitic nomina.13 Yet the apparent linkage between these two points is based upon a confusion of geographic and linguistic terminology. The Meroitic language was first named as such by Heinrich Brugsch, because the texts available to him had been collected by Lepsius from precisely the Meroë region.14 To the ancients, the language was more likely designated by some variant of ’Ikš, “Kushite.”15 The “Meroitic” label has been retained in later scholarship as a convenient means of periodization: the grammar of the language first assumed written form during an era when the kings were buried in the vicinity of Meroë City at the Begrawiya North cemetery.
quote:In all other respects, there is nothing distinctly Meroitic about the language which bears this name, for the Meroë region would seem to correspond neither to the language’s area of origin nor to its geographic range of distribution , insofar as both have been reconstructed in recent scholarship. Based upon the linguistic principle of least moves and certain suggestive lexical considerations, Claude Rilly has argued that Proto-North Eastern Sudanic—the sub-family of the Nilo-Saharan phylum from which Meroitic and Old (medieval) Nubian equally derive—may have spread from the region between Dongola and Darfur , as the Wadi Howar succumbed to increasing aridity during the middle of the third millennium BC and its inhabitants dispersed in search of more favorable conditions along the Middle Nile and the southern savannah.16 By the first half of the second millennium BC, an early form of the Meroitic language appears to have been spoken already by Kushite individuals known to Egypt’s Hyksos regime, for Papyrus Golenischeff at Krokodilopolis lists several anthroponyms with recognizably Meroitic linguistic features.17 Given the political landscape of that era, the residence of the individuals named in Papyrus Golenischeff would seem to be in the vicinity of Kerma, home of the Hyksos’s Kushite allies and terminus of the desert routes leading from the Fayum. Thus, the later use of Meroitic nomina by the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty no more proves their origin from Meroë than it does their origin from Kerma, where the language had likely been in use for a millennium. Consequently, the authors who have proposed Meroë as the origin of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty have not done so on exclusively linguistic grounds.
The problem for this researcher is that the Meroites used the Egyptian language as a lingua franca to unite the Meroites who were probably of different ethnic origins and therefore you would not find Merotic used by the members of the 25th Dynasty.
Meroitic came into being only after vast numbers of Egyptians entered the Meroitic Empire and the lingua franca was changed to Meroitic.
posted
^^^A lingua franca is not the mother tongue of the majority of the people (although it can become the mother tongue, but then, we don't talk of 'lingua franca' anymore). People can speak proper Ancient Egyptian as a second language or as a lingua franca and still speak other languages in their regions and among their people. Of course, the best example is modern Africa, many people speak english, french or portuguese as a lingua franca or second language or trade language but speak their own languages too like Zulu, Dogon, Wolof, etc. Same with Europe too in fact, where each nations have their own languages but use English as second language/lingua franca between Europeans. At the moment, English is pretty much the lingua franca of the world but not the mother tongue of the world.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^A lingua franca is not the mother tongue of the majority of the people (although it can become the mother tongue, but then, we don't talk of 'lingua franca' anymore). People can speak proper Ancient Egyptian as a second language or as a lingua franca and still speak other languages in their regions and among their people. Of course, the best example is modern Africa, many people speak english, french or portuguese as a lingua franca or second language or trade language but speak their own languages too like Zulu, Dogon, Wolof, etc. Same with Europe too in fact, where each nations have their own languages but use English as second language/lingua franca between Europeans. At the moment, english is pretty much the lingua franca of the world but not the mother tongue of the world.
You are correct a lingua franca can be a 'mother tongue'.The idea of mother tongue is complicatrd when children live in a bilingual enviroment. The definition of mother tongue is" The language which a person has grown up speaking from early childhood". In Kenya people speak varios languages--but they grow up speaking Swahili, just like people in India speak numerous Indo-Aryan languages--yet they are able to speak Hindi; and in China the Chinese speak numerous languages--but the mother tongue is Mandarin. In the case of Swahili and Hindi people living in a bilingual society learn multiple languages that might be considered mother tongues.
As a result Egyptian was a lingua franca, and also the mother tongue of the Egyptians.
In Africa many Africans can speak more than one language fluently.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swahili is mostly a trade language, spoken as a second language by many people. Relatively few people speak it natively. A bit like English around the world.
Ancient Egyptian may have been a lingua franca in the region but many people spoke other languages as their regional languages including Meroitic (and its ancestor/descendant languages).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Swahili is mostly a trade language, spoken as a second language by many people. Relatively few people speak it natively. A bit like English around the world.
Ancient Egyptian may have been a lingua franca but many people imo spoke another language as their regional languages including Meroitic (and its ancestor/descendant languages).
Correct. The Meroites used Egyptian as their national language uhtil the fall of Egypt as illustrated by the discussion above of the language spoken by rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Swahili is mostly a trade language, spoken as a second language by many people. Relatively few people speak it natively. A bit like English around the world.
Ancient Egyptian may have been a lingua franca but many people imo spoke another language as their regional languages including Meroitic (and its ancestor/descendant languages).
Correct. The Meroites used Egyptian as their national language uhtil the fall of Egypt as illustrated by the discussion above of the language spoken by rulers of the 25th Dynasty.
.
So, I don't understand the problem you have with the quote from the book. Kushites from the 25th Dynasty can use Ancient Egyptian as the national language and still speak Meroitic or related languages.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Egypt was probably a multi-ethnic society like the United States where people speak different mother tongues, in addition to English. Riggs and Baines have suggested that distinctive types of burial and pottery assemblages associated with different periods of Egyptian history may indicate the acculturation of people with different ethnic backgrounds into Egyptian society, who may have continued to distinguish their ethnic identity.
This would explain why each sepat or nome had its own god, while the nation had its on god recognized by the Egyptians, e.g., first Ra and later with the New Kingdom kings the god Amma/Ammon. Biggs and Baines (2012) wrote: “…any notion that the ancient Egyptian population was ethnically unified should be abandoned as a fiction projected by the dominant ideology and often largely accepted by Egyptologists.” Since the Assyrians first conquered the Egyptians there has been a slow replacement of ancient Egyptians by Middle Eastern and Western European peoples.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other ancient Egyptian caused political and military conflicts that led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deerters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testfy to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
Just like Egypt, and most African countries today, Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.
As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign dominantion the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population due to the change in the Egyptian population.
posted
Statue of Queen Shanakdakhete /Shanakdakheto (170-150 BCE) ruling queen of Kush, and a male member of her family giving her royal power.
Her name is carved in a ruined temple where the earliest inscriptions in Meroitic hieroglyphic writing are found. Her pyramid at Meroe is one of the largest ever built for a Kushite ruler. It has a unique chapel with two rooms and two pylons. The chapel is among the most elaborately carved of any known. The scenes in the chapel show military campaigns to the south and the capture of numerous cattle and prisoners.
Red sandstone relief from the pyramid chapel of Queen Shanakdakhete
From Meroe, Nubia Meroitic Period
Check out my books: Meroitic Writing and Literature
Meroitic Writing and Literature is divided into three parts. The first part of the book explains how I used the Kushana hypothesis to decipher the Meroitic script. It will outline the Classical literature that informed my decipherment of Meroitic and how Buddhists early settled in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Empire and spread their religion and writing system: Tocharian.
In Part two we outline the grammar of Meroitic. It will provide readers with a detailed overview of the Meroitic language and its grammar.
Part Three provides translations of key Meroitic text. These texts provide knowledge of the lifeway’s of the Meroites especially their religion and some historical data.
The Meroitic literature discussed in this book include : The Inscriptions of Tanyidamani; The Meroitic Chamber Inscription of Philae; and Meroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in the Dodekaschoinas. These text were chosen because they include text written in archaic Meroitic (Tanyidemani), and other text written in late Meroitic.
Meroitic Writing and Literature, is the first account of the Meroitic language and literature. It will allow readers the opportunity to learn how to read/decipher Meroitic text, while acquiring an intimate knowledge of the Meroites as individuals.
The Meroitic Language, provides a detailed account of the language of the Kushites who founded the Meroitic Empire. In Meroitic Language, Dr. Winters explains his decipherment of the Meroitic language and provides an outline of the grammar of the Meroitic language.
Meroitic language provides readers with the necessary tools to read the Meroitic inscriptions.It also gives the reader key insight into the culture and religion of the Kushites.
Meroitic Language can be purchased at Scribd. Purchase the full version and... • Read the full version in your browser • Send to mobile device • Download as pdf (PDF) • Download as txt (Text file)
Extract from Historical Linguistics and the Comparative Study of African Languages By Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (2011)
In textual form: "Greenberg (1971) supports the hypothesis by Trigger (1964) of an Eastern Sudanic (Nilo-Saharan) affiliation for Meroitic, the language of the Kingdom of Cush. Rilly (2003, 2009) presents further convincing evidence that the extinct language of the Meroitic empire, preserved in written records which have been only partly deciphered, shows Eastern Sudanic affinity. It probably is most closely related to Eastern Sudanic groups such as Nubian, Taman, Nara and Nyimang (plus Dinik), i.e. to Northern East ern Sudanic (Rilly 2003; Dimmendaal 2008b)."Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Historical linguistics and the comparative study of African languages (review) Larry M. Hyman, Florian Lionnet From: Language Volume 88, Number 3, September 2012 pp. 640-644 | 10.1353/lan.2012.0067
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
As indicated by the title, this important new work attempts to wed the traditional field of historical linguistics with the comparative study of African languages. This is a particularly welcome effort by one of the world's most distinguished scholars in African linguistics. Although most of Gerrit Dimmendaal's research has centered around Nilotic and adjacent areas of East Africa, much of which he cites, D makes a serious effort to treat other areas and linguistic groups from throughout the continent./b] The result is an impressive reference work that students and scholars alike will want to own and consult. D's coverage of issues is extensive, as he addresses not only linguistic reconstruction and language classification, but also issues that arise in the study of language in context. As a result one gets a feel not only for the forms and where they come from, but also for how they are actually used in various African communities. The over thirty pages of references (373-406) further attest to the serious scholarship that went into the production of this work.
Although there have been recent books introducing African linguistics (Heine & Nurse 2000, Mutaka & Tamanji 2000, Childs 2003), areal linguistics (Heine & Nurse 2008), and language history (Blench 2006), D's goal in writing this book is quite unique. As he states in the preface, his original intention was to produce a historical linguistics textbook drawing mostly from African languages, wishing especially to target 'many students in African countries [who] do not have access to more recent developments in historical-comparative linguistics or to the literature published on language families in their home countries' (ix).
[b]What this book in part represents, then, is an experiment: as opposed to the standard texts based on Indo-European, the question is whether one can successfully teach historical linguistics drawing primarily from African languages (or similarly for other language areas, for example, Australia and the Pacific; Crowley & Bowern 2010). D goes on to say, however, that the ultimate publication strays from his original intention:
The initial plan was to write an introduction to comparative linguistics with special focus on Africa. Due to the fact that the original manuscript had to be reduced considerably, the end result was a much more dense presentation of information on different topics, which also requires more extensive basic knowledge of linguistics. As a result, the text probably is no longer suitable as an introduction for undergraduates. Instead, it has become a textbook for more advanced students of linguistics and colleagues working on language families outside of Africa with an interest in a state of the art in African linguistics as seen by the present author.
D thus often refers to the book as 'a monograph on the comparative study of African languages' (245). This pinpoints two problems, which we note in our review. The first is that this is not one book, but two: in Part 1 (Chs. 1-7) it starts out as an introductory textbook in historical linguistics, but it gradually transforms in Parts 2 and 3 (Chs. 8-16) into D's view of how African languages bear on comparative and historical issues, including controversial ones. Beyond the early chapters on the comparative method that cite well-accepted concepts and Indo-European examples, the later topics are increasingly qualified by the phrase 'in the present author's view'. This duality produces certain organizational as well as conceptual problems, which students and other readers will have to disentangle.
The second problem concerns the content itself. At various points in reading the book, we came away with the feeling that it needed more serious editing and proofreading. Although most of the infelicities that occur should be quite easy to correct, the organizational issues will likely require some revision, should D (and the publisher) consider a second edition.
As indicated, the volume consists of three parts. Part 1, 'The comparative method' (Chs. 1-7), is concerned with methodology and the mechanisms of linguistic change as they affect sound systems, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Part 2, 'The linguistic manifestation of contact' (Chs. 8-12), treats the role of language contact and its historical effects, for example, in producing pidgins and creoles, mixed...
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is a particularly welcome effort by one of the world's most distinguished scholars in African linguistics. Although most of Gerrit Dimmendaal's research has centered around Nilotic and adjacent areas of East Africa, much of which he cites, D makes a serious effort to treat other areas and linguistic groups from throughout the continent. The result is an impressive reference work that students and scholars alike will want to own and consult. D's coverage of issues is extensive, as he addresses not only linguistic reconstruction and language classification, but also issues that arise in the study of language in context.
I don't know why you post this review of the book beside as some kind of misguided knee-jerk reaction because I don't see anything good for you in it.
We learn that Gerrit Dimmendaal is one of the world's most distinguished scholars, a specialist of "Nilotic and adjacent areas of East Africa" , and that "The result is an impressive reference work that students and scholars alike will want to own and consult."
Thanks for posting a review of that impressive reference book written by one of the world's most distinguished scholars.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually have this text as well. It is good. Get it. And for the record, all linguistic works should be considered 'in the present author's view', because they are not, in the strictest sense of the term, quantitative studies; but qualitative. This is something you'll learn very fast once you start reading the data from a wide variety of linguists. In the end, you just end up belonging to one "camp" or another.
Posts: 853 | From: Houston | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I actually have this text as well. It is good. Get it. And for the record, all linguistic works should be considered 'in the present author's view', because they are not, in the strictest sense of the term, quantitative studies; but qualitative. This is something you'll learn very fast once you start reading the data from a wide variety of linguists. In the end, you just end up belonging to one "camp" or another.
I don't have it but been reading some part of it through google books. It is very good and affordable. Your "endorsement" makes it even more tempting.
Especially in social sciences there's always camps among scholars sometimes even in things we take for granted such as the theory of evolution or some well known aspect of the monarchy history in Britain.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is a particularly welcome effort by one of the world's most distinguished scholars in African linguistics. Although most of Gerrit Dimmendaal's research has centered around Nilotic and adjacent areas of East Africa, much of which he cites, D makes a serious effort to treat other areas and linguistic groups from throughout the continent. The result is an impressive reference work that students and scholars alike will want to own and consult. D's coverage of issues is extensive, as he addresses not only linguistic reconstruction and language classification, but also issues that arise in the study of language in context.
I don't know why you post this review of the book beside as some kind of misguided knee-jerk reaction because I don't see anything good for you in it.
We learn that Gerrit Dimmendaal is one of the world's most distinguished scholars, a specialist of "Nilotic and adjacent areas of East Africa" , and that "The result is an impressive reference work that students and scholars alike will want to own and consult."
Thanks for posting a review of that impressive reference book written by one of the world's most distinguished scholars.
He is a distinguished scholar with extensive background in studying the Nilotic Family of languages. That's why he frequently cites his own work throughout his book..
I like the book too. I wish he would have provided more information on the Mande and Atlantic group of languages.
Most of the examples as he admits, come from his study of the Nilotic group and kordafanian. His exposition on the Bantu languages is a good review of the large body of work on this family of languages.
I hope you pay attention to the examples he provide for Proto-African terms you will note that most proto-African terms are*-vcv, *cvcv , and very little evidence of aspiration. After reviewing the proto-African terms cited in the text you may recognize my concern about Moboli's Negro-Egyptian reconstructions.
The main shortcoming of the book is that he fails to review the work of any African comparative linguists such as Diop and Obenga. I also noticed that he did not discuss the work of Homburger or Anselin, linguist who have pointed out the genetic relationship between Black African and Egyptian languages. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I hope you pay attention to the examples he provide for Proto-African terms you will note that most proto-African terms are*-vcv, *cvcv , and very little evidence of aspiration. After reviewing the proto-African terms cited in the text you may recognize my concern about oboli's Negro-Egyptian reconstructions.
I can't discuss much the validity of books I don't have. Just to make it clear, since it seems you're talking to me. I didn't read Mboli's book so I know almost nothing about his reconstruction. I also have some interrogations about the little I read about it. What I support is Obenga's Negro-Egyptian classification . What is proposed seems to be in line with other bio(genetic)-archeological line of evidence (E-P2,etc). It is also somewhat very close to the mainstream viewpoints about African languages classification. It only add a common ancestor language at the top of well known African language families. Considering all African languages families are said to have originated in the same approximate area in Eastern Africa by mainstream linguistic, it seems to make sense those African people shared a common language further back in time ("Niger-Saharan" is already proposed by other linguists). They also share common ancestor genes like E-P2.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I hope you pay attention to the examples he provide for Proto-African terms you will note that most proto-African terms are*-vcv, *cvcv , and very little evidence of aspiration. After reviewing the proto-African terms cited in the text you may recognize my concern about oboli's Negro-Egyptian reconstructions.
I can't discuss much the validity of books I don't have. Just to make it clear, since it seems you're talking to me. I didn't read Mboli's book so I know almost nothing about his reconstruction. I also have some interrogations about the little I read about it. What I support is Obenga's Negro-Egyptian classification . What is proposed seems to be in line with other bio(genetic)-archeological line of evidence (E-P2,etc). It is also somewhat very close to the mainstream viewpoints about African languages classification. It only add a common ancestor language at the top of well known African language families. Considering all African languages families are said to have originated in the same approximate area in Eastern Africa by mainstream linguistic, it seems to make sense those African people shared a common language further back in time ("Niger-Saharan" is already proposed by other linguists). They also share common ancestor genes like E-P2.
Sorry, I thought you had said you had read the pages from Mboli's work at Google books.
I hope you pay attention to the examples he provide for Proto-African terms you will note that most proto-African terms are*-vcv, *cvcv , and very little evidence of aspiration. After reviewing the proto-African terms cited in the text you may recognize my concern about oboli's Negro-Egyptian reconstructions.
I can't discuss much the validity of books I don't have. Just to make it clear, since it seems you're talking to me. I didn't read Mboli's book so I know almost nothing about his reconstruction. I also have some interrogations about the little I read about it. What I support is Obenga's Negro-Egyptian classification . What is proposed seems to be in line with other bio(genetic)-archeological line of evidence (E-P2,etc). It is also somewhat very close to the mainstream viewpoints about African languages classification. It only add a common ancestor language at the top of well known African language families. Considering all African languages families are said to have originated in the same approximate area in Eastern Africa by mainstream linguistic, it seems to make sense those African people shared a common language further back in time ("Niger-Saharan" is already proposed by other linguists). They also share common ancestor genes like E-P2.
Sorry, I thought you had said you had read the pages from Mboli's work at Google books.
.
I've read some of it but it's only part of the book. What I support is Obenga's Negro-Egyptian classification. I also have some interrogations about Mboli's work.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
To understand the work of Mboli, you have to understand the greater field of linguistics. Within the greater field of historical linguistics, it is the custom to establish the relationships via the comparative method, and then attempt to explain the relationship with a theory we call a "language phylum." The Africanist school, however, did not do this. They, using typological and surface circumstantial 'evidence', created the families 'first', then tried to find the evidence to support their conclusion.
This aspect of the Africanist school is what is being challenged here by Mboli. He goes after each so-called super-phylum and debunks these arbitrary families and shows the important weaknesses in the method used to come to their conclusions. For instance, pp 40-78 is spent on debunking Afro-Asiatic. You come to find out that not a single criteria pertaining to the very rigorous comparative method has been used by those linguists who argue for Afro-Asiatic: i.e., Ehret, Orel & Stobolva, Bomhart, etc.
What Mboli does, in reality, is harden the criteria as evidenced in his Chapter III: Méthode comparative et langues africaines………... What you often find are linguists in Africana comparing large lists of vocabulary words, but they never compare two languages fully, e.g., Egyptian and Arabic, in an extended and consistent way as required by the comparative method, even though they claim both languages are genetically related.
quote: Chapitre III. Méthode comparative et langues africaines………... 87 III.1 La méthode comparative et son emploi........................................ 88 III.2 Caractéristiques générales des langues africaines ........................ 92 III.3 Conditions d'application de la méthode comparative en Afrique.......................................................................................... 94 III.3.1 Emploi exclusif des seuls faits réellement attestés................... 95 III.3.2 Exclusion de tout élément dont l'étymologie ne peut être 6 établie à partir de la langue à laquelle il appartient................. 95 III.3.3 Étude approfondie de toutes les formes d'une racine............... 98
As it regards the syllabic structure of the Negro-Egyptienne languages, Mboli notes:
quote: L’établissement de cet arbre généalogique nous permet déjà de rendre compte de la dynamique et de la typologie des langues étudiées et même de toutes les langues négro-africaines telles qu’on les connaît actuellement. Tout d’abord on constate que les structures syllabiques de loin les plus fréquentes sont CV et CVC. Cette dernière est incontestablement liée à l’innovation à l’origine du dialecte beer, tandis que la première peut être le fait des deux dialectes. p. 444
As it regards the migrations of Negro-Egyptienne, Mboli demonstrates that there were two primary dialectical branches he calls BERE and BEER respectively. The following are two migration maps based on the research and it would generally agree with what you have been arguing.
I wish I had time to do a detailed analysis on this forum of Mboli's work. It's so extensive and covers a lot of ground. Get the book, learn French, apply the method and see for yourself. This is an African-Centered work of the highest quality and challenges every Eurocentric supposition in regards to the classification of African languages.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I hope you pay attention to the examples he provide for Proto-African terms you will note that most proto-African terms are*-vcv, *cvcv , and very little evidence of aspiration. After reviewing the proto-African terms cited in the text you may recognize my concern about oboli's Negro-Egyptian reconstructions.
I can't discuss much the validity of books I don't have. Just to make it clear, since it seems you're talking to me. I didn't read Mboli's book so I know almost nothing about his reconstruction. I also have some interrogations about the little I read about it. What I support is Obenga's Negro-Egyptian classification . What is proposed seems to be in line with other bio(genetic)-archeological line of evidence (E-P2,etc). It is also somewhat very close to the mainstream viewpoints about African languages classification. It only add a common ancestor language at the top of well known African language families. Considering all African languages families are said to have originated in the same approximate area in Eastern Africa by mainstream linguistic, it seems to make sense those African people shared a common language further back in time ("Niger-Saharan" is already proposed by other linguists). They also share common ancestor genes like E-P2.
posted
Ancient DNA from the Kushite population in various era:
In the Neolithic, Meroitic (Kingdom) and Post-Meroitic era all the haplogroups collected from the Kushite individuals are from the African A(M13) and E(YAP) haplogroups. In the Christian Era, there's no more specimen from the A haplogroup and the Eurasian F (M89) haplogroup begin to appear. In the whole study, three individuals are from unknown haplogroups (probably from other African A and B haplogroups by the process of elimination).
The haplogroup A(M13) as well as various E haplogroups are often associated with modern Nilo-Saharan populations living in Sudan like the Dinka.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Ancient DNA from the Kushite population in various era:
In the Neolithic, Meroitic (Kingdom) and Post-Meroitic era all the haplogroups collected from the Kushite individuals are from the African A(M13) and E(YAP) haplogroups. In the Christian Era, there's no more specimen from the A haplogroup and the Eurasian F (M89) haplogroup begin to appear. In the whole study, three individuals are from unknown haplogroups (probably from other African A and B haplogroups by the process of elimination).
The haplogroup A(M13) as well as various E haplogroups are often associated with modern Nilo-Saharan populations living in Sudan like the Dinka.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic