...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apologies for early repros of the same topic. Experienced some technical problems, but it's all resolved. [Smile] And now back to:

Rather than let a discussion that supposedly started out as an "Isaaq" genetic question, ramble on off-topic about Somali clan issues on one hand, while on the other hand, about the issue of whether the term "Ethiopia" [as in the contemporary nation of Ethiopia] is a recent construct or not, along with how much influence the Sabeans had on ancient African Horn, I felt it necessary to make this an issue on its own.

Thus in response to Yom, I hereby present:


quote:
Originally posted by Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

This doesn't answer the question posed.

Sure it does. You asked what it means, and I told you that it's simply a name. It doesn't have a meaning. Possible cognates to the h-b-š root exist, though. I don't remember what they are, however.
I am assuming you are a capable reader, and as such, can you keep a straight face, and insist that the non-answer above, answers this:

"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?

^It is precise and concise; it doesn't say what does "Habasha" mean? Got it.

Need I be so blunt (and please be more polite in your response)? Here is your answer: "no."
Need I be blunt? Politeness is a two way street - not one way. So, stop beating around the bush, and directly answer the question that was asked, and not an imaginery question in your head. And if your "no" answer is anything to go by, then Yonis is right, in that you cannot equate "Habasha" with "Ethiopia" since that the latter is a relatively recent political construct, as a contemporary nation state in the African Horn.

quote:
Yom:

Long answer: I don't remember exactly what the h-b-š root referred to, but I believed it involved trade, and in Arabic had something to do with gathering of troops, or the like. Don't quote me on the former, but I think I'm right on the latter.

Again, wrong answer to my question...and I hope that I am not being too blunt when I say that.


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Yom:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that substantial Sabaean migration (i.e. enough to change the population or found Aksum) has been discredited, which it has.

quote:
Supercar:

And who would have proposed a population replacement?

No one here, but many past scholars. I wasn't countering a population replacement, anyway, but a major genetic impact (i.e. that Ethiopians are highly miscegenated).
Scholars like who? And what do you define as "major genetic impact"?


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:
It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), it would seem more likely to me that the alphabet would have been transmitted directly from Egypt to the Horn and South Arabia in the form of a South Semitic alphabet.

Firstly, no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt, at least not in a direct sense. Secondly, the Arabian script was found to have been in use before its use in the African Horn. Thirdly, the Sabeans had been to the region; hence, that they could have taken their script along with them, comes as no surprise.
What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?
What about it?

quote:
Yom:

There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.

What direct connections does that script have with "Ge'ez" or the local Aksumite script?

quote:
Yom:

When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.

What you're now in denial about the connections between the Sabean script and the predecessor of Amharic script, from which Amharic script is a further development?

The south Arabian Sabean script is approximated to have been used from around 6th century BC or so; the Sabean scripts in the African Horn have been attested to about more or less the same time, ca. 5th B.C. or so, while the Minean (also South Arabian language) counterpart has been attested to about 8th B.C. or so.

Here is one perspective on why Ethiopic script likely developed from South Arabian rather than vice versa:

Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:
I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that doesn't mean that the D`mt civilization was founded by Sabaeans, just as the common Greek inscriptions of Aksum (coins were only in Greek, even the bronze and silver ones for more domestic use, for a long time) doesn't mean that the civilization was founded by Sabaeans. Further, since Ge'ez is now known not to be a descendent of Sabaean, the actual use of Sabaean as a primary language is unlikely.

If Munro-Hay's notes are anything to go by, it would appear that the DMT elites were likely native Ethiopians, as opposed to Sabean rulers.

"Ge'ez" itself is Ethiopian, NOT south Arabian, but the script with which it was subsequently communicated, show obvious south Arabian influences.

Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.
You have missed the main points laid out in Munro-Hay's notes, which would have been instructive. Scripts in pure Sabean language and another language, presumably Ethiopic, have been found...

From Munro Hay:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon."

And again...

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

What does this imply? "Pure" as used here, suggests that the other inscription, used alphabets that were likened to the Sabean alphabets, but likely had grammatical features that distinguished it from its Sabean counterpart. The aforemention citation of Munro-Hay should be instructive, once again:

"...and another language with certain aspects found **later** in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).

A number of different tribes and families seem to be mentioned by the inscriptions of this period, but there is no evidence to show whether any of these groups lasted into the Aksumite period.

Only the word YG`DYN, man of Yeg`az, might hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan tribe was established so early, though the particular inscription which mentions it is written in the South Arabian rather than the Ethiopian language (Schneider 1961).

Some of the other apparently tribal names also occur in both groups of inscriptions.

The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions is `N. of the family N. of the tribe N.', possibly also reflected later by the Aksumite `Bisi'-title; `king N. man of the tribe/clan (?) N.' (Ch. 7: 5)." - S. Munro-Hay

The latter italicized piece may reflect continuation of the "certain aspects" of the aforementioned language, presumably Ethiopic, into Ge'ez script. But it is instructive that, the indicators of the early establishment of a "Ge'ez" tribe, was written in South Arabian language, rather than the local counterpart.



quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

In case you misread, if you re-read what I wrote, it said that the Tihama cultural complex was African (i.e. N. Ethiopian and Eritrean) in origin (I inserted the probably because I only cited one source claiming that).

That would make the two of us, who must have 'mis-read' your writing, because you said:

Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

Clearly that statement, contradicts your earlier statement that Sabean migration had been discredited!

As I said above, by Sabaean migration I didn't mean any migration, but the traditional hypothesis of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Sabaean colonist force takes control of N. Ethiopia and marks the beginning of civilization there.
You use the term "As I have said", as though your claims have been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment. At first you claimed that the Sabean migration was discredited, and then you claimed that it wasn't "significant", and now you are claiming that you mean that it was some "superior colonist force". You are incoherent, my friend.

quote:
Yom:

I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.

The point is not necessarily to convince a person such as yourself, in denial, to see objective material presented, but for the understanding of the perceptive. Hence, you don't see a cultural complex with "Sabean" influences, described in the aforementioned Munro-Hay notes, as evidence of Sabean presence in the region, but I do.



quote:
Yom

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.

Of course you can't deny it; the evidence against such a denial is overwhelming. There has apparently been no population replacement at any point of bidirectional migration across the Red Sea, but you don't have evidence to conclude that there was no significant migration from South Arabia in the pre-Aksumite period.
What do you define as significant?
Good question; it would depend on what you mean by 'significant'.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

Need I be blunt? Politeness is a two way street - not one way. So, stop beating around the bush, and directly answer the question that was asked, and not an imaginery question in your head. And if your "no" answer is anything to go by, then Yonis is right, in that you cannot equate "Habasha" with "Ethiopia" since that the latter is a relatively recent political construct, as a contemporary nation state in the African Horn.

Again, wrong answer to my question...and I hope that I am not being too blunt when I say that.[/qb]

Have I been impolite? I always try to be polite in discussions, so I'm rather skeptical of this, but if I have I apologize.

Your question was this:

"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?

I.e., if "Habasha" meant the same thing as "Ethiopia" (i.e. "burnt face"). The answer to that question is no. I'm not saying that the word "Ethiopia" was used before Ezana, I doubt it was ever used before him because his usage of the term was probably influenced by his conversion to Christianity. What I am saying is that Ethiopia has been used as the term for the people of the country (though distinct from "Aksumites " with the meaning of "capital-city dwellers," though not from "Aksumites" with the meaning of the main peoples of the Aksumite empire) since at least Ezana in the mid-4th century. I have shown evidence of its use from Amde Tsiyon (r.1314-1344) to the 16th century, and, if need be, I can add more examples form the 17th and 18th century (maybe also the 12th and 13th, though they will be harder to come by due to the lack of historical data on that era). After Ezana, inscriptions
have not yet been found (except a late Aksumite one about Hatsani Dani'el), so we can't say whether the usage continued in Aksumite times. The coins only said King of the Aksumites but that doesn't exclude the usage of Ethiopia. Post-Aksumite and Zagwe times are also hazy wrt historical records. Egyptian patriarchal writings refer to the country as Abyssinia (whatever the Arabic term might be, Ard. al-Habasha maybe?), but that term was always used by the Arabs, regardless of the Ethiopian term, so it's not very relevant.

quote:
quote:
Yom:

quote:
Yom:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that substantial Sabaean migration (i.e. enough to change the population or found Aksum) has been discredited, which it has.

quote:
Supercar:

And who would have proposed a population replacement?

No one here, but many past scholars. I wasn't countering a population replacement, anyway, but a major genetic impact (i.e. that Ethiopians are highly miscegenated).
Scholars like who? And what do you define as "major genetic impact"?
Like Conti Rossini or modern fools like Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. Major genetic impact would more accurately be a genetic impact substantial enough to have a visible phenomic impact, which I don't believe has happened.


quote:
quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:
It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), it would seem more likely to me that the alphabet would have been transmitted directly from Egypt to the Horn and South Arabia in the form of a South Semitic alphabet.

Firstly, no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt, at least not in a direct sense. Secondly, the Arabian script was found to have been in use before its use in the African Horn. Thirdly, the Sabeans had been to the region; hence, that they could have taken their script along with them, comes as no surprise.
What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?
What about it?
You said no alphabet has been found to have developed in Egypt. Proto-Sinaitic was found in the Sinai rather than Egypt proper, so I named an alphabetic (abjad actually) script found in Middle Egypt.

quote:
quote:
Yom:

There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.

What direct connections does that script have with "Ge'ez" or the local Aksumite script?
No one said anything about a direct derivation into Ge'ez script from Ancient Egyptian. I'm saying that the Egyptian script could have divided into a northern version and a South Semitic one, which would be the predecessor of either Sabaean and Ge'ez or Sabaean, which later became Ge'ez.

quote:
quote:
Yom:

When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.

What you're now in denial about the connections between the Sabean script and the predecessor of Amharic script, from which Amharic script is a further development?
No. I'm simply asking whether its certain that ESA developed in South Arabia first.

quote:
The south Arabian Sabean script is approximated to have been used from around 6th century BC or so; the Sabean scripts in the African Horn have been attested to about more or less the same time, ca. 5th B.C. or so, while the Minean (also South Arabian language) counterpart has been attested to about 8th B.C. or so.
D`mt was 8th-7th c. B.C., which is contemporary with the Minaean script, then. What's the difference between Minaean script and Sabaean, by the way (letter by letter would be appreciated, but general is fine if you don't know letter by letter differences)? A picture of Minaean script is fine, as I have access to images of some of the D`mt inscriptions in Ge'ez (language) and Sabaean. Where did you get those numbers, by the way? I've heard pre-8th century dates for the Minaean civilization (nothing about the script) before.

quote:
Here is one perspective on why Ethiopic script likely developed from South Arabian rather than vice versa:
I didn't include the quotation because Ayele Bekerie is a hack. He doesn't know anything about these types of things, and I'm not making the claim that Ge'ez script derived directly from Ancient Egyptian, just that ESA may have existed in both regions simultaneously (or perhaps even in Ethiopia first, there's not enough evidence to determine these things yet) from a previous South Semitic script (probably derived directly from Proto-Sinaitic).


quote:
quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:
I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that doesn't mean that the D`mt civilization was founded by Sabaeans, just as the common Greek inscriptions of Aksum (coins were only in Greek, even the bronze and silver ones for more domestic use, for a long time) doesn't mean that the civilization was founded by Sabaeans. Further, since Ge'ez is now known not to be a descendent of Sabaean, the actual use of Sabaean as a primary language is unlikely.

If Munro-Hay's notes are anything to go by, it would appear that the DMT elites were likely native Ethiopians, as opposed to Sabean rulers.

"Ge'ez" itself is Ethiopian, NOT south Arabian, but the script with which it was subsequently communicated, show obvious south Arabian influences.

Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.
You have missed the main points laid out in Munro-Hay's notes, which would have been instructive. Scripts in pure Sabean language and another language, presumably Ethiopic, have been found...

From Munro Hay:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon."

Note that his definition of mukarrib is not necessarily correct. The term Mukarrib doesn't mean priest-king. It's meaning is uncertain, perhaps meaning unifier (i.e. of the two main cultures - of Western Tigray plateau and of the Central Eritrean and Eastern Tigray plateau. See for this, e.g. "D`mt" in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica by Alexander Sima.

Note that what he's saying is widespread is the Sabaean-influenced civilization, not the Sabaeans.

quote:
And again...

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

What does this imply? "Pure" as used here, suggests that the other inscription, used alphabets that were likened to the Sabean alphabets, but likely had grammatical features that distinguished it from its Sabean counterpart. The aforemention citation of Munro-Hay should be instructive once again:

"...and another language with certain aspects found **later** in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).

A number of different tribes and families seem to be mentioned by the inscriptions of this period, but there is no evidence to show whether any of these groups lasted into the Aksumite period.

Only the word YG`DYN, man of Yeg`az, might hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan tribe was established so early, though the particular inscription which mentions it is written in the South Arabian rather than the Ethiopian language (Schneider 1961).

Some of the other apparently tribal names also occur in both groups of inscriptions.

The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions is `N. of the family N. of the tribe N.', possibly also reflected later by the Aksumite `Bisi'-title; `king N. man of the tribe/clan (?) N.' (Ch. 7: 5)." - S. Munro-Hay

The latter italicized piece may reflect some of the "certain aspects" of the aforementioned language, presumabley Ethiopic, in Ge'ez. But it is instructive that, the indicators of the early establishment of a "Ge'ez" tribe, was written in South Arabian language, rather than the local counterpart.

The aspects they are referring to are most likely linguistic ones. The method of naming a peron's family wouldn't be an aspect similar to Ge'ez, but rather to a type of writing.



quote:
quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

In case you misread, if you re-read what I wrote, it said that the Tihama cultural complex was African (i.e. N. Ethiopian and Eritrean) in origin (I inserted the probably because I only cited one source claiming that).

That would make the two of us, who must have 'mis-read' your writing, because you said:

Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

Clearly that statement, contradicts your earlier statement that Sabean migration had been discredited!

As I said above, by Sabaean migration I didn't mean any migration, but the traditional hypothesis of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Sabaean colonist force takes control of N. Ethiopia and marks the beginning of civilization there.
You use the term "As I have said", as though your claims have been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment. At first you claimed that the Sabean migration was discredited, and then you claimed that it wasn't "significant", and now you are claiming that you mean that it was some "superior colonist force". You are incoherent, my friend.
Forgive me for not being clear, but let me be clear here: the idea of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Yemeni colonist force colonizes and establishes civilization in Ethiopia has long been discredited. "Significant" above is referring to the migration being the basis for Ethiopian civilization, and the Sabaean migration also refers to the traditional theory, not any Sabaean migration. The traditional term was "Sabaean invasion" I believe, and had I used this, perhaps my views would have been clearer (but I've tried to avoid that term in other discussions because it wasn't an invasion).

quote:
quote:
Yom:

I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.

The point is not necessarily to convince a person such as yourself, in denial, to see objective material presented, but for the understanding of the perceptive. Hence, you don't see a cultural complex with "Sabean" influences, described in the aforementioned Munro-Hay notes, as evidence of Sabean presence in the region, but I do.
I'm in denial of nothing, and your comment still has nothing to do with the Tihama cultural complex, which you were first referring to. Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia. First of all, I don't think Sabaeans existed as a kingdom at this time.

Again, I think you are misinterpreting my beliefs. I don't deny that there were ever Sabaeans in Ethiopia as there certainly have been. However, I do reject that the D`mt civilization was Sabaean in origin or rose due to Sabaean influences.



quote:
quote:
Yom

quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.

Of course you can't deny it; the evidence against such a denial is overwhelming. There has apparently been no population replacement at any point of bidirectional migration across the Red Sea, but you don't have evidence to conclude that there was no significant migration from South Arabia in the pre-Aksumite period.
What do you define as significant?
Good question; it would depend on what you mean by 'significant'.
I gave a definition above regarding genetics. Are you speaking genetically, culturally, what?
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You guys can argue this issue over in this older thread here.

Also guys, especially you Yom, do you mind just quoting what the other person said last instead of copying that plus every freaking quote said?!!

It's a waste of bandwidth space and time reading through all that!! [Eek!]

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
You guys can argue this issue over in this older thread here.

Here is better, I think.

quote:
Also guys, especially you Yom, do you mind just quoting what the other person said last instead of copying that plus every freaking quote said?!!

It's a waste of bandwidth space and time reading through all that!! [Eek!]

I was actually thinking of doing that. I only copied earlier versions a couple times because I wanted to see what the original contention was.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:

Have I been impolite? I always try to be polite in discussions, so I'm rather skeptical of this, but if I have I apologize.

...just as I'm skeptical of your assessment of my insistence of the fulfillment of my 'requests', which were not heeded.

quote:

Your question was this:

"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?

I.e., if "Habasha" meant the same thing as "Ethiopia" (i.e. "burnt face"). The answer to that question is no.

Good, because that answer discredits the idea of equating "Ethiopia" with "Habasha".


quote:
Yom:

I'm not saying that the word "Ethiopia" was used before Ezana, I doubt it was ever used before him because his usage of the term was probably influenced by his conversion to Christianity. What I am saying is that Ethiopia has been used as the term for the people of the country (though distinct from "Aksumites " with the meaning of "capital-city dwellers," though not from "Aksumites" with the meaning of the main peoples of the Aksumite empire) since at least Ezana in the mid-4th century. I have shown evidence of its use from Amde Tsiyon (r.1314-1344) to the 16th century, and, if need be, I can add more examples form the 17th and 18th century (maybe also the 12th and 13th, though they will be harder to come by due to the lack of historical data on that era). After Ezana, inscriptions
have not yet been found (except a late Aksumite one about Hatsani Dani'el), so we can't say whether the usage continued in Aksumite times. The coins only said King of the Aksumites but that doesn't exclude the usage of Ethiopia. Post-Aksumite and Zagwe times are also hazy wrt historical records. Egyptian patriarchal writings refer to the country as Abyssinia (whatever the Arabic term might be, Ard. al-Habasha maybe?), but that term was always used by the Arabs, regardless of the Ethiopian term, so it's not very relevant.

If you are trying to say there has been population continuation from whence the term "Habasha" had been used to present, then the answer is yes. Beyond that, I see no rationale for equating "Habasha" used in the past with contemporary "Ethiopia".


quote:
Yom:

Like Conti Rossini or modern fools like Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. Major genetic impact would more accurately be a genetic impact substantial enough to have a visible phenomic impact, which I don't believe has happened.

Do you have citations from these two examples? Of course, you do realize that the Amhara, based on genetic samples, harbor reasonable amounts of Eurasian derived paternal lineages. What do you make of that?


quote:


quote:
Supercar:

quote:
Yom:

What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?

What about it?
You said no alphabet has been found to have developed in Egypt.
Please provide the said citation, where I've said any such thing.

quote:
Yom:

Proto-Sinaitic was found in the Sinai rather than Egypt proper, so I named an alphabetic (abjad actually) script found in Middle Egypt.

I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.

quote:
Yom:

No one said anything about a direct derivation into Ge'ez script from Ancient Egyptian. I'm saying that the Egyptian script could have divided into a northern version and a South Semitic one, which would be the predecessor of either Sabaean and Ge'ez or Sabaean, which later became Ge'ez.

What relevance does your mentioning of proto-Sinaitic in Egypt have to do with the fact that early Ethiopic script show strong influences from the Sabean script?

quote:
Yom:

No. I'm simply asking whether its certain that ESA developed in South Arabia first.

...based on available indicators, it is safe to make that assessment.


quote:
Yom:

D`mt was 8th-7th c. B.C., which is contemporary with the Minaean script, then.

Don't confuse "D'mt" with a script. What are you relying on, when you make a claim such as the one above? Is it on a script? If so, what script?

quote:
Yom:

What's the difference between Minaean script and Sabaean, by the way (letter by letter would be appreciated, but general is fine if you don't know letter by letter differences)?

Not any alphabetically that I'm aware of. I gather that it has more to do with language dialect, than the script itself, i.e., alphabets, per se.

quote:
Yom:

A picture of Minaean script is fine, as I have access to images of some of the D`mt inscriptions in Ge'ez (language) and Sabaean. Where did you get those numbers, by the way? I've heard pre-8th century dates for the Minaean civilization (nothing about the script) before.

Basically something I've gathered from general internet browsing, nothing authoritative. This however, is besides the point; the point was to demonstrate that Sabean influenced Ethiopic script, rather than vice versa, as exemplified by the strong resemblance between early Ethiopic script and Sabean, and the associated point made by Peter Daniels.

quote:
Yom:

I didn't include the quotation because Ayele Bekerie is a hack. He doesn't know anything about these types of things, and I'm not making the claim that Ge'ez script derived directly from Ancient Egyptian, just that ESA may have existed in both regions simultaneously (or perhaps even in Ethiopia first, there's not enough evidence to determine these things yet) from a previous South Semitic script (probably derived directly from Proto-Sinaitic).

In which case, you still have not addressed Mr. Daniels point, which was to demonstrate that Ethiopic scripts derived from Sabean. Mr. Bekerie's position has no bearings on that point.


quote:
Yom:
The aspects they are referring to are most likely linguistic ones.The method of naming a peron's family wouldn't be an aspect similar to Ge'ez, but rather to a type of writing.

Of course, they are referring to aspects that are "linguistic". LoL. Why wouldn't the pattern and sequence of writing names and titles of people, not be considered linguistic?

The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.


quote:
Yom:

Forgive me for not being clear, but let me be clear here: the idea of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Yemeni colonist force colonizes and establishes civilization in Ethiopia has long been discredited.

The idea of whether Sabean immigrants were colonists in the region, has neither been discredited or proven.

I agree though, that there is more going for the idea that there was already complex cultures in the African Horn, prior to inter-regional interactions with South Arabian complexes.

quote:
Yom:
"Significant" above is referring to the migration being the basis for Ethiopian civilization...

The traditional term was "Sabaean invasion" I believe, and had I used this, perhaps my views would have been clearer (but I've tried to avoid that term in other discussions because it wasn't an invasion).

Do you have citations for this "traditional Arabian" invasion hypothesis, that attributes the origin of "Ethiopian" cultural complexes to Sabeans? As for the unhighlighted bit, see post above.

quote:
Yom:

I'm in denial of nothing, and your comment still has nothing to do with the Tihama cultural complex, which you were first referring to.

Cite where I made specific reference to "Tihama cultural complex"; it was you, who mentioned it. And yes, you do seem to be in denial of the extent of Sabean influence on both the people and cultural complex in the African Horn.

quote:
Yom:
Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".

I already provided brief Munro-Hay notes on the said influences; where were you, mentally speaking, when all those notes were presented?

quote:
Yom:

First of all, I don't think Sabaeans existed as a kingdom at this time.

You don't think that Sabean didn't exist at what time?

quote:
Yom:

Again, I think you are misinterpreting my beliefs.

How so?

quote:
Yom:

I don't deny that there were ever Sabaeans in Ethiopia as there certainly have been.

Then why are you asking me to provide you evidence of their presence in the region, even though it had already been provided? LOl.

quote:
Yom:
However, I do reject that the D`mt civilization was Sabaean in origin or rose due to Sabaean influences.

It could have been started by Sabeans, or the local Ethiopians; there are indications as per Munro-hay, that they were likely local elites.

quote:
Yom:
I gave a definition above regarding genetics. Are you speaking genetically, culturally, what?

As I responded accordingly above, the likes of Amhara carry noticeable frequencies of Eurasian derived lineages. Does that mean anythin to you, with regards to the genetic imprint that the South Arabian immigrants could have left behind?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Israel
Member
Member # 11221

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Israel     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whats happening Yom? You don't agree with Ayele Bekerie? I flipped through some of his book today. I found it quite interesting......

One thing that he quotes in the book is that in at least three seperate documents written in Geez, it was said that the language of Geez came from HAM! Now, if that is significant, I don't know what is.......

And since the Sabeans were of the lineage of Kush(Cush), as was the Ethiopians, then regardless of Sabean influence, the Geez script is ought to be recognized as being Kushitic! Yeah, it may be Semitic, but the language itself came from the lineage of Kush!

However, I would agree with you Yom that Ethiopic(Geez) developed on its own...Why is the Sabean influnence EMPHASIZED SO MUCH? Do we ponder to such great extent the influence of Ancient Greek upon the Latin language????? Do ya'll know what I'm saying?

Anyway, Ayele's book is really intriguing in terms of the philosophical and theological content. Deep stuff. Salaam

Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Good, because that answer discredits the idea of equating "Ethiopia" with "Habasha".

quote:
If you are trying to say there has been population continuation from whence the term "Habasha" had been used to present, then the answer is yes. Beyond that, I see no rationale for equating "Habasha" used in the past with contemporary "Ethiopia".
No, not in a literal sense, nor in the sense that the word "Ethiopia" can be replaced for "Habasha" in earlier times. I am saying, however, that the name of the state has been "Ethiopia" for much longer than Yonis was saying.

quote:
Do you have citations from these two examples? Of course, you do realize that the Amhara, based on genetic samples, harbor reasonable amounts of Eurasian derived paternal lineages. What do you make of that?
I don't have any specific citations for Conti Rossini, but see here. For Megalomattis, see [url=]here[/url], with this quotation:

"It is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara – Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn were the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. The event has traces in the past of course, but was intensified and generalized over the past 50 years, under colonial academic and diplomatic guidance of the Abyssinian ruling class. "

Regarding the genetic studies you refer to, I'm not adequately knowledgable to comment on their veracity, but it would not surprise me if some of those lineages determined to be "Eurasian" existed in the pre-Out of Africa migration population of the Horn of Africa and that Yemeni contributions to the Ethiopian gene pool would be difficult to measure due to this closeness. Also, many of these study refer to "Caucasoid" genes, which is an artificial construct, as completely non-mixed Ethiopians can also be said to be craniofacially "Caucasoid." See here for an interesting study on the ancientness of Ethiopian genes.


quote:
Please provide the said citation, where I've said any such thing.
quote:
I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.
It's not a red herring. You said "no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt," so I pointed to an alphabet developed in middle Egypt as opposed to the Proto-Sinaitic script, which is located closer to Canaan and the Levant.

quote:
What relevance does your mentioning of proto-Sinaitic in Egypt have to do with the fact that early Ethiopic script show strong influences from the Sabean script?
I didn't deny the close relation of Ge'ez and Sabaean script. Ge'ez probably derived from Sabaean, but I don't rule out the possibility that it instead shares a common ancestor with it. Proto-Sinaitic's only relevance is that it (or the Wadi el-Hol script) could have been transmitted through trade southward instead of first north and then south.

quote:
...based on available indicators, it is safe to make that assessment.
If the first inscriptions of the Minaean script are in the 8th c. B.C., contemporary with the D`mt civilization which used a type of ESA in Ethiopia, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be made either way.


quote:
]Don't confuse "D'mt" with a script. What are you relying on, when you make a claim such as the one above? Is it on a script? If so, what script?
I'm not saying D`mt was a script, just noting that it used a type of ESA at the same time period as the Minaean script. Looking at the inscriptions in the 8th edition of Annales d'Ethiopie, it seems to be the standard ESA (some versions have a "B" that looks like an M, e.g. or an "R" that isn't just one curve or an "M" that doesn't consist of distinct triangles).

quote:
Not any alphabetically that I'm aware of. I gather that it has more to do with language dialect, than the script itself, i.e., alphabets, per se.
Too bad, differences in writing styles could have shed some light into the matter.

quote:
Basically something I've gathered from general internet browsing,.
I'd love a source, still. I don't doubt your claims, but what I know about SA chronology is limited since it is still so little known.

quote:
This however, is besides the point; the point was to demonstrate that Sabean influenced Ethiopic script, rather than vice versa, as exemplified by the strong resemblance between early Ethiopic script and Sabean, and the associated point made by Peter Daniels.
The existence of contemporary inscriptions does not show that the origin is Sabaean (actually Minaean, I guess) rather than a shared cultural trait. Peter Daniel's point would indicate that the script was originally for Sabaean due to the loss of interdentals and ghayin in Ge'ez, but these phonetic changes were in the process of happening during the time of D`mt. Earlier texts use "ṯ," "ḏ," while later texts use "s/š" and "z."

quote:
In which case, you still have not addressed Mr. Daniels point, which was to demonstrate that Ethiopic scripts derived from Sabean. Mr. Bekerie's position has no bearings on that point.
I have addressed the questions of interdentals (which is what I believe what you're referring to) above.


quote:
Of course, they are referring to aspects that are "linguistic". LoL. Why wouldn't the pattern and sequence of writing names and titles of people, not be considered linguistic?
It's more stylistic, though grammar could play a part. Grammatical features and to a lesser degree vocabulary are more likely what they're referring to.

quote:

The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.

I don't understand what you're talking about here. I thought you were referring to the non-royal "pure" Sabaean language inscriptions. If you're talking about the alphabet, then it's without a doubt ESA.


quote:
The idea of whether Sabean immigrants were colonists in the region, has neither been discredited or proven.

I agree though, that there is more going for the idea that there was already complex cultures in the African Horn, prior to inter-regional interactions with South Arabian complexes.

I'm glad you realize that the indigenous origin possibility is the more likely of the two, but given what you just cited (complex cultures) and the use of a sort of Proto-Ge'ez in all of the Royal inscriptions of D`mt, it seems to me that the idea of "colonists" is unfounded. The whole idea comes from Conti Rossini's ideas, which, according to Pankhurst in a link above "were largely based on conjecture."

quote:
Do you have citations for this "traditional Arabian" invasion hypothesis, that attributes the origin of "Ethiopian" cultural complexes to Sabeans? As for the unhighlighted bit, see post above.
Yes, see the Megalomattis link above and the link by Richard Pankhurst which discusses the issue.

quote:
Cite where I made specific reference to "Tihama cultural complex"; it was you, who mentioned it. And yes, you do seem to be in denial of the extent of Sabean influence on both the people and cultural complex in the African Horn.
Whatever. I was the one who made a reference to the Tihama cultural complex, but you were the one who cited that section of my post to put your response saying "I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right?" as if the existence of the Tihama cultural complex had anything to do with a Sabaean migration.

quote:
Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".
I'm talking about the Tihama cultural complex.

quote:
I already provided brief Munro-Hay notes on the said influences; where were you, mentally speaking, when all those notes were presented?
I read them. Again, do not be rude in discussions, it only stalls them. The Munro-Hay notes have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however. He doesn't refer to the Tihama cultural complex except in passing.

quote:
You don't think that Sabean didn't exist at what time?
During the time of the Tihama cultural complex, which began mid-second millenium BC (but ended 1st millenium, when Sabaeans would have existed).

quote:
Then why are you asking me to provide you evidence of their presence in the region, even though it had already been provided? LOl.
I never asked you to provide evidence of their presence in the region. What I dispute is the nature and extent of their presence.

quote:
It could have been started by Sabeans, or the local Ethiopians; there are indications as per Munro-hay, that they were likely local elites.
The language of the inscriptions indicates this. The only evidence that it could have been begun by Sabaeans is the use of the same script, whose origins are still not well-known.

quote:
As I responded accordingly above, the likes of Amhara carry noticeable frequencies of Eurasian derived lineages. Does that mean anythin to you, with regards to the genetic imprint that the South Arabian immigrants could have left behind?
I have addressed this above.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Good, because that answer discredits the idea of equating "Ethiopia" with "Habasha".

quote:
If you are trying to say there has been population continuation from whence the term "Habasha" had been used to present, then the answer is yes. Beyond that, I see no rationale for equating "Habasha" used in the past with contemporary "Ethiopia".
No, not in a literal sense, nor in the sense that the word "Ethiopia" can be replaced for "Habasha" in earlier times. I am saying, however, that the name of the state has been "Ethiopia" for much longer than Yonis was saying.

quote:
Do you have citations from these two examples? Of course, you do realize that the Amhara, based on genetic samples, harbor reasonable amounts of Eurasian derived paternal lineages. What do you make of that?
I don't have any specific citations for Conti Rossini, but see here. For Megalomattis, see [url=]here[/url], with this quotation:

"It is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara – Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn were the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. The event has traces in the past of course, but was intensified and generalized over the past 50 years, under colonial academic and diplomatic guidance of the Abyssinian ruling class. "

Regarding the genetic studies you refer to, I'm not adequately knowledgable to comment on their veracity, but it would not surprise me if some of those lineages determined to be "Eurasian" existed in the pre-Out of Africa migration population of the Horn of Africa and that Yemeni contributions to the Ethiopian gene pool would be difficult to measure due to this closeness. Also, many of these study refer to "Caucasoid" genes, which is an artificial construct, as completely non-mixed Ethiopians can also be said to be craniofacially "Caucasoid." See here for an interesting study on the ancientness of Ethiopian genes.


quote:
Please provide the said citation, where I've said any such thing.
quote:
I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.
It's not a red herring. You said "no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt," so I pointed to an alphabet developed in middle Egypt as opposed to the Proto-Sinaitic script, which is located closer to Canaan and the Levant.

quote:
What relevance does your mentioning of proto-Sinaitic in Egypt have to do with the fact that early Ethiopic script show strong influences from the Sabean script?
I didn't deny the close relation of Ge'ez and Sabaean script. Ge'ez probably derived from Sabaean, but I don't rule out the possibility that it instead shares a common ancestor with it. Proto-Sinaitic's only relevance is that it (or the Wadi el-Hol script) could have been transmitted through trade southward instead of first north and then south.

quote:
...based on available indicators, it is safe to make that assessment.
If the first inscriptions of the Minaean script are in the 8th c. B.C., contemporary with the D`mt civilization which used a type of ESA in Ethiopia, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be made either way.


quote:
]Don't confuse "D'mt" with a script. What are you relying on, when you make a claim such as the one above? Is it on a script? If so, what script?
I'm not saying D`mt was a script, just noting that it used a type of ESA at the same time period as the Minaean script. Looking at the inscriptions in the 8th edition of Annales d'Ethiopie, it seems to be the standard ESA (some versions have a "B" that looks like an M, e.g. or an "R" that isn't just one curve or an "M" that doesn't consist of distinct triangles).

quote:
Not any alphabetically that I'm aware of. I gather that it has more to do with language dialect, than the script itself, i.e., alphabets, per se.
Too bad, differences in writing styles could have shed some light into the matter.

quote:
Basically something I've gathered from general internet browsing,.
I'd love a source, still. I don't doubt your claims, but what I know about SA chronology is limited since it is still so little known.

quote:
This however, is besides the point; the point was to demonstrate that Sabean influenced Ethiopic script, rather than vice versa, as exemplified by the strong resemblance between early Ethiopic script and Sabean, and the associated point made by Peter Daniels.
The existence of contemporary inscriptions does not show that the origin is Sabaean (actually Minaean, I guess) rather than a shared cultural trait. Peter Daniel's point would indicate that the script was originally for Sabaean due to the loss of interdentals and ghayin in Ge'ez, but these phonetic changes were in the process of happening during the time of D`mt. Earlier texts use "ṯ," "ḏ," while later texts use "s/š" and "z."

quote:
In which case, you still have not addressed Mr. Daniels point, which was to demonstrate that Ethiopic scripts derived from Sabean. Mr. Bekerie's position has no bearings on that point.
I have addressed the questions of interdentals (which is what I believe what you're referring to) above.


quote:
Of course, they are referring to aspects that are "linguistic". LoL. Why wouldn't the pattern and sequence of writing names and titles of people, not be considered linguistic?
It's more stylistic, though grammar could play a part. Grammatical features and to a lesser degree vocabulary are more likely what they're referring to.

quote:

The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.

I don't understand what you're talking about here. I thought you were referring to the non-royal "pure" Sabaean language inscriptions. If you're talking about the alphabet, then it's without a doubt ESA.


quote:
The idea of whether Sabean immigrants were colonists in the region, has neither been discredited or proven.

I agree though, that there is more going for the idea that there was already complex cultures in the African Horn, prior to inter-regional interactions with South Arabian complexes.

I'm glad you realize that the indigenous origin possibility is the more likely of the two, but given what you just cited (complex cultures) and the use of a sort of Proto-Ge'ez in all of the Royal inscriptions of D`mt, it seems to me that the idea of "colonists" is unfounded. The whole idea comes from Conti Rossini's ideas, which, according to Pankhurst in a link above "were largely based on conjecture."

quote:
Do you have citations for this "traditional Arabian" invasion hypothesis, that attributes the origin of "Ethiopian" cultural complexes to Sabeans? As for the unhighlighted bit, see post above.
Yes, see the Megalomattis link above and the link by Richard Pankhurst which discusses the issue.

quote:
Cite where I made specific reference to "Tihama cultural complex"; it was you, who mentioned it. And yes, you do seem to be in denial of the extent of Sabean influence on both the people and cultural complex in the African Horn.
Whatever. I was the one who made a reference to the Tihama cultural complex, but you were the one who cited that section of my post to put your response saying "I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right?" as if the existence of the Tihama cultural complex had anything to do with a Sabaean migration.

quote:
Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".
I'm talking about the Tihama cultural complex.

quote:
I already provided brief Munro-Hay notes on the said influences; where were you, mentally speaking, when all those notes were presented?
I read them. Again, do not be rude in discussions, it only stalls them. The Munro-Hay notes have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however. He doesn't refer to the Tihama cultural complex except in passing.

quote:
You don't think that Sabean didn't exist at what time?
During the time of the Tihama cultural complex, which began mid-second millenium BC (but ended 1st millenium, when Sabaeans would have existed).

quote:
Then why are you asking me to provide you evidence of their presence in the region, even though it had already been provided? LOl.
I never asked you to provide evidence of their presence in the region. What I dispute is the nature and extent of their presence.

quote:
It could have been started by Sabeans, or the local Ethiopians; there are indications as per Munro-hay, that they were likely local elites.
The language of the inscriptions indicates this. The only evidence that it could have been begun by Sabaeans is the use of the same script, whose origins are still not well-known.

quote:
As I responded accordingly above, the likes of Amhara carry noticeable frequencies of Eurasian derived lineages. Does that mean anythin to you, with regards to the genetic imprint that the South Arabian immigrants could have left behind?
I have addressed this above.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Israel:

However, I would agree with you Yom that Ethiopic(Geez) developed on its own...

If by "Ge'ez" you are referring to the spoken language, then yes, it was an indigenous language. If however, you are claiming that "Ge'ez" as the early "Ethiopic" script had no south Arabian influences, you'll need to elaborate on that, with material support of course.

quote:
Israel:

Why is the Sabean influnence EMPHASIZED SO MUCH? Do we ponder to such great extent the influence of Ancient Greek upon the Latin language????? Do ya'll know what I'm saying?

Actually, this was an ongoing exchange, in which all party involved here, agrees on the highly likely indigenous origins for the pre-Aksumite cultural complexes in question. The only reason, we are even talking about the Sabean influence, stems from what I see Yom being in denial of the nature/extent of such cultural influences, to the point of almost denying their presence in the region.

Available archeological finds, lends prepoderance to pre-Aksumite cultural complexes that are largely indigenous in the making.

quote:
Isreal:
Anyway, Ayele's book is really intriguing in terms of the philosophical and theological content. Deep stuff. Salaam

If you feel that Ayele makes points that would shed light on or clarify some of the issues being discussed now, please don't hesitate to share. [Smile]
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Israel:
[QB] Whats happening Yom? You don't agree with Ayele Bekerie? I flipped through some of his book today. I found it quite interesting......

Some of the stuff he says is interesting, but most of it is useless.[/quote]

quote:
One thing that he quotes in the book is that in at least three seperate documents written in Geez, it was said that the language of Geez came from HAM! Now, if that is significant, I don't know what is.......
These are simply church documents and have no bearing on linguistics. It is undeniable that Ge'ez is Semitic, as are all of its successors.

quote:
And since the Sabeans were of the lineage of Kush(Cush), as was the Ethiopians, then regardless of Sabean influence, the Geez script is ought to be recognized as being Kushitic! Yeah, it may be Semitic, but the language itself came from the lineage of Kush!
Sabaeans are only Kushitic in the Bible. Their language is, like Ge'ez, undoubtedly Semitic. Kushitic (Cushitic in modern times) is a linguistic terms that by its definition excludes Ge'ez because it is a Semitic language. I'm guessing that your statement that "the language itself came from the line of Kush" is a comment actually on the people, as per what I just said. Otherwise, are you rejecting modern scholarship's classification of these languages?

quote:
However, I would agree with you Yom that Ethiopic(Geez) developed on its own...
Not necessarily on its own, but that its predecessor existed originally in both Ethiopia and South Arabia.
quote:
Why is the Sabean influnence EMPHASIZED SO MUCH? Do we ponder to such great extent the influence of Ancient Greek upon the Latin language????? Do ya'll know what I'm saying?

True.

quote:
Anyway, Ayele's book is really intriguing in terms of the philosophical and theological content. Deep stuff. Salaam
I agree with you here, but since I know little about Church matters, I could be wrong.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:

I don't have any specific citations for Conti Rossini, but see here. For Megalomattis, see [url=]here[/url], with this quotation:

"It is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara – Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn were the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. The event has traces in the past of course, but was intensified and generalized over the past 50 years, under colonial academic and diplomatic guidance of the Abyssinian ruling class. "

Okay. That's good enough for me. [Smile]


quote:
Yom:

Regarding the genetic studies you refer to, I'm not adequately knowledgable to comment on their veracity, but it would not surprise me if some of those lineages determined to be "Eurasian" existed in the pre-Out of Africa migration population of the Horn of Africa and that Yemeni contributions to the Ethiopian gene pool would be difficult to measure due to this closeness. Also, many of these study refer to "Caucasoid" genes, which is an artificial construct, as completely non-mixed Ethiopians can also be said to be craniofacially "Caucasoid." See here for an interesting study on the ancientness of Ethiopian genes.

Forget "causasoid"; Do you consider "J" lineages, for instance, Eurasian or not?


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.

It's not a red herring.
It is a red-herring, because you know that we've already talked about the "proto-Sinaitic" type alphabets in Wadi el-Hol script. So pretending that I wasn't aware of this, is a distractive antic that will lead you to a dead end. Speaking of which:


quote:
Yom:

You said "no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt," so I pointed to an alphabet developed in middle Egypt as opposed to the Proto-Sinaitic script, which is located closer to Canaan and the Levant.

When I said "no such alphabet was found to have been developed in Egypt", it was followed by several other words. What were those words? At least have the honesty, to quote the citation in its full context. But for clarification purposes, I was referring to the notion that any alphabets that can be directly linked to Ethiopic or Sabean.


quote:
Yom:

I didn't deny the close relation of Ge'ez and Sabaean script. Ge'ez probably derived from Sabaean, but I don't rule out the possibility that it instead shares a common ancestor with it.

To come to that conclusion, you'd have to point out that "common" ancestor in both South Arabia, and the Ethiopian region.

quote:
Yom:
Proto-Sinaitic's only relevance is that it (or the Wadi el-Hol script) could have been transmitted through trade southward instead of first north and then south.

Are you suggesting that Ethiopic developed directly from "proto-Sinaitic", without intermediary developments?


quote:
Yom:
If the first inscriptions of the Minaean script are in the 8th c. B.C., contemporary with the D`mt civilization which used a type of ESA in Ethiopia, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be made either way.

You don't have script in the pre-Aksumite complex which dates to ca. 8th B.C, if the Minean script in South Arabia can indeed be attested to about 8th century BC or earlier. As such, there is no reason to claim that a conclusion cannot be deduced in one direction or another.



quote:
Yom:

I'm not saying D`mt was a script, just noting that it used a type of ESA at the same time period as the Minaean script. Looking at the inscriptions in the 8th edition of Annales d'Ethiopie, it seems to be the standard ESA (some versions have a "B" that looks like an M, e.g. or an "R" that isn't just one curve or an "M" that doesn't consist of distinct triangles).

You haven't shown that any Sabean/Ethiopic inscription in the pre-Askumite complex dates back to 800 B.C.


quote:
Yom:
I'd love a source, still. I don't doubt your claims, but what I know about SA chronology is limited since it is still so little known.

It's already been provided.


quote:
Yom:

The existence of contemporary inscriptions does not show that the origin is Sabaean (actually Minaean, I guess) rather than a shared cultural trait.

This is not so; not according to Peter Daniels' notes.

quote:
Yom:

Peter Daniel's point would indicate that the script was originally for Sabaean due to the loss of interdentals and ghayin in Ge'ez, but these phonetic changes were in the process of happening during the time of D`mt. Earlier texts use "ṯ," "ḏ," while later texts use "s/š" and "z."

Nope. This is what Daniels' rationale is:


Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels

I don't see the resemblance between what is stated therein, and that of yours, much less that you've addressed it, to the extent of disproving the argument put forth: Ge'ez/Ethiopic script developed from Sabean script, rather than the other way around.


quote:
Yom:
I have addressed the questions of interdentals (which is what I believe what you're referring to) above.

Not from what I can tell. See post above.


quote:
Yom:
It's more stylistic, though grammar could play a part. Grammatical features and to a lesser degree vocabulary are more likely what they're referring to.

The point is, certain features of the early language, presumably Ethiopic, and Sabean script made their way into the latter scripts used in the Aksumite era.


quote:
Yom:
I don't understand what you're talking about here. I thought you were referring to the non-royal "pure" Sabaean language inscriptions. If you're talking about the alphabet, then it's without a doubt ESA.

I talking about this:

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

Do you understand the above?



quote:
Yom:

I'm glad you realize that the indigenous origin possibility is the more likely of the two,

Then you must not have been paying attention, because I have been consistent in my stance on that issue all along.

quote:
Yom:
but given what you just cited (complex cultures) and the use of a sort of Proto-Ge'ez in all of the Royal inscriptions of D`mt, it seems to me that the idea of "colonists" is unfounded.

What is unfounded, is claims made in this comment of yours. Where has anyone mentioned "proto-Ge'ez"?

I do however, recall posting this:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro-Hay

Wherein the above, is "proto-Ge'ez" mentioned? And what about the said inscriptions is unfounded, and how so?


quote:
Yom:
The whole idea comes from Conti Rossini's ideas, which, according to Pankhurst in a link above "were largely based on conjecture."

By this, you are not referring to the Munro-Hay citation, are you?




quote:
Yom:

Whatever. I was the one who made a reference to the Tihama cultural complex, but you were the one who cited that section of my post to put your response saying "I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right?" as if the existence of the Tihama cultural complex had anything to do with a Sabaean migration.

And even after showing you twice, you still couldn't figure out, why I said you were contradicting yourself, when you wrote:


Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

How many times must I quote you on this same citation, before it gets through to you, what I've been saying?


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".
I'm talking about the Tihama cultural complex.
Are you suggesting that the South Arabian complex has Ethiopian origins?



quote:
Yom:

I read them. Again, do not be rude in discussions, it only stalls them.

Not from what I can tell; if you did, you would be refuting the said revelations of Sabean influences, instead of simply denying them. On that note, first do as you preach, i.e. not being rude, before suggesting it for others, and then you‘ll be treated accordingly.


quote:
Yom:
The Munro-Hay notes have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however. He doesn't refer to the Tihama cultural complex except in passing.

Well, that is what I'm talking about, the Munro-Hay citations I provided, which are enough to convince anyone of the Sabean presence in the region, in the pre-Aksumite period. So I am not sure why you think clinging onto "Tihama cultural complex" has any bearings on that point.

quote:
Yom:
During the time of the Tihama cultural complex, which began mid-second millenium BC (but ended 1st millenium, when Sabaeans would have existed).

By this, I presume you are talking about the Sabean polity, not Sabeans as people per se - right?


quote:
Yom:
I never asked you to provide evidence of their presence in the region. What I dispute is the nature and extent of their presence.

Well, now that you've cleared it, my response to you, had to do with this:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

As far as, the extent and nature of their presence is concerned, you haven't refuted anything that the Munro-Hay citations provided. But maybe you'll do better, as we go on.


quote:
Yom:
The language of the inscriptions indicates this. The only evidence that it could have been begun by Sabaeans is the use of the same script, whose origins are still not well-known.

Wrong, and so, again:

"Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay

quote:
Yom:

I have addressed this above.

Not really. See above.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hikuptah
Member
Member # 11131

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hikuptah     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If u guys really want to get to the facts of the Ethiopian script just think of it like this it developed in ethiopia was used in Arabia but extending from Hejaz to Oman for they have found a few writings in Western Oman. The Ethiopian Script is still used only till this day by the Ethiopians because they are the sole controlers and developers of this script there is no history after Abraha of the Script ever being used in Southern Arabia. There is enough information to come to the conclusion that the Sabeans of Ethiopia were in control of there sabean brotherns of Southern Arabia for there have been many poets in ancient Yemen who talked about Ethiopian Sabeians ruling Arabia for about 1000 years up to the birth of Muhammed. There is even evidence showing that there was two groups of Sabeans in Yemen & Ethiopia for there is a saying in Ancient Arabia it goes as divided as the Sabeans because of them being in Southern Arabia & Ethiopia Africa. There was no Migration there was no difference in Sabeans of Yemen or Ethiopia.

--------------------
Hikuptah Al-Masri

Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's something interesting I found:

"Jacqueline Pirenne



In the following year, 1956, Jacqueline Pirenne, a scholar of early Arabian history, drastically revised South Arabian chronology. Her new dating was significant to the question of Ethiopian origins, for it indicated that Sabaean immigrants to Ethiopia did not live in Ethiopia for centuries, as Conti Rossini had postulated, but only for no more than a few decades.



Six years later, in 1962, the Dutch linguist A.J. Drewes, published his important Inscriptions ie l’Ethiopie antique. It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia. This discovery showed that Conti Rossini had been mistaken in assuming that Sabaean inscriptions in the country represented the prototype from which Ge‘ez had later developed.



In the following decade the Italian archaeologist Rodolfo Fattovich, working in Nubia, unearthed ancient pottery virtually identical to that which had been produced in Ethiopia prior to the founding of Aksum. This evidence suggested that the early material culture of Aksum was of essentially African origin, and had thus developed entirely independently of South Arabian immigration."


"Roger Schneider



This thesis was further spelt out, in the following year, by the epigraphist Roger Schneider. Emphasising the entirely unproven character of Conti Rossini’s suppositions, he pointed out for example that the people of northern Ethiopia, living as they did in a rocky environment, did not have to wait for the arrival of the Sabaeans to erect houses built of stone. He argued further that Sabaeans who came to Ethiopia “did not arrive in a cultural vacuum”, but that, on the contrary, a significant Ethiopian state, people, and language had existed well before their advent. He contended further that Sabaean settlement was restricted to a few localities, and did not impinge greatly on Northern Ethiopia as a whole.



Schneider’s final conclusion was that similarities between South Arabian and Ethiopian civilization had in fact existed long before the coming to Ethiopia of the Sabaeans.



These and other arguments in support of Ethiopian origins independent of South Arabia were subsequently supported by other scholars, among them three linguists, the Ethiopian Abraham Demoz, the American Grover Hudson, and the Englishman David Appleyard, at a Conference on Ethiopian Origins, organised by the present writer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, in June 1978."

http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This here is BS if Munro-Hay was indeed quoting and referencing Schneider's work:

""Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay.

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some more data.

"G. Hancock didn't outline the basis of J. Pirennes argument, but considering that she is one of the foremost scholars in interpreting ancient South Arabian inscriptions (she started publishing in the 1950s) it seems natural to assume that she was addressing the problem of the sudden appearance in South Arabia of Epigraphic or Monumental South Arabian (MSA) writing. This pre-Aksumite MSA script also occurs in Ethiopia, however in South Arabia, there is apparently little evidence showing evolution in the lettering style.

Archaeologists expect to see such an evolution if the writing was developed locally. Perhaps J. Pirenne has found this missing evolutionary period in Ethiopia? If so then I suppose the scholars in this field should rename the MSA script as MNE (Monumental North Ethiopian)?"

http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/History/Sabean.html

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hikuptah:

If u guys really want to get to the facts of the Ethiopian script just think of it like this it developed in ethiopia was used in Arabia

What evidence do you have, to suggest that the Sabean script was not developed by well, Sabeans, but Ethiopians?

quote:
Hikuptah:
but extending from Hejaz to Oman for they have found a few writings in Western Oman. The Ethiopian Script is still used only till this day by the Ethiopians because they are the sole controlers and developers of this script there is no history after Abraha of the Script ever being used in Southern Arabia.

Well, the Ethiopians use Amharic script which is a further development of the early Ethiopic script, with vowels, and change in directions by way of starting sentences and ending them, and certain other details. So, Amharic script is no doubt indigenous, but has ties to the old Ethiopic script, which strongly resembles the Sabean counterpart, if not the same alphabetically and pattern of writing, i.e direction in which a statement begins and ends. Stuart Munro-Hay mentions two languages, as opposed to writings, in pre-Aksumite inscriptions; he mentions this:


"Illustration 9. An inscription from Abba Pantelewon near Aksum, written in the Epigraphic South Arabian script and mentioning the kingdom of D`MT; it is dedicated to the deity Dhat-Ba`adan." - Stuart Munro-Hay


...and then this:

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, **pure** Sabaean and another **language** with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).

All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language.
- Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is, what makes the author here, think that there were two "languages", which from the way it is worded above, was written in the same script as "Sabean", so as to warrent the author's mentioning of "pure" Sabean?

In any case, the idea that the "royal inscriptions" were written in this second, unnamed languages, presumably a local Ethiopian language, must have lent some support to the idea that the elites of the said complex could have been [see the highlighted]:

"The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have kept in contact with their own country, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.

Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles **mukarrib** and **mlkn** at first, and **nagashi** (najashi) or **negus** later...
" - S. Munro-Hay

...but continues that:

no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known. - Stuart Munro-Hay


quote:
Hikuptah:
There is enough information to come to the conclusion that the Sabeans of Ethiopia were in control of there sabean brotherns of Southern Arabia for there have been many poets in ancient Yemen who talked about Ethiopian Sabeians ruling Arabia for about 1000 years up to the birth of Muhammed.

There is information that Ethiopia occupied/colonized South Arabia at some point in time, but are you saying this adventure was the works of Sabeans in Ethiopia? What brought you to that conclusion?


quote:
Hikuptah:

There is even evidence showing that there was two groups of Sabeans in Yemen & Ethiopia for there is a saying in Ancient Arabia it goes as divided as the Sabeans because of them being in Southern Arabia & Ethiopia Africa.

Well, there had been Sabean migrations to the pre-Aksumite complex on the Tigray plateau; we know this, and in fact, that is what why we are having this discussion in the first place.

quote:
Hikuptah:
There was no Migration

This makes no sense; how then do you explain people with the same identity on opposite edges of the Red Sea, with the folks on the South Arabian side being known as "Sabeans," while the Sabeans in the ancient Ethiopian complexes were suggestive of immigrants, not locals, based on the notes thus far provided.

quote:
Hikuptah:
there was no difference in Sabeans of Yemen or Ethiopia.

Well, there would be no difference in that, the Sabeans were immigrants from South Arabia. Lol. However, if Sabeans eventually settled in the region, and adopted the local cultures, then at that point, the descendents of the said Sabean immigrants would have been culturally distinct from both the original Sabean immigrants who maintained their distinct "identity", as well as those who remained in South Arabia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xross Breed:
This here is BS if Munro-Hay was indeed quoting and referencing Schneider's work:

""Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay.

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

Your assessment is the BS, because Munro-Hay did not state that the above highlighted piece is Schneider's assessment. He in fact, quoted two other scholars, in additioned to several other things he mentioned earlier, to make the assessment [highlighted] above.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Originally posted by Xross Breed:
This here is BS if Munro-Hay was indeed quoting and referencing Schneider's work:

""Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay.

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

Your assessment is the BS, because Munro-Hay did not state that the above highlighted piece is Schneider's assessment. He in fact, quoted two other scholars, in additioned to several other things he mentioned earlier, to make the assessment [highlighted] above.
Well evidently Supertroll, that conclusion has been challenged and discredited by a number of scholars, especially Matthew Curtis.


Recent Regional Archaeological Research in Eritrea: Investigating the Origins and Development of Early Complex Society in the Greater Asmara Area, presented at the International Conference, Independent Eritrea: Lessons and Prospects, Asmara, Eritrea, July 22, 2001.

By Matthew Curtis

"All available evidence suggests endogenous origins for the Ona and Kidane Mehret pre-Aksumite communities and a continuity of occupation, material culture, and subsistence for at least five hundred years. These permanent urban-like agropastoral communities appeared contemporaneously to the rise of the complex South Arabian polity of Saba. There is no evidence that a Sabean tradition of urbanism or technological traditions diffused to the northern Horn in the 9th century BCE simultaneous to their own development. The Pre-Aksumite settlements and contemporaneous Sabean settlements are best viewed as co-evolving."

Stop wasting my time by spamming Munro-Hay. He makes some good points but the point I highlighted was clearly BS and he did use Schneider's info to come to that conclusion.

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Xcross
quote:


That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

Good post. Doresse claimed that Drewes found some Sabean inscriptions in Ethiopia older than those found in South Arabia.


.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bottom line, the Sabaean presence was restricted to a few outposts and wasn't widespread and Sabaean and Ethiopic scripts appear almost simultaneously, so there's no evidence that the Ethiopic script evovled from the Sabaean one.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Charles posted from a link:

Jacqueline Pirenne

In the following year, 1956, Jacqueline Pirenne, a scholar of early Arabian history, drastically revised South Arabian chronology. Her new dating was significant to the question of Ethiopian origins, for it indicated that Sabaean immigrants to Ethiopia did not live in Ethiopia for centuries, as Conti Rossini had postulated, but only for no more than a few decades.

Six years later, in 1962, the Dutch linguist A.J. Drewes, published his important Inscriptions ie l’Ethiopie antique. It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia. This discovery showed that Conti Rossini had been mistaken in assuming that Sabaean inscriptions in the country represented the prototype from which Ge‘ez had later developed.

In the following decade the Italian archaeologist Rodolfo Fattovich, working in Nubia, unearthed ancient pottery virtually identical to that which had been produced in Ethiopia prior to the founding of Aksum. This evidence suggested that the early material culture of Aksum was of essentially African origin, and had thus developed entirely independently of South Arabian immigration….

The result of such convergent investigations by scholars working in different fields was that Jacqueline Pirenne, basing herself on the area’s material culture, as well as on linguistic and paleographic data, stood Conti Rossini’s thesis on its head. She argued that migration was “not from Yemen to Ethiopia, but rather in the opposite direction: from Ethiopia to Yemen".

http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm

Stuart Munro-Hay said this about Jacqueline Pirenne:

Jacqueline Pirenne's most recent (1987) proposal results in a radically different view of the Ethiopian/South Arabian contacts. Weighing up the evidence from all sides, particularly aspects of material culture and linguistic/palaeographic information, she suggests that "il est donc vraisemblable que l'expansion ne s'est pas faite du Yémen vers l'Ethiopie, mais bien en sens inverse: de l'Ethiopie vers le Yémen". According to this theory, one group of Sabaeans would have left north Arabia (where they were then established) for Ethiopia in about the eighth or seventh century BC under pressure from the Assyrians; they then continued on into south Arabia. A second wave of emigrants, in the sixth and fifth century, would reign over the kingdom of Da'amat (D`MT), and would have been accompanied by Hebrews fleeing after Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem; an explanation for the later Ethiopian traditions with their Jewish and Biblical flavour, and for the Falashas or black Jews of Ethiopia.

These Sabaeans too, in their turn would have departed for the Yemen, taking there the writing and architecture which they had first perfected in Tigray. In the fourth and third century BC the remaining Sabaean emigrés would have left Ethiopia for the Yemen, leaving elements of their civilisation and traditions firmly embedded in the Ethiopian's way of life. This ingenious mise en scčne, so far only briefly noted in a conference paper, must await complete publication before it can be fully discussed; but it is expressive of the highly theoretical nature of our conclusions about pre-Aksumite Ethiopia that so complete a reversal of previous ideas can even be proposed.

Isaac and Felder (1988) also speculate about the possibility of a common cultural sphere in Ethiopia and Arabia, without giving either side the precedence.

Speaking of the latter point, from the link Charles posted, this was stated:

Whatever the direction, dating, and details of such migration, there can be no denying that northern Ethiopia and Yemen, in the half millennium or so prior to the Christian era, shared a related civilisation, or civilisations. This is evident from the at least limited use in Ethiopia of the Sabaean language and script, as found on ancient Aksumite inscriptions and coins, and an apparently identical religion. The latter centred on the worship of the sun and moon, and the local god Almaqah. The logo of the sun and moon, used at that time in Yemen, appears for example on an ancient Aksumite obelisk at Matara, as well as on virtually all pre-Christian Aksum coins, which began to be struck in the first century A.D. Reference to Almaqah is likewise to be seen on many Sabaean inscriptions on both sides of the Red Sea.
http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm

Munro-Hay's take:

Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; Drewes 1962: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. This developed to such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious or funerary installations, some of major importance, with an unmistakeable South Arabian appearance in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period.


Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon.

Until relatively recently South Arabian artefacts found in Ethiopia were interpreted as the material signs left behind by a superior colonial occupation force, with political supremacy over the indigenes — an interpretation still maintained by Michels (1988). But further study has now suggested that very likely, by the time the inscriptions were produced, the majority of the material in fact represented the civilisation of the Ethiopians themselves. Nevertheless, a certain amount of contact with South Arabia is very apparent, and had resulted in the adoption of a number of cultural traits (Schneider 1973; 1976).


**Evidently the arrival of Sabaean influences does not represent the beginning of Ethiopian civilisation**


The altars, inscriptions, stelae, temples, secular structures, tombs and other material left by the Sabaean-influenced Ethiopian population occur in considerable numbers even from the few excavated sites; those attributed to the Sabaeans themselves occur more rarely. The monuments are dated from the 5th century BC by study of the letter-forms used on them (palaeography), and seem to appear in Ethiopia at about the same time as they do in South Arabia (nb. The reservations about the dating expressed by Fattovich 1989). The disc and crescent symbol used on some of the monuments (and very much later by the pre-Christian Aksumites) was also familiar on some South Arabian coins, and South Arabian altars; many of the same deities were being worshipped in the two regions. It was also during this period that iron was introduced into the country. In the present state of our knowledge, it is unclear how much of Aksumite civilisation was a direct continuation of a cultural heritage from pre-Aksumite times, or how much any South Arabian aspects might be better attributed to a renewal of overseas contacts in the period after the consolidation of Aksum as an independent polity in the first and second centuries AD. No clear evidence of connexions between the pre-Aksumite, Sabaean-influenced, period, and the earliest Aksumite period is at the moment available, though it seems intrinsically more likely that Aksum in some way was able to draw directly on part of the experience of its predecessors. At Matara, the archaeological evidence implies that there was a clear break between the two periods (Anfray and Annequin 1965), but this need not have been the case everywhere in the country. The solution to these questions can only await further clarification from archaeology.
http://users.vnet.net/alight/aksum/mhak2.html#c4-1


Charles from the aforementioned link posted this, attributed to Schneider:

“He contended further that Sabaean settlement was restricted to a few localities, and did not impinge greatly on Northern Ethiopia as a whole.”
http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm

What does S. Munro Hay have to say about this; well, this is what he says:

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**.


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).
http://users.vnet.net/alight/aksum/mhak2.html#c4-1


So, you, a nobody/lowlife troll, might want to first read Stuart Munro-Hays notes, before making unfounded accusations.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by a nobody troll:

Well evidently Supertroll, that conclusion has been challenged and discredited by a number of scholars, especially Matthew Curtis.


Recent Regional Archaeological Research in Eritrea: Investigating the Origins and Development of Early Complex Society in the Greater Asmara Area, presented at the International Conference, Independent Eritrea: Lessons and Prospects, Asmara, Eritrea, July 22, 2001.

By Matthew Curtis

"All available evidence suggests endogenous origins for the Ona and Kidane Mehret pre-Aksumite communities and a continuity of occupation, material culture, and subsistence for at least five hundred years. These permanent urban-like agropastoral communities appeared contemporaneously to the rise of the complex South Arabian polity of Saba. There is no evidence that a Sabean tradition of urbanism or technological traditions diffused to the northern Horn in the 9th century BCE simultaneous to their own development. The Pre-Aksumite settlements and contemporaneous Sabean settlements are best viewed as co-evolving."

Stop wasting my time by spamming Munro-Hay. He makes some good points but the point I highlighted was clearly BS and he did use Schneider's info to come to that conclusion.

An illiterate nobody from the sewer, please see what I just posted.

Ps - I hate to see a useful thread like this to be wasted on lowlifes like you, so I took the time to tone down the offensive language, but make no mistake, I pull no punches.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elijah The Tishbite
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elijah The Tishbite     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supertroll still doesn't understand, did you forget that piece from Curtis I posted? There is no denying that Sabaeans were in Ethiopia and or that their wreiting appears in Ethiopia, the question is whether the Ethiopic script developed from the sabaean script and you have posted no evidence for this so stop trolling, moron. Munro-Hay is talking about two separate migrations of sabaeans into Ethiopia, not one, learn to read.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by x-tremely retarded breed:

Bottom line, the Sabaean presence was restricted to a few outposts and wasn't widespread and Sabaean and Ethiopic scripts appear almost simultaneously, so there's no evidence that the Ethiopic script evovled from the Sabaean one.

So, babbling x-tremely retarded breed, how do you address this point:


Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels


quote:
Originally posted by X-tremely retarded Breed:

Supertroll still doesn't understand, did you forget that piece from Curtis I posted?

Did you not read the entirety of the post, I suggested you read in response to it, dumb trolling pussy.

quote:
x-tremely retarded breed says:

There is no denying that Sabaeans were in Ethiopia and or that their wreiting appears in Ethiopia, the question is whether the Ethiopic script developed from the sabaean script and you have posted no evidence for this so stop trolling, moron.

dumb pussy, how about addressing the post above.


quote:
x-tremely retarded breed:

Munro-Hay is talking about two separate migrations of sabaeans into Ethiopia, not one, learn to read.

Well, my pansy buddy, you could have fooled me, as to who needs to learn how to read, after making unfounded and uneducated accusations about someone's notes, without having a clue about anything that was said.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Forget "causasoid"; Do you consider "J" lineages, for instance, Eurasian or not?
As I said above, I don't know enough about this type of stuff to really discuss it with a level you'll be satisfied with.


quote:
It is a red-herring, because you know that we've already talked about the "proto-Sinaitic" type alphabets in Wadi el-Hol script. So pretending that I wasn't aware of this, is a distractive antic that will lead you to a dead end.
We talked about proto-Sinaitic, but I don't remember talking about Wadi el=Hol. Even if we did, though, mentioning something already discussed doesn't mean that it's a red herring because it's still a script developed in Southern Egypt that could have been tramistted southwards. Either way, discussing whether or not it's a red herring isn't going to get us anywhere. Note that I'm not saying that Ge'ez or Sabaean derived direct from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script.

quote:
When I said "no such alphabet was found to have been developed in Egypt", it was followed by several other words. What were those words? At least have the honesty, to quote the citation in its full context. But for clarification purposes, I was referring to the notion that any alphabets that can be directly linked to Ethiopic or Sabean.
I don't make the claim that they can. I do think that they can be connected through one or two southern intermediaries which have not yet been found. Given the lack of evidence, however, we don't know their origin (aside from coming from Proto-Sinaitic).


quote:
To come to that conclusion, you'd have to point out that "common" ancestor in both South Arabia, and the Ethiopian region.
I'm not basing this on evidence of a common ancestor found but rather on ancient Ge'ez (I presume alphabet) graffiti that has been found. See above by Xcross breed.

quote:
Are you suggesting that Ethiopic developed directly from "proto-Sinaitic", without intermediary developments?
No, I'm suggesting it developed through a South Semitic intermediary, or perhaps that and then ESA.


quote:
You don't have script in the pre-Aksumite complex which dates to ca. 8th B.C, if the Minean script in South Arabia can indeed be attested to about 8th century BC or earlier. As such, there is no reason to claim that a conclusion cannot be deduced in one direction or another.
What is your basis for saying there's no script dated to 8th c. B.C. in Ethiopia if Minaean is attested to 8th c. BC? All modern publications regarding the time that D`mt existed are clear on this point: 8th-7th c. BC. Here is the first sentence on the entry in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica by Alexander Sima:

D`mt (Da`əmat or Da`amat, vocalization unknown) is mentioned ten times in six Sabaic [refferring to the script] pre-Aksumite royal inscriptions, to be dated approximately to the 8th-7th cent. B.C.


quote:
You haven't shown that any Sabean/Ethiopic inscription in the pre-Askumite complex dates back to 800 B.C.
I said 8th-7th c. B.C., which would include 800 BC - 601 BC. I don't have pictures or sources online, but I gave you a quotation above.


quote:
It's already been provided.
Sorry. I didn't see that "browsing" was linked. Looking through it, it doesn't address South Arabian chronology, though.


quote:
This is not so; not according to Peter Daniels' notes.

This is what Daniels' rationale is:


Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels

I don't see the resemblance between what is stated therein, and that of yours, much less that you've addressed it, to the extent of disproving the argument put forth: Ge'ez/Ethiopic script developed from Sabean script, rather than the other way around.

I'm not saying that Ge'ez didn't derive from Sabaean. As I said earlier, it probably did derive from a type of ESA (the only way it wouldn't have is if they shared a common ancestor but for some reason Sabaean was used instead of Ge'ez or if Ge'ez previously had interdental consonants that were later lost, which probably didn't happen). What Daniels is saying, however, is that Ge'ez never had these interdentals. If you define Ge'ez specifically as the Ethiopian language spoken prior to 1000 AD and without interdentals, then that's a fact, but you have to consider that in the early D`mt inscriptions, interdentals are used consistently. Later inscriptions, however, do not correctly distinguish between sounds. In fact, the existence of interdentals is one of the ways the date of the inscriptions is classified, with interdental inscriptions part of "Groupe I" (according to A.J. Drews and Roger Schneider) and those without part of "Groupe II."

[29]`ṯtr : l'orthographe avec ṯ indique que le texte appartient au groupe I. [the orthography with ṯ indicates that the text belongs to group I.]

[32]La graphie a été rangée ŕ la fin de la période A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....
Pour la transcription 'i`gz avec z au lieu de ḏ, voir déjŕ Littmann, D.A.E., 27, commentaire, ainsi que les deux textes suivants, numéros 32 et 33. L'absence des interdentales dans le dialecte de l'inscription est confirmé par la graphie `str pour `ṯtr dans le texte II.
[The writing was arranged into the end of period A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....For the transcription 'i`gz with z instead of ḏ, see again Littman, D.A.E., 27, comentary, along with the two following texts, numbers 32 and 33. The absence of interdentals in the dialect of the inscription is confirmed by the graph `str instead of `ṯtr in text II.]

La transcription w`ztm avec z au lieu de ḏ est fondée sur le témoignage du texte parallčle suivant, no. 33, oů apparaît la graphie hḥdsw, avec s au lieu de ṯ. Il est tout ŕ fait improbable qu'une interdentale ait disparu et que l'autre se soit maintenue; voir déjŕ Littmann, commentaire de D.A.E. 27.[The transcription w`ztm with z instead of ḏ is founded on seeing the following parallel text, no. 33, where the graph hḥdsw appears, with s (i.e. Shin, which is either s or Sh) instead of ṯ. It's altogether improbable that one interdental disappeared while the other was kept. See again Littman, comentary of D.A.E. (Deutsch Aksum-Expedition) 27.

hḥdsw avec s au lieu de ṯ permet de ranger le texte dans les inscriptions du groupe II, de męme que le texte parallčle 32. [hḥdsw with s instead of ṯ allows us to arrange the text with the inscriptions of group II, the same as the parallel text 32.]

quote:
The point is, certain features of the early language, presumably Ethiopic, and Sabean script made their way into the latter scripts used in the Aksumite era.
I don't dispute this.


quote:
I talking about this:

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

Do you understand the above?

Yes, that some inscriptions are in Sabaean language. What you said was this:

"The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.
(emphasis yours)

He's above speaking about the language. The script is a type of ESA.


quote:
Then you must not have been paying attention, because I have been consistent in my stance on that issue all along.
You've been stressing Sabaean influences, so that wasn't apparent. No need to discuss this issue any further, then.

quote:
What is unfounded, is claims made in this comment of yours. Where has anyone mentioned "proto-Ge'ez"?

I do however, recall posting this:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro-Hay

Wherein the above, is "proto-Ge'ez" mentioned? And what about the said inscriptions is unfounded, and how so?

No one said the inscriptions are unfounded. I said that the idea of colonists and colonised is unfounded. The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez.

See again here, by Richard Pankhrust: " It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia."


quote:
By this, you are not referring to the Munro-Hay citation, are you?
No, I am not.



quote:
And even after showing you twice, you still couldn't figure out, why I said you were contradicting yourself, when you wrote:


Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

How many times must I quote you on this same citation, before it gets through to you, what I've been saying?

As I told you, the Tihama cultural complex was African in origin, not South Arabian. Either way, the existence of the cultural complex has nothing to do with the existence of Sabaeans in Ethiopia. I was merely pointing out that shared cultural affinities need not be due simply to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.


quote:
Are you suggesting that the South Arabian complex has Ethiopian origins?
Which South Arabian complex? I'm suggesting that the Tihama cultural complex has Ethiopian origins.



quote:
Not from what I can tell; if you did, you would be refuting the said revelations of Sabean influences, instead of simply denying them. On that note, first do as you preach, i.e. not being rude, before suggesting it for others, and then you‘ll be treated accordingly.
As I said before, I always try to be civil in discussions. Perhaps you are reading malice into my writing because of the lack of paralanguage in online discussions.


quote:
Well, that is what I'm talking about, the Munro-Hay citations I provided, which are enough to convince anyone of the Sabean presence in the region, in the pre-Aksumite period. So I am not sure why you think clinging onto "Tihama cultural complex" has any bearings on that point.
Again, I do not doubt the existence of Sabaean presence in Ethiopia but rather the nature of their presence as per Conti Rossini and Joseph W. Michels. The Tihama cultural complex was merely to illustrate that connections between Ethiopia and Yemen exist prior to the Sabaean period.

quote:
By this, I presume you are talking about the Sabean polity, not Sabeans as people per se - right?
Correct.


quote:
Well, now that you've cleared it, my response to you, had to do with this:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

As far as, the extent and nature of their presence is concerned, you haven't refuted anything that the Munro-Hay citations provided. But maybe you'll do better, as we go on.

The Munro-Hay citations in fact form part of the basis for my argument. That "actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo" (but so far nowhere else), and 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" (Munro-Hay).


quote:
Wrong, and so, again:

"Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay

See above wrt Pankhurst.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:

As I said above, I don't know enough about this type of stuff to really discuss it with a level you'll be satisfied with.

This isn't good enough, in light of your claim about Sabeans not having a "genetic impact" on the locals.


quote:
Yom:

We talked about proto-Sinaitic, but I don't remember talking about Wadi el-Hol.

Where did you suppose the "proto-Sinaitic" alphabets were found, that I posted, concerning the most recent find in Upper Egypt?

quote:
Yom:

Even if we did, though, mentioning something already discussed doesn't mean that it's a red herring because it's still a script developed in Southern Egypt that could have been tramistted southwards. Either way, discussing whether or not it's a red herring isn't going to get us anywhere.

It was a red-herring when you brought it up, after I had told you that your claim of "direct" link, as per my understanding then of your claim, of those alphabets to early Ethiopic/Sabean script. I 'remain' in agreement, about its irrelevancy, unless you can indicate how so.

quote:
Yom:
I don't make the claim that they can. I do think that they can be connected through one or two southern intermediaries which have not yet been found. Given the lack of evidence, however, we don't know their origin (aside from coming from Proto-Sinaitic).

Well, apparently they are ultimately connected, since it is from an off-shoot of "proto-Sinaitic" [which referred to as "proto-Canaanite" in the Levant], that the south Semitic script diverged.


quote:
Yom:
I'm not basing this on evidence of a common ancestor found but rather on ancient Ge'ez (I presume alphabet) graffiti that has been found. See below by Xross breed.

Have already seen it, and responded according. What you are referring to as "Ge'ez" graffiti, is what S. Munro-Hay pointed out as:

An inscription from Abba Pantelewon near Aksum, written in the Epigraphic South Arabian script and mentioning the kingdom of D`MT; it is dedicated to the deity Dhat-Ba`adan. It has been photographed upside down
Photo BIEA.
- S. Munro-Hay



quote:
Yom:
No, I'm suggesting it developed through a South Semitic intermediary, or perhaps that and then ESA.

Then why talk of the "proto-Sinaitic" characters found in upper Egypt, suggesting a common origin but independent development for Ethiopic and Sabean script, without pointing the intermediary scripts in the said ancient complexes.



quote:
Yom:
What is your basis for saying there's no script dated to 8th c. B.C. in Ethiopia if Minaean is attested to 8th c. BC?

Lack of evidence.

quote:
Yom:
All modern publications regarding the time that D`mt existed are clear on this point: 8th-7th c. BC. Here is the first sentence on the entry in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica by Alexander Sima:

D`mt (Da`əmat or Da`amat, vocalization unknown) is mentioned ten times in six Sabaic [refferring to the script] pre-Aksumite royal inscriptions, to be dated approximately to the 8th-7th cent. B.C.

Apparently not all; just as an example:


The monuments are dated from the 5th century BC by study of the letter-forms used on them (palaeography), and seem to appear in Ethiopia at about the same time as they do in South Arabia (nb. the reservations about the dating expressed by Fattovich 1989). - Munro Hay

...and I can just as easily quote a number of "encyclopedic" sources, that'll attribute the earliest "inscriptions', NOT the polity "D'MT", found in the said pre-Aksumite complex date back to about 5th-6th century B.C. So, the question remains, from what archeological source, are you assessing the timeframe for "D'MT"?


quote:
Yom:

Sorry. I didn't see that "browsing" was linked. Looking through it, it doesn't address South Arabian chronology, though.

Why should I address this, when I posted a link, pertaining to your question of where I heard the notion of Minean script dating to about 8th century B.C. What has that claim to do with "South Arabian Chronology"?


quote:
Yom:
I'm not saying that Ge'ez didn't derive from Sabaean.

Then, why do you keep trying to make excuses that it could have developed independently from some "south Semitic script"? Case in point...unless I am reading wrong, what you are terming ESA [spell the word in full, for my understanding]:


quote:
Yom:
As I said earlier, it probably did derive from a type of ESA (the only way it wouldn't have is if they shared a common ancestor but for some reason Sabaean was used instead of Ge'ez or if Ge'ez previously had interdental consonants that were later lost, which probably didn't happen).

quote:
Yom:

What Daniels is saying, however, is that Ge'ez never had these interdentals. If you define Ge'ez specifically as the Ethiopian language spoken prior to 1000 AD and without interdentals, then that's a fact, but you have to consider that in the early D`mt inscriptions, interdentals are used consistently. Later inscriptions, however, do not correctly distinguish between sounds...

The point that Daniels is trying to make, is that Ethiopic script was influenced, if not derived, from Sabean. Do you agree with this or not? Period.


quote:
Yom:

Yes, that some inscriptions are in Sabaean language. What you said was this:

"The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.
(emphasis yours)

He's above speaking about the language. The script is a type of ESA.

Again, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the abbreviation "ESA", but yes, Munro-Hay was referring to two languages, one in "pure" Sabean, and another, in some nameless, presumably local Ethiopian language. What I was trying to get you to see, although futilely, is that the term "pure" implicates the script [the medium of the inscriptions]; meaning two languages have been discerned, but both appear to have been written in Sabean alphabets/scripts.

quote:
Yom:
You've been stressing Sabaean influences, so that wasn't apparent. No need to discuss this issue any further, then.

Like I said, you were not paying attention, and chose to hear, only what you wanted to hear, which is why we are even having this discussion. And yes, in order for you to take home what is being said, I have to refer to "Sabean influences", which is what you've been basically trying to deny.



quote:
Yom:
No one said the inscriptions are unfounded. I said that the idea of colonists and colonised is unfounded.

How so? My stance remains that, the idea of Sabean colonialists has neither been proven nor disproven.

Ps:

It appears that there were undoubtedly some South Arabian immigrants in Ethiopia in the mid-first millenium BC, but there is (unless the interpretation of Michels is accepted) no sure indication that they were politically dominant.

The sites chosen by them may be related to their relative ease of access to the Red Sea coast. Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above.

They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status.
- S. Munro-Hay

From what I gather from the above, you have to be specific when you use the term "colonialists", because it would appear, it is not ruled out [above] that these potential "colonialists" could have been "traders" or "military" personnel [perhaps with their families] stationed there for some mutual benefit with the locals, with perhaps the ruling elites being of local background. Again, highly speculative, in any case.


quote:
Yom:

The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez.

See again here, by Richard Pankhrust: " It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia."

See again, my post on what was mentioned in the said inscriptions and how, as per Munro-Hay's notes, the so-called graffiti were referenced.

quote:
Yom:

As I told you, the Tihama cultural complex was African in origin, not South Arabian. Either way, the existence of the cultural complex has nothing to do with the existence of Sabaeans in Ethiopia. I was merely pointing out that shared cultural affinities need not be due simply to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

Well, for the second time, my question was based on your claim:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia

**extant** on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.


Tell its bad writing on your part, or is the above suggesting an Ethiopian origin for the Sabean complex?



quote:
Yom:

Which South Arabian complex? I'm suggesting that the Tihama cultural complex has Ethiopian origins.

See post immediately above.


quote:
Yom:

The Munro-Hay citations in fact form part of the basis for my argument. That "actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo" (but so far nowhere else), and 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" (Munro-Hay).

Okay. I in fact posted this, and...?


quote:
Yom:
See above wrt Pankhurst.

See my response to that post.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supercar, for future reference, ESA is Epigraphic South Arabian (also known as MSA, Monumental South Arabian).

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
This isn't good enough, in light of your claim about Sabeans not having a "genetic impact" on the locals.

Well, I don't know about J haplotypes, so I can't answer that question.

quote:
Where did you suppose the "proto-Sinaitic" alphabets were found, that I posted, concerning the most recent find in Upper Egypt?
From just the name of the script, it was first found in the Sinai, but I don't remember you posting any recent finds from Upper Egypt. This is tangential to the discussion, however.

quote:
It was a red-herring when you brought it up, after I had told you that your claim of "direct" link, as per my understanding then of your claim, of those alphabets to early Ethiopic/Sabean script. I 'remain' in agreement, about its irrelevancy, unless you can indicate how so.
Yes, it is irrelevant; the discussion came about because of a request for an intermediary but which I interpreted as a request for an example of a more southerly script in Egypt. I don't maintain that Sabaean or Ge'ez came directly from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script.


quote:
Well, apparently they are ultimately connected, since it is from an off-shoot of "proto-Sinaitic" [which referred to as "proto-Canaanite" in the Levant], that the south Semitic script diverged.
Agreed (not the equivalence of proto-Canaanite and proto-Sinaitic, but that's a different argument [and a futile semantic one at that] for a different thread).


quote:
Have already seen it, and responded according. What you are referring to as "Ge'ez" graffiti, is what S. Munro-Hay pointed out as:

An inscription from Abba Pantelewon near Aksum, written in the Epigraphic South Arabian script and mentioning the kingdom of D`MT; it is dedicated to the deity Dhat-Ba`adan. It has been photographed upside down
Photo BIEA.
- S. Munro-Hay

Where does it say that this is the graffiti found by A.J. Drewes and published in Inscriptions de l’Ethiopie antique (1962)?

quote:
Then why talk of the "proto-Sinaitic" characters found in upper Egypt, suggesting a common origin but independent development for Ethiopic and Sabean script, without pointing the intermediary scripts in the said ancient complexes.
Apparently the reference of proto-Sinaitic is from a misunderstanding as noted above. Either way, there aren't even known intermediaries between ESA and proto-Sinaitic, so we can't make any determinations. If the inscriptions found by A.J. Drewes are indeed in ESA script but Ge'ez language rather than both Ge'ez script and language(i.e. if the earliest forms of Ge'ez aren't contemporary or nearly comtemporary with SA), then Ge'ez almost certainly derived from Sabaean (as I believe it probably did right now), but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

quote:
Apparently not all; just as an example:

The monuments are dated from the 5th century BC by study of the letter-forms used on them (palaeography), and seem to appear in Ethiopia at about the same time as they do in South Arabia (nb. the reservations about the dating expressed by Fattovich 1989). - Munro Hay

...and I can just as easily quote a number of "encyclopedic" sources, that'll attribute the earliest "inscriptions', NOT the polity "D'MT", found in the said pre-Aksumite complex date back to about 5th-6th century B.C. So, the question remains, from what archeological source, are you assessing the timeframe for "D'MT"?

Unfortunately, Alexander Sima (as well as Stuart Munro-Hay) has passed away recently, so I can't email him as to his sources, but the Literature he cites at the end of the article is as follows:

Francis Anfray, Les anciens Éthiopiens. Sičcles d'histoire, Paris 1990, 60f.;
Gianfrancesco Lusini "A proposito delle iscrizioni sudarabiche d'Etiopia," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 17, 200, 95-113, here 99f.;
David W. Phillopson, Ancient Ethiopia. Aksum: its antecdents and Successors, London 1998, 45-8.

quote:
Why should I address this, when I posted a link, pertaining to your question of where I heard the notion of Minean script dating to about 8th century B.C. What has that claim to do with "South Arabian Chronology"?
You don't have to address it, but it's critical to the debate. As stated by Munro-Hay, "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." So, a discussion of the chronology (as you have asked of me of D`mt, which I wish I could provide more info for) would be helpful.


quote:
Then, why do you keep trying to make excuses that it could have developed independently from some "south Semitic script"? Case in point...unless I am reading wrong, what you are terming ESA [spell the word in full, for my understanding]:
Epigraphic South Arabian = ESA. Its independent development is a possibility until it's cleared up what exactly is meant by "Ge'ez graffiti."

quote:
The point that Daniels is trying to make, is that Ethiopic script was influenced, if not derived, from Sabean. Do you agree with this or not? Period.
As I said above, it probably was, but the date of the first inscription using the Ge'ez alphabet needs to be determined to say so definitively. As you can see by the citations I gave regarding interdentals above, however, the existence of these interdentals during the early period of D`mt means that ESA need not have been a South Arabian creation based on language but could have been a shared alphabet inherited from an even earlier, yet not found, South Semitic successor, as ESA certainly didn't derive directly from Proto-Sinaitic.


quote:
Again, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the abbreviation "ESA", but yes, Munro-Hay was referring to two languages, one in "pure" Sabean, and another, in some nameless, presumably local Ethiopian language. What I was trying to get you to see, although futilely, is that the term "pure" implicates the script [the medium of the inscriptions]; meaning two languages have been discerned, but both appear to have been written in Sabean alphabets/scripts.
Obviously both were written in ESA. I have never denied that. The "pure" Sabaean (it's Sabaean by the way, from the root shin-bet-alif; Sabeans or Sabians are a different people from the Qur'an spelled with a Tsadey) referred to by Stuart Munro-Hay is clearly referring to the language, not inscriptions, though. The D`mt inscriptions were all written in a form of Epigraphic South Arabian as far as I can tell, though. Note that the name of the script is properly ESA as it was used also by the Himyarites, Qatabans, and Minaeans, all of whom probably had their own variations (I'm aware of a few for some of the letters, though I don't know to which civilization the variant belongs).

quote:
Like I said, you were not paying attention, and chose to hear, only what you wanted to hear, which is why we are even having this discussion. And yes, in order for you to take home what is being said, I have to refer to "Sabean influences", which is what you've been basically trying to deny.
I'm not denying that there were any Sabaean influences, but they have always been overemphasized and exaggerated by past (and still some contemporary) historians. Moreover, these influences are not even necessarily Sabaean in origin. Connections and cultural exchanges between Ethiopia and Yemen have existed long before the Sabaeans. Some of the so-called influences (e.g. stone-working, agriculture, the plough) were certainly extant in Ethiopia before Sabaean influences, and other influences, like certain god-cults (e.g. Dhat Ba`adan or Dhat Himyam) weren't very long-lasting.

quote:
How so? My stance remains that, the idea of Sabean colonialists has neither been proven nor disproven.
Until evidence is shown to the contrary, should not a civilization be assumed to be the result of indigenous peoples?

quote:
It appears that there were undoubtedly some South Arabian immigrants in Ethiopia in the mid-first millenium BC, but there is (unless the interpretation of Michels is accepted) no sure indication that they were politically dominant.The sites chosen by them may be related to their relative ease of access to the Red Sea coast.

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above.

They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status.
- S. Munro-Hay

From what I gather from the above, you have to be specific when you use the term "colonialists", because it would appear, it is not ruled out [above] that these potential "colonialists" could have been "traders" or "military" personnel [perhaps with their families] stationed there for some mutual benefit with the locals, with perhaps the ruling elites being of local background. Again, highly speculative, in any case; there are certainly no indicators that earlier potential immigrants from south Arabia, back in the "mid-first millenium BC," were politically dominant - as mentioned.

"Colonialists" as in founders of a new civilization. The above quotation does not support the idea of colonists (though he notes it is still supported by Michels).

quote:
Well, for the second time, my question was based on your claim:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia

**extant** on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.


Tell its bad writing on your part, or is the above suggesting an Ethiopian origin for the Sabean complex?

The Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. It is not the same as the Sabaean complex as far as I know, though I'm sure there was exchange between the two complexes due to their geographic proximity (the Tihama is right next to the kingdom of Saba').

quote:
Okay. I in fact posted this, and...?
The affirm that Sabaean presence was short-lived and limited to certain localities, though the D`mt civilization was widespread.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The origin of the Semitic speakers is very important. The archaeological and textual evidence make it clear that Mesopotamia was the not homeland of the Semitic speakers. This evidence make it clear that the first settlers of this area spoke Sumerian and Ubadian, not Semitic.

The first Semites to leave textual evidence are the Akkadians. The Akkadians and the Ethio-Semitic languages have shared archaism. This feature indicates the ancient morphology and grammar of a Semitic language. We can infer that if this was the norm for the most ancient form of Semitic, other Semitic languages possessing this character probably are closely related to the original spoken/written Semitic language. We can further infer that since Ethio-Semitic, possesses these linguistic characteristics, and other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Arabic do not, the later languages must be relatively young in age.

In your post you claim that Ethio-Semitic is a young language. This is false, as indicated by archaic linguistic features Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic share.

The historical evidence support an old presence of Ethio-Semitic in Africa. For example, the Axumite Empire was founded by the Habashan. the habashan are mentioned in a 3rd or 4th century Himyarite inscription from South Arabia, which refers to an alliance between Gadarat King of the Habashan or Habashat.

Some of the people of Punt were probably Tigrinya speakers, who call their language habesha, i.e., Abyssinian par excellence. The term Habesh, seems to represent an old name for Abyssinia and may be connected with the Amharic word washa 'cave or cavern', and may refer to the" cave dwellers" who once served as the principal traders along the Ethiopian coast. The ability of the Ethiopians as sailors, is supported by the title bahr nagash, "ruler of the maritime province" or Eritrea.

In addition, some of the earliest Sabean/Thamudic inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia, and not South Arabia. For example, Dr. Doresse has found Sabean cursive writing on a sceptre that indicates that the Habashat/Axumite empire had writing.

These Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions of the 18th Dynasty (1709-1320) in connection to the land of Punt. Given the Egyptian association of the Habashan with Punt, I call the speakers of the Ethio-Semitic languages: Puntites. We have Egyptian evidence of trade missions to Punt as early as PepiII in 2400 BC and Mentuholep IV and IV. The vizier Amenemhat, of Mentuholep IV is said to have established a port near Safaga. the most famous mission to Punt was sent by Queen Hatshepsut, and is recorded at deir el Bahri. Since the Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian documents they were in existence long before the Arabic speakers.

The evidence of shared archaism for Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic indicate that the speakers of these languages probably shared many linguistic features when they separated. It also suggest that thespeakers of these languages probably separated in Africa, since the Ethio-Semitic speakers have long been established in their present home, as supported by the Egyptian inscriptions. The Ethio-Semitic speakers have maintained these features due to the relative stability of these languages. You can find out more about the stability of African languages in my article "Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), (1996) 34-52. We must conclude that the Semitic languages originated in Africa.


.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
Supercar, for future reference, ESA is Epigraphic South Arabian (also known as MSA, Monumental South Arabian).

Glad we cleared that up. [Wink]

quote:
Yom:
Well, I don't know about J haplotypes, so I can't answer that question.

Then, not knowing this, how can you claim that the Sabeans could not have left a 'genetic impact' on the locals?


quote:
Yom:

From just the name of the script, it was first found in the Sinai, but I don't remember you posting any recent finds from Upper Egypt. This is tangential to the discussion, however.

Can't help you, if you don't pay attention to posts. It was posted!


quote:
Yom:

Yes, it is irrelevant; the discussion came about because of a request for an intermediary but which I interpreted as a request for an example of a more southerly script in Egypt. I don't maintain that Sabaean or Ge'ez came directly from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script.

The misunderstanding was apparently on your end, since I was fully aware that "proto-Sinaitic" could not have been the "intermediary" script.


quote:
Yom:

Agreed (not the equivalence of proto-Canaanite and proto-Sinaitic, but that's a different argument [and a futile semantic one at that] for a different thread)

What is said to be the difference between "proto-Sinaitic" and "proto-Canaanite". Please, enlighten me through a comparative analysis. From what I can tell, the difference in name stems from the locals the scripts were found, as opposed to the style of the scripts.


quote:
Yom:
Where does it say that this is the graffiti found by A.J. Drewes and published in Inscriptions de l’Ethiopie antique (1962)?

I haven't read the said literature, and if you have, then please share with us the matter in question. I however, came to the conclusion that he was referring to "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, because that is the script with which the name "D'MT" was located, unless you know of the said Ge'ez script different from "ESA", that mentions "D'MT". This from Munro-Hay, assisted me in coming to that conclusion:

"The inscriptions of mukarribs of D`MT and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and **Drewes**1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93).

I would imagine that since, by the time Stuart Munro-Hay wrote this piece, he was fully aware of the 1962 Drewes publication, and hence, would have taken it into consideration. There you have it; that is how I made the extrapolation - I don't just blindly read things, I try to understand them - wrongly or rightly so. [Wink]


quote:
Yom:
Apparently the reference of proto-Sinaitic is from a misunderstanding as noted above. Either way, there aren't even known intermediaries between ESA and proto-Sinaitic, so we can't make any determinations.

What about potential connections between Sabean and earlier Arabian scripts? I have come across claims about earlier Arabian scripts, from which old north Arabian and south Arabian scripts derived from. I'll see if I can get a hold of good links from the web.

quote:
Yom:
If the inscriptions found by A.J. Drewes are indeed in ESA script but Ge'ez language rather than both Ge'ez script and language(i.e. if the earliest forms of Ge'ez aren't contemporary or nearly comtemporary with SA), then Ge'ez almost certainly derived from Sabaean (as I believe it probably did right now), but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

See my notes earlier about your question of my citation of S. Munro-Hay on the "ESA", citing the word "D'MT".



quote:
Yom:

Unfortunately, Alexander Sima (as well as Stuart Munro-Hay) has passed away recently, so I can't email him as to his sources, but the Literature he cites at the end of the article is as follows:

Francis Anfray, Les anciens Éthiopiens. Sičcles d'histoire, Paris 1990, 60f.;
Gianfrancesco Lusini "A proposito delle iscrizioni sudarabiche d'Etiopia," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 17, 200, 95-113, here 99f.;
David W. Phillopson, Ancient Ethiopia. Aksum: its antecdents and Successors, London 1998, 45-8.

And...?


quote:
Yom:

You don't have to address it, but it's critical to the debate.

You bet ya I don't; it has no relevance to what I had posted. You questioned where I had got my information from, and I gave it to you. Request fulfilled.

quote:
Yom:

As stated by Munro-Hay, "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." So, a discussion of the chronology (as you have asked of me of D`mt, which I wish I could provide more info for) would be helpful.

The only chronology relevant to me, is one that compares the seemingly 'common' cultural traits, so as to discern their origins; whether in situ in the African Horn, or South Arabia.


quote:
Yom:
Epigraphic South Arabian = ESA. Its independent development is a possibility until it's cleared up what exactly is meant by "Ge'ez graffiti."

I retain the stance on the idea that "Ethiopic" had been strongly influenced, if not derived, from South Arabian script, pending substantiation to the contrary.


quote:
Yom:

As I said above, it probably was, but the date of the first inscription using the Ge'ez alphabet needs to be determined to say so definitively. As you can see by the citations I gave regarding interdentals above, however, the existence of these interdentals during the early period of D`mt means that ESA need not have been a South Arabian creation based on language but could have been a shared alphabet inherited from an even earlier, yet not found, South Semitic successor, as ESA certainly didn't derive directly from Proto-Sinaitic.

What you haven't shown, is anything that contradicts Daniel's point about early Ethiopic script, having derived from "South Arabian", regardless of whether these "south Arabians" called themselves "Sabeans" or not, at the time of the introduction of the script in the African Horn.


quote:
Yom:

Obviously both were written in ESA. I have never denied that. The "pure" Sabaean (it's Sabaean by the way, from the root shin-bet-alif; Sabeans or Sabians are a different people from the Qur'an spelled with a Tsadey) referred to by Stuart Munro-Hay is clearly referring to the language, not inscriptions, though. The D`mt inscriptions were all written in a form of Epigraphic South Arabian as far as I can tell, though. Note that the name of the script is properly ESA as it was used also by the Himyarites, Qatabans, and Minaeans, all of whom probably had their own variations (I'm aware of a few for some of the letters, though I don't know to which civilization the variant belongs).

If you weren't denying that both were in "south Arabian" [Since Sabean script was basically "south Arabian"], then what is the whole point of repeating everything I had just pointed out to you time and again; for instance, about the "two" languages that were written in "Sabean"/"South Arabian" alphabets, hence the use of the term "pure"?


quote:
Yom:

I'm not denying that there were any Sabaean influences, but they have always been overemphasized and exaggerated by past (and still some contemporary) historians. Moreover, these influences are not even necessarily Sabaean in origin. Connections and cultural exchanges between Ethiopia and Yemen have existed long before the Sabaeans. Some of the so-called influences (e.g. stone-working, agriculture, the plough) were certainly extant in Ethiopia before Sabaean influences, and other influences, like certain god-cults (e.g. Dhat Ba`adan or Dhat Himyam) weren't very long-lasting.

Then why are we having this conversation, if you are not indeed denying "Sabean influences". Nobody here, has "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influence. Hence, unless you indicate otherwise, I would say that your argument has been a red herring all this time.



quote:
Yom:

Until evidence is shown to the contrary, should not a civilization be assumed to be the result of indigenous peoples?

What has Sabean "Colonialists" have anything to do with "origins" of a cultural complex? The Romans invaded Egypt; does this mean that there were no cultural complexes in Egypt prior to the Roman's doing so? So I'm not sure why you are equating "colonialists" with "originators".


quote:
Yom:
"Colonialists" as in founders of a new civilization. The above quotation does not support the idea of colonists (though he notes it is still supported by Michels).

The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists":

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed.



quote:
Yom:

The Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. It is not the same as the Sabaean complex as far as I know, though I'm sure there was exchange between the two complexes due to their geographic proximity (the Tihama is right next to the kingdom of Saba')

To save myself from needless repetitions, let me put it simply: Do you believe the said complex, extended into South Arabia? If so, then are you not claiming that the South Arabian complex is "Ethiopian" in origin, by claiming that "Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin"? I hope that question is straightforward enough.


quote:
Yom:
The affirm that Sabaean presence was short-lived and limited to certain localities, though the D`mt civilization was widespread.

We knew this; it has be posted by myself countless times now. Now what about it?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] The origin of the Semitic speakers is very important. The archaeological and textual evidence make it clear that Mesopotamia was the not homeland of the Semitic speakers. This evidence make it clear that the first settlers of this area spoke Sumerian and Ubadian, not Semitic.

I'm not informed enough about this to make an educated comment, but Mesopotamia does contain the earliest known examples of Semitic writing, though this is not in itself enough to say that Semitic languages evolved there.

quote:
The first Semites to leave textual evidence are the Akkadians. The Akkadians and the Ethio-Semitic languages have shared archaism. This feature indicates the ancient morphology and grammar of a Semitic language. We can infer that if this was the norm for the most ancient form of Semitic, other Semitic languages possessing this character probably are closely related to the original spoken/written Semitic language. We can further infer that since Ethio-Semitic, possesses these linguistic characteristics, and other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Arabic do not, the later languages must be relatively young in age.
Shared archaisms show that Ethio-Semitic is closer to proto-semitic in some instances, but not a closeness to Akkadian. Language groupings are determined by shared innovations, not shared archaisms. There exist also a number of proto-A-A features in Ethio-semitic not found in other semitic languages and some features previously thought to be due to Agaw influence but found in Modern South Arabian as well. The Urheimat of Afrasan in the Eastern Sahara or Ethiopia is also a large piece of evidence for the hypothesis of an Ethiopian origin for Semitic languages. There are 6 or 7 branches of A-A: Semitic, Cushitic, Berber, Omotic, Chadic, Egyptian, and Beja, though Beja is sometimes classified into Cushitic. 4 of those are found in Ethiopia (Beja only very marginally, but solidly if you include Eritrea which has historically been part of Ethiopia). Also, Ongota, tentatively classified as Omotic may actually form an independent branch of Afro-Asiatic, bringing the number to 5.

quote:
In your post you claim that Ethio-Semitic is a young language. This is false, as indicated by archaic linguistic features Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic share.
It depends on what you call "young." Ge'ez is much older than English and French, but Akkadian predates Ge'ez by a millenium or more.

quote:
The historical evidence support an old presence of Ethio-Semitic in Africa. For example, the Axumite Empire was founded by the Habashan. the habashan are mentioned in a 3rd or 4th century Himyarite inscription from South Arabia, which refers to an alliance between Gadarat King of the Habashan or Habashat.
It's 3rd c., ca. 200 AD.

quote:
Some of the people of Punt were probably Tigrinya speakers, who call their language habesha, i.e., Abyssinian par excellence. The term Habesh, seems to represent an old name for Abyssinia and may be connected with the Amharic word washa 'cave or cavern', and may refer to the" cave dwellers" who once served as the principal traders along the Ethiopian coast. The ability of the Ethiopians as sailors, is supported by the title bahr nagash, "ruler of the maritime province" or Eritrea.
Tigrinya didn't exist back then. Any language before the first millenium BC would have been proto-Ethiosemitic, proto-Ethiopic, proto-Ge'ez or something similarly named. Where do you get the name "habesha" for the name of a language from? The term in Tigrinya and Amharic is -inya, while the term in Ge'ez is -yist. or -wist. (emphatic t.). I doubt Habesha is etymologically connected to "washa," though the linguistic patterns for such a shift do exist (loss of h sound, e.g. Haddis -> Addis, and b->w, e.g. Ge'ez Sab'a 'person' -> Old Amh. 'seb' -> Modern Amh. 'sew'). The "cave dwellers" wouldn't make sense for this etymology if you are connecting it to the coast, however, as the mountains are several tens of miles inland (though the tradition of "cave-dwelling" exists for monks and formerly for some peoples in Gurage-land. The control of a coastal province doesn't show significant naval skill. A couple good examples would be the repel of an Egyptian attack on Adulis in 640 and the sacking of Jeddah in 702.

quote:
In addition, some of the earliest Sabean/Thamudic inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia, and not South Arabia. For example, Dr. Doresse has found Sabean cursive writing on a sceptre that indicates that the Habashat/Axumite empire had writing.
True on the first. The second was not Sabaean cursive but a Ge'ez script and Ge'ez language inscription of king "GDR" of Aksum. I don't see why Aksum having a writing system is all that surprising. We've been talking about writing systems in Ethiopia that predate Aksum by 1000 years for this whole thread.

quote:
These Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions of the 18th Dynasty (1709-1320) in connection to the land of Punt. ]Given the Egyptian association of the Habashan with Punt, I call the speakers of the Ethio-Semitic languages: Puntites.
I believe it was actually during Hatshepsut's expedition, but see my comments at the "Land of Punt:Ethiopia" thread:

quote:
Yom:
I've heard of this before. Walter W. Muller disagrees, with reason, I believe.

quote:
Since the time of Eduard Glaser, it has been repeatedly claimed that the hieroglyphic egyptian ḫbstjw, indicating a foreign people from incense-producing regions, is connected with the Ḥabašāt. The name ḫbstjw is first recorded in the Punt inscriptions of Queen Hatshepsut, ca. 1460 B.C. With regard to the enormous temporal difference of a millenium or more, it is hardly acceptable that the Ḥabašāt have anything in common with this mythical people from a southern region.
Note that the first letter of the Egyptian name is "ḫ" (transliterated sometimes as "kh" or "ch" like in "Channukah"), while the first letter in the Ethiopian one is "ḥ" (i.e. a pharyngeal h like that in Ahmad and Muhammad). Plus, the first known use of Ḥabašāt is ca. 200 AD, much later than Hatshepsut. An inscription with something similar to Ge`ez or Ag`azi might be relevant however, as it's attested to 700 B.C. Whose first use was the form YGʿḎYN in the royal inscriptions of Dʿmt (in the form, "{{KINGNAME}}, the victorious king, he of [the tribe] YGʿḎ," etc.

Note that ḏ is pronounced like "th" in "the" (but not like "th" in "thing") and merged into "z" in Ge'ez (incidentally, the letter for "Z" in Ge'ez is the same as the letter for ḏ in Sabaean, but distinct from the Sabaean letter for "z").

quote:
We have Egyptian evidence of trade missions to Punt as early as PepiII in 2400 BC and Mentuholep IV and IV. The vizier Amenemhat, of Mentuholep IV is said to have established a port near Safaga. the most famous mission to Punt was sent by Queen Hatshepsut, and is recorded at deir el Bahri. Since the Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian documents they were in existence long before the Arabic speakers.
True on everything but the last sentence; see above.

quote:
The evidence of shared archaism for Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic indicate that the speakers of these languages probably shared many linguistic features when they separated. It also suggest that thespeakers of these languages probably separated in Africa, since the Ethio-Semitic speakers have long been established in their present home, as supported by the Egyptian inscriptions. The Ethio-Semitic speakers have maintained these features due to the relative stability of these languages. You can find out more about the stability of African languages in my article "Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), (1996) 34-52. We must conclude that the Semitic languages originated in Africa.
See my earlier comments. Also, note that an ethnic name doesn't necessarily denote the language spoken unless the name comes from a specific language, and may even then be misleading
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supercar, the proto-Canaanite vs. proto-Sinaitic discussion is for the other thread. And, for what it's worth, I don't even think that discussion really matters as it's simply a semantic argument, whether someone chooses to separate the two or consider the latter just a form of the earlier.

quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:
Then, not knowing this, how can you claim that the Sabeans could not have left a 'genetic impact' on the locals?

Based on a few genetic studies I've read and the shortness of their historical presence, according to Munro-Hay.


quote:
The misunderstanding was apparently on your end, since I was fully aware that "proto-Sinaitic" could not have been the "intermediary" script.
I admitted the misunderstanding was mine. It never involved saying that proto-Sinaitic was an intermediary script, however.


quote:
I haven't read the said literature, and if you have, then please share with us the matter in question. I however, came to the conclusion that he was referring to "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, because that is the script with which the name "D'MT" was located, unless you know of the said Ge'ez script different from "ESA", that mentions "D'MT". This from Munro-Hay, assisted me in coming to that conclusion:

"The inscriptions of mukarribs of D`MT and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and **Drewes**1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93).

I would imagine that since, by the time Stuart Munro-Hay wrote this piece, he was fully aware of the 1962 Drewes publication, and hence, would have taken it into consideration. There you have it; that is how I made the extrapolation - I don't just blindly read things, I try to understand them - wrongly or rightly so. [Wink]

I have not read the publication, or else I would know whether the inscriptions found were in Ge'ez script or Sabaean sript. All of the inscriptions mentioning D`mt (10 in all) are in ESA, but not all of the inscriptions from that period mention D`mt. Note that the Pankhurst article doesn't make a reference to D`mt or the inscriptions found by AJ Drewes mentioning D`mt. Also notice that Munro-Hay cites AJ Drewes 1955 work, not 1962. He probably would have been aware of it, but as his work on pre-aksumite times is "not of major concern" to the whole book, we can't assume that he explained all facets of the discussion.


quote:
What about potential connections between Sabean and earlier Arabian scripts? I have come across claims about earlier Arabian scripts, from which old north Arabian and south Arabian scripts derived from. I'll see if I can get a hold of good links from the web.
Links would be good. I'm pretty certain that ESA is a separate development from proto-Sinaitic, unlike the Arabian scripts which are derived from North Semitic scripts like Canaanite. Nabatean, for instance, is from Aramaic, and north Arabian Thamudic is derived from South Arabian.

quote:
And...?
You asked for sources for the chronology. I assume Sima's chronology is somehow supported by those sources.


quote:
You bet ya I don't; it has no relevance to what I had posted. You questioned where I had got my information from, and I gave it to you. Request fulfilled.
You fullfilled the request, but the issue of dating is central to this argument, and the dating of South Arabian civilizations and D`mt are both linked to a degree, I believe. Sabaean chronology is also linked to Assyrian references to a Karibal Watar, I believe.

quote:
The only chronology relevant to me, is one that compares the seemingly 'common' cultural traits, so as to discern their origins; whether in situ in the African Horn, or South Arabia.
All of the chronologies are linked and therefore all of importance in the discussion and origins of certain traits and influences.


quote:
I retain the stance on the idea that "Ethiopic" had been strongly influenced, if not derived, from South Arabian script, pending substantiation to the contrary.
That's probably the case, but depends on the dating of the earliest Ge'ez scripts. They are obviously closely related, though.


quote:
What you haven't shown, is anything that contradicts Daniel's point about early Ethiopic script, having derived from "South Arabian", regardless of whether these "south Arabians" called themselves "Sabeans" or not, at the time of the introduction of the script in the African Horn.
My point with interdentals wasn't to show that Ge'ez pre-dated ESA, but that the loss of linguistic features cannot be used to say that South Semitic scripts are South Arabian in origin.


quote:
If you weren't denying that both were in "south Arabian" [Since Sabean script was basically "south Arabian"], then what is the whole point of repeating everything I had just pointed out to you time and again; for instance, about the "two" languages that were written in "Sabean"/"South Arabian" alphabets, hence the use of the term "pure"?
I don't understand what relevance this has, as the D`mt script was obviously in ESA. I have never denied this or proposed otherwise. I was quoting because of a discussion over linguistic features at first, and then because you somehow thought "pure" referred to the script. The script is without a doubt ESA, and the language is an Ethiopian language on the royal inscriptions (and probably some non-royal ones), while it is "pure Sabaean" on some others.


quote:
Then why are we having this conversation, if you are not indeed denying "Sabean influences". Nobody here, has "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influence. Hence, unless you indicate otherwise, I would say that your argument has been a red herring all this time.
I didn't begin this conversation unilaterally. It requires by definition two participants. Don't call my argument a red herring without substantiating your claims. What have I said irrelevant to this discussion (and not recognized by me as a misunderstanding) to further a point?



quote:
What has Sabean "Colonialists" have anything to do with "origins" of a cultural complex? The Romans invaded Egypt; does this mean that there were no cultural complexes in Egypt prior to the Roman's doing so? So I'm not sure why you are equating "colonialists" with "originators".
The traditional argument has included the meaning of "originators" within the term "colonist."


quote:
The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists":

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed.

Of course I understand the context, don't belittle others. "Trading colonists" is not the same thing as a generic "colonist" or "colonizer," which is what I'm arguing against.


quote:
To save myself from needless repetitions, let me put it simply: Do you believe the said complex, extended into South Arabia? If so, then are you not claiming that the South Arabian complex is "Ethiopian" in origin, by claiming that "Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin"? I hope that question is straightforward enough.
Yes, the Tihama complex extended into South Arabia, and yes the South Arabian Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. Its relations to Sabaeans is not yet known, as far as I can tell.


quote:
We knew this; it has be posted by myself countless times now. Now what about it?
It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
Supercar, the proto-Canaanite vs. proto-Sinaitic discussion is for the other thread. And, for what it's worth, I don't even think that discussion really matters as it's simply a semantic argument, whether someone chooses to separate the two or consider the latter just a form of the earlier.

You brought up, again!

quote:
Yom:
Based on a few genetic studies I've read and the shortness of their historical presence, according to Munro-Hay.

Which "few" genetic studies? Did these studies not mention lineages like "J", for instance? If so, what does the presence of "J" lineages mean to you?

quote:
Yom:
I admitted the misunderstanding was mine. It never involved saying that proto-Sinaitic was an intermediary script, however.

You can attribute that to your lack of paying attention to what is being stated.

quote:
Yom:

I have not read the publication, or else I would know whether the inscriptions found were in Ge'ez script or Sabaean sript. All of the inscriptions mentioning D`mt (10 in all) are in ESA, but not all of the inscriptions from that period mention D`mt. Note that the Pankhurst article doesn't make a reference to D`mt or the inscriptions found by AJ Drewes mentioning D`mt. Also notice that Munro-Hay cites AJ Drewes 1955 work, not 1962. He probably would have been aware of it, but as his work on pre-aksumite times is "not of major concern" to the whole book, we can't assume that he explained all facets of the discussion.

I am not concerned about what "Punkhurst" article doesn't make reference to, but what you can prove, by showing that the said "Ge'ez" was not "ESA" that so many scholars on the Pre-Aksumite complex have mentioned. Where is it? I mean we are talking about a finding that was published in a 1962 publication.

Secondly, the latter highlighted statement is nonsensical; how can Munro-Hay NOT mentioned this "significant" piece of information in the a section where he, himself, talks about the need to see more archeological findings, to learn more about this period?

Plus, I know he was aware of the publication, because he even mentioned it:


Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; **Drewes 1962**: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. - Munro-Hay

I thought you might question his awareness of the 1962 publication, which frankly, I see as an insult to Mr. Munro-Hays work on this subject.

So, if you are claiming that what Drewes found, was not Epigraphic South Arabian, then the burden is on you to show such. Surely, a finding that dates back to 1962, and particularly significant to learning about Pre-Aksumite, should be easily accessible among the scholars who have focused on Pre-Askumite study.


quote:
Yom:
Links would be good. I'm pretty certain that ESA is a separate development from proto-Sinaitic, unlike the Arabian scripts which are derived from North Semitic scripts like Canaanite. Nabatean, for instance, is from Aramaic, and north Arabian Thamudic is derived from South Arabian.

"ESA" is Arabian script! So, I am not sure where you are going with that claim, as highlighted above. And again, Arabian scripts diverged from Proto-Canaanite, which is basically the same thing, from what I can tell, as "proto-Sinaitic".

http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/alpha-map.gif

quote:
Yom:

You asked for sources for the chronology. I assume Sima's chronology is somehow supported by those sources.

That doesn't answer my question, which was:

On what "evidence" do you base your dating of "D'MT" on, since the inscriptions that do mention the term, have been dated to about 5th century B.C.? How does a brief bibliography answer that question?

quote:
Yom:
You fullfilled the request,

Good. Hence, you don't need to keep ranting about how I haven't provided the "chronology of south Arabia", which has no relevance to the post in question.

quote:
Yom:
but the issue of dating is central to this argument, and the dating of South Arabian civilizations and D`mt are both linked to a degree, I believe. Sabaean chronology is also linked to Assyrian references to a Karibal Watar, I believe.

Like a broken record, I'll say this again: only relevant if it can shed light on the origins of seemingly "common" traits of Pre-Aksumite and South Arabian complexes. Beyond that, feel free to show the said "chronology" at your own discretion. It isn't my obligation.

quote:
Yom:
All of the chronologies are linked and therefore all of importance in the discussion and origins of certain traits and influences.

To you, perhaps, but not to me. See post right above.

quote:
Yom:

That's probably the case, but depends on the dating of the earliest Ge'ez scripts. They are obviously closely related, though.

...scripts which, burden of showing us, lies squarely on you, as I haven't found any so-called "earliest" Ge'ez script that is different from "Epigraphic South Arabian" script.

quote:
Yom:

My point with interdentals wasn't to show that Ge'ez pre-dated ESA, but that the loss of linguistic features cannot be used to say that South Semitic scripts are South Arabian in origin.

Well, Daniels point was to show that early Ethiopic script derived from South Arabian script [and not vice versa]; do you disagree with this? If so, you haven't yet refuted that position.

Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes. As Daniel points out:

"...he [Ayele] claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation;

it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the **homophonous letters** could have been consistently assigned to the **etymologically appropriate** sounds.
- P. T. Daniels

Hence, letters have been retained in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been?



quote:
Yom:

I don't understand what relevance this has,

Can't help you with language barrier problems on your end, since that is the only way for you not to understand something that has been repeatedly relayed to you.

quote:
Yom:
as the D`mt script was obviously in ESA. I have never denied this or proposed otherwise. I was quoting because of a discussion over linguistic features at first, and then because you somehow thought "pure" referred to the script.

See post above. You have apparently not understood my post.

quote:
Yom:
I didn't begin this conversation unilaterally. It requires by definition two participants.

I don't know what that has to do with the point I made, which was that, if you are in fact not denying "Sabean" influences, then what are you arguing about, since nobody here "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influences?

quote:
Yom:
Don't call my argument a red herring without substantiating your claims. What have I said irrelevant to this discussion (and not recognized by me as a misunderstanding) to further a point?

If you can answer the question I just posed above, maybe you'll see why I said your argument could boil down to a red herring. [Wink]

quote:
Yom:
The traditional argument has included the meaning of "originators" within the term "colonist."

Okay. What bearings does that have on the notion of Sabean "colonists" in Pre-Aksum?

quote:
Yom:

quote:
The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists":

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed.

Of course I understand the context, don't belittle others. "Trading colonists" is not the same thing as a generic "colonist" or "colonizer," which is what I'm arguing against.
You belittled yourself, when you inadequately interpreted the citation, when I first posted it, as you have done again. You chose to see "Trading" and ignore "Military" colonists in the above citation. Again, even at this point, I'm not sure you fully understood the earlier highlighted piece.

quote:
Yom:

Yes, the Tihama complex extended into South Arabia, and yes the South Arabian Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. Its relations to Sabaeans is not yet known, as far as I can tell.

Hmmm. I'll have to look into the said "complex" in South Arabia, originating in "Ethiopia". What set of parameters are you basing this claim on? It would seem that you are quick to attribute an Arabian complex to African origins, but not vice versa.

quote:
Yom:
It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.

...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:
Yom:
It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.

...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?
Even from another 'strong' advocate of in situ developments of Pre-Aksumite cultural complexes in the African Horn, we have:


During the first millennium BC, a state with Sabean characteristics appeared on the plateau in Tigray and Eritrea. It is archaeologically identified by the so-called pre-Aksumite culture (c. 1000/900 BC - 100 BC/AD 100). This state is recorded in the inscriptions with the name of ‘Kingdom of Da’amat’. It most likely relied on the ‘plough and cereal complex’. The ruins of a stone dam, possibly going back to this period, at Safra in the Kohaito region (central Eritrea) suggest that artificial irrigation also was practiced (Anfray 1967; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1977a; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; de Contenson 1981; Fattovich 1988; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c). On linguistic, epigraphic and monumental evidence, the origins of this state have been usually ascribed to a south Arabian - more specifically Sabean - colonization of the plateau in the first half of the first millennuim BC (see Conti Rossini 1928; von Wissmann 1975; Ricci 1984). At present, it seems that the kingdom originated from the contacts between an indigenous chiefdom and the southern Arabians, who deeply affected the local cultural pattern (Drewes 1962; Anfray 1968; Schneider 1976; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). - Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, 2002.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The missing pieces in the Pre-Aksumite "Dark ages" may bear some answers to Aksumite legends:


"Aksumite origins are still uncertain, but a strong South Arabian (Sabaean) influence in architecture, religion, and cultural features can be detected in the pre-Aksumite period from about the fifth century BC, and it is clear that contacts across the Red Sea were at one time very close (Ch. 4: 1). A kingdom called D`MT (perhaps to be read Da`mot or Di`amat) is attested in Ethiopian inscriptions at this early date, and, though the period between this and the development of Aksum around the beginning of the Christian era is an Ethiopian `Dark Age' for us at present, it may be surmised that the D`MT monarchy and its successors, and other Ethiopian chiefdoms, continued something of the same *`Ethio-Sabaean'* civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum.

"A certain linguistic and religious continuity may be observed between the two periods, though many features of Aksumite civilisation **differ considerably** from the earlier material." - S. Munro-Hay


The "Dark age" here is of note, as is the "beginning of the Christian era"! Is that a coincidence or what? Perhaps, it was this transitional and mysterious period, that has facilitated the later Aksumite elites and Christian priets to tie their country's history to Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, and hence, the sustainance of this interpretation through to the last Ethiopian monarchy, Haile Selassie.

More on the "Dark Age"...

"At the moment, however, the early history of Aksum is almost unknown and there is little evidence available relating to the formation of the Aksumite state." - S. Munro-Hay


"In the present state of our knowledge, it is unclear how much of Aksumite civilisation was a direct continuation of a cultural heritage from pre-Aksumite times, or how much any South Arabian aspects might be better attributed to a renewal of overseas contacts in the period after the consolidation of Aksum as an independent polity in the first and second centuries AD. No clear evidence of connexions between the pre-Aksumite, Sabaean-influenced, period, and the earliest Aksumite period is at the moment available, though it seems intrinsically more likely that Aksum in some way was able to draw directly on part of the experience of its predecessors. At Matara, the archaeological evidence implies that there was a clear break between the two periods (Anfray and Annequin 1965), but this need not have been the case everywhere in the country. The solution to these questions can only await further clarification from archaeology. " - S. Munro-Hay

And now according to the Ethiopian legend...

"The origins of these legends hark back to some unknown time after the conversion of the kingdom to Christianity in the reign of king Ezana of Aksum in the fourth century AD, or in some cases perhaps to an even earlier period when some Jewish traditions had entered the country.


Such legends had their political use in providing pedigrees for national institutions. It was believed in later times that the state offices from the king downwards were descended from the company which had brought the Ark to Aksum from Jerusalem (Budge 1922: 61). Doubtless the Christian priests, searching for a longer pedigree for their religion to impress pagans and unbelievers, would have been interested in developing these tales which connected Ethiopia with Solomon and Sheba.

The Ethiopian kings themselves, anxious to acquire the prestige of ancient and venerable dynastic ancestors, could scarcely have hoped for a more august couple as their reputed progenitors. Even in the official Ethiopian Constitution, up to the time of the end of the reign of emperor Haile Selassie, the dynasty was held to have descended directly from Solomon and the queen of Sheba through their **mythical** son, the emperor Menelik I.

The real events in Ethiopia's history before the present two millenia are lost in the mists of antiquity, but valiant attempts were made by Ethiopian chroniclers to fill in the immense gap between the reign of Menelik I and the time of the kings of Aksum. The king lists they developed (all those now surviving are of comparatively recent date), name a long line of rulers, covering the whole span from Menelik through the Aksumite period and on to the later Zagwé and `Solomonic' dynasties (Conti Rossini 1909). There is little point in reciting the majority of these names, but some of the most important of the reputed successors of Menelik I are worth noting for their importance in Ethiopian tradition." - S. Munro-Hay


Menelik I, Lengend says of him...

"Tradition says that he was the son of king Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba conceived during the queen's famous visit to Jerusalem. Although no information survives in the legends about the ancient Aksumite rulers who really built the palaces and erected the giant stone obelisks or stelae which still stand in several places around the town, these monuments are locally attributed in many instances to Menelik or to Makeda, the queen of Sheba or queen of Azab (the South). Such legends are still a living force at Aksum today; for example, the mansion recently excavated in the district of Dungur, west of Aksum, has immediately been absorbed into local legends as the `palace of the queen of Sheba' (Chittick 1974: 192, n. 28)." - Stuart Munro-Hay

It would appear that, what we are witnessing here, in terms of a portion of Ethiopia's history prior to the formation of its new State, i.e., Aksum, is a transition from a mythological period to the historical period of Aksum, as exemplified by the King list personalities. Those "Dark Ages" may harbor some answers to this development. Note that I've used the term "a portion", since we are aware of the precursors of Aksum, not to mention its relatively more immediate precursor of the centralized polity of Da'amat (D`MT).

Of note:

It may well be these legends linking Ethiopian elites with Isrealite ruling elites that Jacqueline Pirenne was trying to reconcile with her findings in the theorey she had formulated back in 1987, as per Stuart Munro-Hay:


Jacqueline Pirenne's most recent (1987) proposal results in a radically different view of the Ethiopian/South Arabian contacts. Weighing up the evidence from all sides, particularly aspects of material culture and linguistic/palaeographic information, she suggests that "il est donc vraisemblable que l'expansion ne s'est pas faite du Yémen vers l'Ethiopie, mais bien en sens inverse: de l'Ethiopie vers le Yémen".

According to this theory,


[1]one group of Sabaeans would have left north Arabia (where they were then established) for Ethiopia in about the eighth or seventh century BC under pressure from the Assyrians;

[*]they then continued on into south Arabia. A second wave of emigrants, in the sixth and fifth century, would reign over the kingdom of Da'amat (D`MT),


[*]and would have been accompanied by Hebrews fleeing after Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem; an explanation for the later Ethiopian traditions with their Jewish and Biblical flavour, and for the Falashas or black Jews of Ethiopia.

[*]These Sabaeans too, in their turn would have departed for the Yemen, taking there the writing and architecture which they had first perfected in Tigray.


[*] In the fourth and third century BC the remaining Sabaean emigrés would have left Ethiopia for the Yemen, leaving elements of their civilisation and traditions firmly embedded in the Ethiopian's way of life.

This ingenious mise en scčne, so far only briefly noted in a conference paper, must await complete publication before it can be fully discussed;

Source for the excerpt above: Stuart Munro-Hay

Discussion on the Legends of MÂKĔDÂ (Queen of Sheba), Solomon, and Menelik I:

http://phpbb-host.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=714&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&mforum=thenile

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Supercar: I don't have time to respond in full right now, but this is what I found as to the date of ESA.

According to Norbert Nebes:

quote:
The earliest Sabaic inscriptions appear some time in the 8th cent. B.C., while the first (longer) written documents in Sabaic that can be dated reliably on the basis of **synchrony** with *Assyrian sources** go back to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C.
This is again from Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, article "Epigraphic South Arabian" (I had assumed it was in a yet unpublished volume on inscriptions). It seems I was right regarding the chronology's relation to Assyrian sources.

He also notes:
quote:
The first Minaic inscriptions appear, even though in smaller numbers, of **the same time as the first Sabaic texts.
Update: apparently the article is just on the languages, so I can't add much more info from the article of use to us here.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^Datings are approximations, the aspects of which as I have mentioned before, many non-expert readers may be misled about, particularly pertaining to stone inscriptions, because stones themselves cannot be dated via methods like radio-carbon dating, and as such experts have to rely on a multitude of things, like organic matter on or around the stone, literature recorded in the past [as your source seems to be doing], patterns of writing, bio-anthropological data, and so forth. As such the dating of whether the inscriptions date back to 8th century Bc. or 7th/6th century, is somewhat rather trivial; the point being that, they fall within that vicinity. For example Fattovich dates the inscriptions to the 7th/6th century; among the phases of the pre-Aksumite complexes mentioned by Fattovich:


[1] The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 1000-800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existed (Schneider 1976), but no safe archeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the south Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5).


[2]The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600 - 300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphically evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia.

Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world. The nomads living in the Atbara and Gash alluvial plains were included in the area of Ethiopian influence (Fig. 6; Drewes 1962; de Contenson 1981; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c)." - Fattovich, 2002.


From Stuart Munro-Hay:

“This period is not of major concern to us here, and in any case we have very little information about it; but some consideration should be given to the situation in Ethiopia before the rise of Aksum, since the source of at least some of the characteristics of the later Aksumite civilisation can be traced to this earlier period. Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; Drewes 1962: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC— some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia…" - Stuart Munro-Hay


Of course, it is recognized above that African Horn-South Arabian contacts date back to at least first millenium B.C., but within the relatively recent context of Ethio-Sabean/South Arabian contacts in the said Pre-Aksumite complexes, it would appear some discoveries in Yemen point to a date stretching back to 8th century B.C. Looking at info immediately above, I assume that among those discoveries, were inscriptions found in Yemen, possibly the aforementioned Minean inscriptions. Again, this likely refers more to dialects, rather than the structure of the inscriptions themselves. The inscriptions in both Yemen and Ethiopia approximate each other, which can only be the product of the situation being, that it wasn't long after the scripts were developed, that they were used on either side of the Red Sea. The "D'MT" inscriptions themselves can be approximated to about 6th century or so. Anyway, not entirely inconsistent with Fattovich's deductions, again from Stuart Munro-Hay, who makes note of Fattovich's viewpoint on dating:


"The altars, inscriptions, stelae, temples, secular structures, tombs and other material left by the Sabaean-influenced Ethiopian population occur in considerable numbers even from the few excavated sites; those attributed to the Sabaeans themselves occur more rarely. The monuments are dated from the 5th century BC by study of the letter-forms used on them (palaeography), and seem to appear in Ethiopia at about the same time as they do in South Arabia (nb. the reservations about the dating expressed by Fattovich 1989)..." - Stuart Munro-Hay

One thing that needs to be understood, is that based off present info [pending any not brought to my attention], Aksumite is viewed as an separate complex from its predecessors, not of course without some ties. This is exemplified in Stuart Munro-Hay's notes, as I posted earlier on:

"No clear evidence of connexions between the pre-Aksumite, Sabaean-influenced, period, and the earliest Aksumite period is at the moment available, though it seems intrinsically more likely that Aksum in some way was able to draw directly on part of the experience of its predecessors.

At Matara, the archaeological evidence implies that there was a clear break between the two periods (Anfray and Annequin 1965), but this need not have been the case everywhere in the country. The solution to these questions can only await further clarification from archaeology. " - S. Munro-Hay

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great debate . Supercar can you give me the exact citation for Fattovich, 2002.

Thanks.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great debate . Supercar can you give me the exact citation for Fattovich, 2002.

Thanks.

.

Sure...

Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, 2002.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which "few" genetic studies? Did these studies not mention lineages like "J", for instance? If so, what does the presence of "J" lineages mean to you?
Again, I don't know enough about specific lineages and the like to comment. Bring it up in the Ethiopian population history thread.

quote:
I am not concerned about what "Punkhurst" article doesn't make reference to, but what you can prove, by showing that the said "Ge'ez" was not "ESA" that so many scholars on the Pre-Aksumite complex have mentioned. Where is it? I mean we are talking about a finding that was published in a 1962 publication.

Secondly, the latter highlighted statement is nonsensical; how can Munro-Hay NOT mentioned this "significant" piece of information in the a section where he, himself, talks about the need to see more archeological findings, to learn more about this period?

Plus, I know he was aware of the publication, because he even mentioned it:


Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; **Drewes 1962**: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. - Munro-Hay

I thought you might question his awareness of the 1962 publication, which frankly, I see as an insult to Mr. Munro-Hays work on this subject.

So, if you are claiming that what Drewes found, was not Epigraphic South Arabian, then the burden is on you to show such. Surely, a finding that dates back to 1962, and particularly significant to learning about Pre-Aksumite, should be easily accessible among the scholars who have focused on Pre-Askumite study.

What's your reason for insulting Dr. Pankhurst by calling him "Punkhurst?" He's a foremost scholar on Ethiopian history. Just because it's been out for 40 years does not mean that it's easily accessible. You obviously don't have access to it, so why would you assume I do? Dr. Munro-Hay's work is certainly pretty comprehensive, but it is not the end-all of pre-Aksumite studies. He is, after all, only human. Given that he has cited the paper, however, then Drewes findings are probably in the ESA alphabet, rather than Ge'ez.


quote:
"ESA" is Arabian script! So, I am not sure where you are going with that claim, as highlighted above. And again, Arabian scripts diverged from Proto-Canaanite, which is basically the same thing, from what I can tell, as "proto-Sinaitic".
http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/alpha-map.gif

Arabian in the sense that it has been found in the Arabian Peninsula. By "Arabian" scripts, however, I meant north Arabian, which are derived from Aramaic and Phoenician, as ESA is more specifically defined as a South Semitic script. For proto-Sinaitic vs. proto-Canaanite, take it to the other thread. That your map defines the predecessor of ESA as "proto-Arabic" (which is wrong anyway, since they spoke South Semitic languages, not Arabic or one of its predecessors) is an error and weird naming on their part.



quote:
That doesn't answer my question, which was:

On what "evidence" do you base your dating of "D'MT" on, since the inscriptions that do mention the term, have been dated to about 5th century B.C.? How does a brief bibliography answer that question?

See the next post, where I'll talk about chronology.

quote:
Like a broken record, I'll say this again: only relevant if it can shed light on the origins of seemingly "common" traits of Pre-Aksumite and South Arabian complexes. Beyond that, feel free to show the said "chronology" at your own discretion. It isn't my obligation.
It is relevant because it can shed some light on the whole issue. See my next post.

quote:
Well, Daniels point was to show that early Ethiopic script derived from South Arabian script [and not vice versa]; do you disagree with this? If so, you haven't yet refuted that position.
That the situation is not vice versa is certain. It's not certain that Ge'ez and ESA don't share a common ancestor from which Ge'ez lost some letters, but that this did not happen does seem to be the case.

quote:
Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes.

Hence, letters have been retained in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been?

(deleted long quotation) Of course the language has changed to lose interdentals. As I pointed out earlier, the existence or lack of interdentals is one of the methods used for dating and classifying pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I quote again A.J. Drewes and Roger Schneider's "Documents Épigraphiques de l'Éthiopie - 2" in Annales d'Éthiopie, Tome Huitičme, 1970, pps.59-61.

quote:
[29]`ṯtr : l'orthographe avec ṯ indique que le texte appartient au groupe I. [the orthography with ṯ indicates that the text belongs to group I.]

[32]La graphie a été rangée ŕ la fin de la période A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....
Pour la transcription 'i`gz avec z au lieu de ḏ, voir déjŕ Littmann, D.A.E., 27, commentaire, ainsi que les deux textes suivants, numéros 32 et 33. L'absence des interdentales dans le dialecte de l'inscription est confirmé par la graphie `str pour `ṯtr dans le texte II.
[The writing was arranged into the end of period A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....For the transcription 'i`gz with z instead of ḏ, see again Littman, D.A.E., 27, comentary, along with the two following texts, numbers 32 and 33. The absence of interdentals in the dialect of the inscription is confirmed by the graph `str instead of `ṯtr in text II.]

La transcription w`ztm avec z au lieu de ḏ est fondée sur le témoignage du texte parallčle suivant, no. 33, oů apparaît la graphie hḥdsw, avec s au lieu de ṯ. Il est tout ŕ fait improbable qu'une interdentale ait disparu et que l'autre se soit maintenue; voir déjŕ Littmann, commentaire de D.A.E. 27.[The transcription w`ztm with z instead of ḏ is founded on seeing the following parallel text, no. 33, where the graph hḥdsw appears, with s (i.e. Shin, which is either s or Sh) instead of ṯ. It's altogether improbable that one interdental disappeared while the other was kept. See again Littman, comentary of D.A.E. (Deutsch Aksum-Expedition) 27.

hḥdsw avec s au lieu de ṯ permet de ranger le texte dans les inscriptions du groupe II, de męme que le texte parallčle 32. [hḥdsw with s instead of ṯ allows us to arrange the text with the inscriptions of group II, the same as the parallel text 32.]

quote:
Can't help you with language barrier problems on your end, since that is the only way for you not to understand something that has been repeatedly relayed to you.
Again, be civil in discussion. Simply explain what it is that you are trying to point out. It's not that difficult.

quote:
I don't know what that has to do with the point I made, which was that, if you are in fact not denying "Sabean" influences, then what are you arguing about, since nobody here "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influences?
Explain exactly what you think Sabaean (again note the "a" after "Sab" before "-ean") influences are and we can determine whether or not this discussion is necessary.

quote:
Okay. What bearings does that have on the notion of Sabean "colonists" in Pre-Aksum?
The traditional argument supports the idea of Sabaean colonists founding and originating Ethiopian civilization, which is what is therefore repeated by some scholars, which is obviously not the case if you look at the evidence.

quote:
You belittled yourself, when you inadequately interpreted the citation, when I first posted it, as you have done again. You chose to see "Trading" and ignore "Military" colonists in the above citation. Again, even at this point, I'm not sure you fully understood the earlier highlighted piece.
Oh no, I read the word "military," however it's clearly explained just a little later in the sentence that it's significantly different from the traditional interpretation. If you read further in the same sentence ("[i]They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of **treaty-status**."), you'll see that his idea of "military colonists" is significantly different from that of Michels and the traditional interpretation. Unfortunately, Munro-Hay doesn't explain more what exactly he means by the term.

quote:
Hmmm. I'll have to look into the said "complex" in South Arabia, originating in "Ethiopia". What set of parameters are you basing this claim on? It would seem that you are quick to attribute an Arabian complex to African origins, but not vice versa.
My attribution is simply based on the sources given to me. I've only seen two: one is this pub-med genetic analysis on maternal gene flow into Yemen that's been seen on this board before, citing Fattovich (1997). The other is Fattovich's most recent publication on the Eritreo-Sudanese borderlands, which may be from 1997, I'm not sure. Here's the passage from his most recent one (if there's a 1997 one, I don't have access to it).

quote:
Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millenium BC (the 'Tihama Cultural Complex', c. 1500-1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea,Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq' in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and 'C-Group' of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the 'Gash Group' at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980).
quote:
...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?
That they're not as large as previously assumed.
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:
Again, I don't know enough about specific lineages and the like to comment. Bring it up in the Ethiopian population history thread.

It belongs in this thread as much as it belongs in the said topic, since you brought it up in the exchanges leading to this thread. Could it be, that you are admitting that your claim that Sabeans didn't have a "genetic" impact, was empty rhetoric?


quote:
Yom:

What's your reason for insulting Dr. Pankhurst by calling him "Punkhurst?" He's a foremost scholar on Ethiopian history.

Rather than rely on cowardly strawmen as a distraction, by relying on spelling mistakes and making them out to be something that they are evidently not, how about actually answering the mounting questions you continue to evade?

I suppose I can use your tactics and say that when you wrote...

Yom:

The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez.

See again here, by Richard Pankhrust: " It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia."


...by writing "Pankhrust", as opposed "Pankhurst", you were engaging in foul play. Lol.

quote:
Yom:

Just because it's been out for 40 years does not mean that it's easily accessible.

...to you perhaps, but the scholars we've quoted, have apparently had access to the said publication, and hence, would take note of anything considered "significant" therein. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, such a "significant" material would have made its way into future publications.

quote:
Yom:

You obviously don't have access to it, so why would you assume I do? Dr. Munro-Hay's work is certainly pretty comprehensive, but it is not the end-all of pre-Aksumite studies. He is, after all, only human.

I obviously don't, which is why the burden is on you to provide evidence on the idea that the so-called "Ge'ez" graffiti, is not the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script that every other publication has been talking about, including the most up-to-date ones. Your drivel about Munro-hay, is just a red-herring.

quote:
Yom:

Given that he has cited the paper, however, then Drewes findings are probably in the ESA alphabet, rather than Ge'ez.

By George, I think he is slowly but surely getting it.


quote:
Arabian in the sense that it has been found in the Arabian Peninsula. By "Arabian" scripts, however, I meant north Arabian, which are derived from Aramaic and Phoenician, as ESA is more specifically defined as a South Semitic script. For proto-Sinaitic vs. proto-Canaanite, take it to the other thread.
This north Arabian vs south Arabian thing, is nothing but a futile distractive antic, that will surely not get you anywhere. As for the highlighted piece, my advice to you then is, don't keep bringing it up.

quote:
Yom:

That your map defines the predecessor of ESA as "proto-Arabic" (which is wrong anyway, since they spoke South Semitic languages, not Arabic or one of its predecessors) is an error and weird naming on their part.

What is "weird" to you is of no concern to me, but what you can substantiate to the contrary. What do you call the predecessor of South Arabian script then? and Why so? How does that make your 'term' anymore valid than what was given in the link?




quote:
Yom:

It is relevant because it can shed some light on the whole issue. See my next post.

Well, if it is relevant to YOU, then hey, knock yourself out in producing the said info; just know that, it ain't my obligation.


quote:
Yom:
That the situation is not vice versa is certain. It's not certain that Ge'ez and ESA don't share a common ancestor from which Ge'ez lost some letters, but that this did not happen does seem to be the case.

The burden is on you, to show that "common ancestor", which would NOT be "Ge'ez", and hence, making your aforementioned claim of a "Ge'ez" graffiti bankrupt. Speaking of which:

quote:
Yom:

quote:
Supercar:

Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes.

Hence, letters have been retained in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been?

(deleted long quotation) Of course the language has changed to lose interdentals. As I pointed out earlier, the existence or lack of interdentals is one of the methods used for dating and classifying pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I quote again A.J. Drewes and Roger Schneider's "Documents Épigraphiques de l'Éthiopie - 2" in Annales d'Éthiopie, Tome Huitičme, 1970, pps.59-61...
You keep equating Daniels words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals". If the language has changed, then pray tell, what language would that have been, which would have been similar to south Arabian language? It certainly could not have been "Ge'ez" [as Daniels was pointing out], Amharic or any of the Semitic languages written in Amharic. The burden of evidence again, lies squarely on you.


quote:
Yom:
Again, be civil in discussion. Simply explain what it is that you are trying to point out. It's not that difficult.

Civility is a two way street; I am not sure when you'll understand that. I stand by my earlier point, that you didn't understand my post, and hence, "repetitively" misinterpreted it. I am not going to waste my time constantly reiterating the same point in multiple ways. It is clear and concise for the perceptive.


quote:
Yom:

Explain exactly what you think Sabaean (again note the "a" after "Sab" before "-ean") influences are and we can determine whether or not this discussion is necessary.

It has been briefly noted in my citations on Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Did you miss those?


quote:
Yom:

The traditional argument supports the idea of Sabaean colonists founding and originating Ethiopian civilization, which is what is therefore repeated by some scholars, which is obviously not the case if you look at the evidence.

Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?



quote:
Yom:

Oh no, I read the word "military," however it's clearly explained just a little later in the sentence that it's significantly different from the traditional interpretation.

Matter of fact, the term "Military" and "Trade" colonists was mentioned in the very same sentence. That you chose to focus on "trade" and ignore the "military" bit, is interesting.

quote:
Yom:
If you read further in the same sentence ("[i]They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of **treaty-status**."), you'll see that his idea of "military colonists" is significantly different from that of Michels and the traditional interpretation.

Apparently I've read the said piece, since I posted it. So asking me to read it, is just another distraction. One of the points of my posting the piece in the first place, was to make you see just how silly your fuss is about the term "colonists", and the other point was to make you see that, the notion of "colonialists", as "military" personnel, has not been proven, nor disproven.


quote:
Yom:
Unfortunately, Munro-Hay doesn't explain more what exactly he means by the term.

He doesn't have to explain further. It is clear and concise for those who understood the statement.

quote:
Yom:

My attribution is simply based on the sources given to me. I've only seen two: one is this pub-med genetic analysis on maternal gene flow into Yemen that's been seen on this board before, citing Fattovich (1997). The other is Fattovich's most recent publication on the Eritreo-Sudanese borderlands, which may be from 1997, I'm not sure. Here's the passage from his most recent one (if there's a 1997 one, I don't have access to it).

quote:
Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millenium BC (the 'Tihama Cultural Complex', c. 1500-1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea,Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq' in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and 'C-Group' of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the 'Gash Group' at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980).

Nothing therein justifies your claim about the Arabian "Tihama" complex being Ethiopian in origin. They talk about "influences", just as Sabean "influences" are talked about, with regards to the Pre-Aksumite complex. How does this equate to Ethiopian "origins"? Since you apparently dodged the question that was specifically asked, I'll hereby reiterate it:

What set of parameters are you basing this claim on?


quote:
Yom:
That they're not as large as previously assumed.

What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supercar
quote:


quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great debate . Supercar can you give me the exact citation for Fattovich, 2002.

Thanks.

.

Sure...

Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, 2002.


Thanks

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It belongs in this thread as much as it belongs in the said topic, since you brought it up in the exchanges leading to this thread. Could it be, that you are admitting that your claim that Sabeans didn't have a "genetic" impact, was empty rhetoric?
No, because if the Sabaeans had such a large genetic impact you would expect to see high levels of "caucasoid" lineages in Yemen and significantly less "caucasoid"-derived lineages in Ethiopia (unless you're proposing a nearly complete population replacement). The situation, however, is that the number of "caucasoid"-derived lineages in both areas are similar (with higher levels in Yemen, of course). See here for example.

Judging from your activities on this site, you seem to know much about genetic lineages, so please enlighten me regarding J lineages and the like.

quote:
Rather than rely on cowardly strawmen as a distraction, by relying on "typos" or spelling mistakes and making them out to be something that they are evidently not, how about actually answering the mounting questions you continue to evade?
"Cowardly strawmen?" Stop insulting me, this is supposed to be a friendly discussion. Do you or do you not want to have a friendly discussion? You can't blame me for thinking that you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "u" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard. Next time just say that it was a typo and move on; I'll take your word for it. I answered your question, you just chose not to quote it.

quote:
...to you perhaps, but the scholars we've quoted, have apparently had access to the said publication, and hence, would take note of anything considered "significant" therein. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, such a "significant" material would have made its way into future publications.
Yes, to me, of course. Munro-Hay had access to it as evidenced by his citing of the work elsewhere, as you pointed out.

quote:
I obviously don't, which is why the burden is on you to provide evidence on the idea that the so-called "Ge'ez" graffiti, is not the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script that every other publication has been talking about, including the most up-to-date ones. Your drivel about Munro-hay, is just a red-herring.
quote:
By George, I think he is slowly but surely getting it.
Again with the insults. I'm getting tired of your tirades and attempts to distract the issues with these. I answered your question, yet instead of simply quoting the relevant part, you break my response into four sections and attack irrelevant parts. I conceded the point to you, so what's the use in quoting the earlier parts of the same paragraph as if I was neglecting the point?


quote:
This north Arabian vs south Arabian thing, is nothing but a futile distractive antic, that will surely not get you anywhere.
Did your mother never teach you manners? I meant "north Arabian," so all you have to do is substitute "Arabian" in my comment to "north Arabian." Either way, you haven't provided any "Arabian" predecessor to the north Arabian and ESA scripts.

quote:
What is "weird" to you is of no concern to me, but what you can substantiate to the contrary. What do you call the predecessor of South Arabian script then? and Why so? How does that make your 'term' anymore valid than what was given in the link?
I call it South Semitic, as it is the predecessor of all alphabets used to write South Semitic languages. "Proto-Arabic" is invalid because Proto-south Semitic by definition cannot be proto-Arabic. Proto-Arabic would be the predecessors of the Arabic script, like Nabatean and Syriac (or perhaps another Aramaic derived alphabet). Forget the semantics, though. You said that you have come across claims of Arabian predecessors to both the north and the south scripts. I doubt their existence, however, but I'm willing to accept them if you can provide some reputable sources. Otherwise, there's still a gap between ESA and Wadi el Hol.


quote:
Well, if it is relevant to YOU, then hey, knock yourself out in producing the said info; just know that, it ain't my obligation.
There's no such thing as obligation in a discussion. Whether or not you want to find out what the situation is what the issue is. You don't seem to, however, since you're not interested in finding the info yourself (and as I noted in the above post, I'm going to post the info, my computer crashed as I was posting it, however). The info is key to the debate, however, as it seems to me that there's no reason in assuming (naming of scripts aside) why ESA need have developed in Yemen only, rather than being a shared innovation from an earlier proto-South Semitic alphabet predecessor, given that ESA has been dated (reliably, as I'll show in my next post), to the same era in Yemen as in Ethiopia/Eritrea.


quote:
The burden is on you, to show that "common ancestor", which would NOT be "Ge'ez", and hence, making your aforementioned claim of a "Ge'ez" graffiti bankrupt.
I never claimed to have evidence of a common ancestor or that such a relationship is certain. I maintain only that the possibility exists.

quote:
You keep equating Daniels words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals". If the language has changed, then pray tell, what language would that have been, which would have been similar to south Arabian language? It certainly could not have been "Ge'ez" [as Daniels was pointing out], Amharic or any of the Semitic languages written in Amharic. The burden of evidence again, lies squarely on you.
Okay, if you want to be specific, interdentals and ghayin. The three "s" sounds (s [s], š [ʃ], and ś [ɬ], the latter of which isn't really an s-sound) were maintained in Ge'ez, though s and š merged in the letter šin (representing both sounds, not a loss, however). You accuse me of creating Red Herrings, but what relevance do Amharic or the other Semitic languages have in this debate? Of course those inscriptions weren't in those languages, because they're all derivatives of Ge'ez or one of its dialects or sister languages. The presence of interdentals in itself does not make that language similar to South Arabian ones rather than more similar to Proto-Semitic (and therefore more similar to South Arabian languages due to their closeness to proto-Semitic in this regard). They undoubtedly were similar, though, because of their classification in the South Semitic branch. The language obviously doesn't have a name, and I already provided evidence of its existence twice, if you had been reading what I wrote. I didn't quote the comments of AJ Drewes and Roger Schneider regarding interdentals for nothing.


quote:
Civility is a two way street; I am not sure when you'll understand that. I stand by my earlier point, that you didn't understand my post, and hence, "repetitively" misinterpreted it. I am not going to waste my time constantly reiterating the same point in multiple ways. It is clear and concise for the perceptive.
So you assume. I have been civil up to now, but your arrogance and incivility is incorrigible, it seems.

quote:
It has been briefly noted in my citations on Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Did you miss those?
No, I read them, but you never separate between your views and those of Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Is your interpretation simply that of Munro-Hay?
quote:
Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?
I just answered that question.



quote:
Apparently I've read the said piece, since I posted it. So asking me to read it, is just another distraction.
It's a manner of speech. "If you read," as in, "note this part."

quote:
One of the points of my posting the piece in the first place, was to make you see just how silly your fuss is about the term "colonists", and the other point was to make you see that, the notion of "colonialists", whether as "traders" or "military" personnel, has not been proven, nor disproven.
It's all speculation, and since it has not been proven (the idea of Sabaean colonists), then you should revert to the inherent assumption, that the kingdom was home-grown. Just as you should assume, without proof otherwise, that Egyptian civilization was home-grown. Ockham's razor in action.


quote:
He doesn't have to explain further. It is clear and concise for those who understood the statement.
Not at all. There are multiple possibilities that he could be proposing. Granted, similar in nature, but different nonetheless.

quote:
Nothing therein justifies your claim about the Arabian "Tihama" complex being Ethiopian in origin. They talk about "influences", just as Sabean "influences" are talked about, with regards to the Pre-Aksumite complex. How does this equate to Ethiopian "origins"?
I cited Martin Richards et al, and this is what they said: "The Afro-Arabian Tihama cultural complex, for which an African origin seems most likely, arose in the mid-2nd millennium." Apparently the 1997 work is different from the Urban complex article (it is cited thus: Fattovich R (1997) The Near East and eastern Africa: their interaction. In: Vogel JO (ed) Encyclopedia of precolonial Africa. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, pp 479–484.) Unless by African, they mean an area other than N Ethiopia/Eritrea, then I stand by my statement. As I said, I am not positing the African origin myself, I'm simply repeating what I have read. I don't know what exactly the other Fattovich article says because I don't have access to it, but it must have something positing an African origin for the paper to say that an "African origin seems most likely."


quote:
What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?
It's relative, hence the "as large as previously assumed."
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is what I've been able to find out. First let me quote my earlier point about the dating.

quote:
The earliest Sabaic inscriptions appear some time in the 8th cent. B.C., while the first (longer) written documents in Sabaic that can be dated reliably on the basis of **synchrony** with *Assyrian sources** go back to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C. The first Minaic inscriptions appear, even though in smaller numbers, of **the same time as the first Sabaic texts.
The synchronicity refers to a 692 BC tribute paid by a certain Karibil to an Assyrian ruler named Sennacherib. During the Assyrian's predecessor's name, a certain Ita'amru is mentioned is mentioned as paying tribute, perhaps referring to a Sabaean mukarrib named Yitha'amar.

The D`mt mukarrib W`rn Hywt is a contemporary of a certain Karibil (not sure if "Watar" was mentioned), referring either to the above Karibil, or to a later 6th century one, and another synchronism occurs with the mention under LMN (3rd king after W`rn Hywt) of a Sabaean ruler named Sumhualay. My guess is that Sima has associated the D`mt king with the one mentioned in Assyrian sources, though I'm not sure of this. To further complicate matters, Nebes mentions D`mt as having ESA inscriptions in the early 7th c. BC (whereas Sima dated it to 8th c. and 7th c. BC).

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yom:

No, because if the Sabaeans had such a large genetic impact you would expect to see high levels of "caucasoid" lineages in Yemen and significantly less "caucasoid"-derived lineages in Ethiopia (unless you're proposing a nearly complete population replacement).

What would those "Caucasoid" lineages be; spell them out; would this include "J"? The "population replacement" that you keep referring to, has already been pointed out to you as not being the case. I can only say that its incorporation here, is yet another red herring.

quote:
Yom:

The situation, however, is that the number of "caucasoid"-derived lineages in both areas are similar (with higher levels in Yemen, of course). See here for example.

Judging from your activities on this site, you seem to know much about genetic lineages, so please enlighten me regarding J lineages and the like.

I would assume that you would have known these things, before claiming that Sabeans couldn't have had a "genetic impact" on the locals.



quote:
Yom:

"Cowardly strawmen?" Stop insulting me, this is supposed to be a friendly discussion. Do you or do you not want to have a friendly discussion?

How about not insulting me, by accusing me of slandering a scholar, simply because you happened to come across a spelling error. It is an eye for an eye scenario; you are "friendly", so will I.

quote:
Yom:

You can't blame me for thinking that you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "u" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard.

...just as you can't blame me for thinking you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "r" is nowhere near a "u" on the keyboard. Lol.

quote:
Yom:

Next time just say that it was a typo and move on; I'll take your word for it. I answered your question, you just chose not to quote it.

Next time, stop grasping at the straws of spelling errors, to set up ad hominem attacks. You haven't answered a number of questions. For instance, you haven't answered the genetic question, you haven't answered the request to produce the "Ge'ez" graffiti that you keep talking about, you haven't fulfilled the request for the "common ancestor" possibility that you keep referring to, you haven't adequately answered the question of what bearing you talk of "traditional invasion" theories on the use of the terms "Sabean colonists". These are just but examples.


quote:
Yom:

Again with the insults. I'm getting tired of your tirades and attempts to distract the issues with these.

Just as no one is fooled by your tirades and blatant attempts to distract from the issues; like the one above.

quote:
Yom:
I answered your question,

See post above.

quote:
Yom:
yet instead of simply quoting the relevant part, you break my response into four sections and attack irrelevant parts. I conceded the point to you, so what's the use in quoting the earlier parts of the same paragraph as if I was neglecting the point?

If you failed to see the relevance of breaking up your response, via the posts in reply to them, again that is a personal problem that you'd have to confront "personally". I can't help you in that department.


quote:
Yom:

Did your mother never teach you manners?

Yeap, but obviously your mama hasn't taught you manners. Your question itself is evidence enough.

quote:
Yom:
I meant "north Arabian," so all you have to do is substitute "Arabian" in my comment to "north Arabian." Either way, you haven't provided any "Arabian" predecessor to the north Arabian and ESA scripts.

It has been provided in the link, "proto-Arabic" script. That you don't like the term, is your problem alone. [Wink]


quote:
Yom:

I call it South Semitic, as it is the predecessor of all alphabets used to write South Semitic languages. "Proto-Arabic" is invalid because Proto-south Semitic by definition cannot be proto-Arabic. Proto-Arabic would be the predecessors of the Arabic script, like Nabatean and Syriac (or perhaps another Aramaic derived alphabet).

"Arabic" is indicative of something that originates in "Arabia". Your complaint that it cannot be "Proto-Arabic" without foundation.

quote:
Yom:
Forget the semantics, though.

I am glad that you are convinced that your attack on the idea of "Proto-Arabic" is semantics on your end, without material. You did so, because you don't like the "Arabic" part which would posit its origin in Arabia, specifically south Arabia.


quote:
Yom:

You said that you have come across claims of Arabian predecessors to both the north and the south scripts.

I will have to look into it, as I have said. I don't have any solid ideas on this yet.


quote:
Yom:

There's no such thing as obligation in a discussion. Whether or not you want to find out what the situation is what the issue is. You don't seem to, however, since you're not interested in finding the info yourself (and as I noted in the above post, I'm going to post the info, my computer crashed as I was posting it, however).

Good. Make it your obligation to produce the said info, and stop complaining about my not seeing the relevance of posting entire chronologies of "south Arabia".


quote:
Yom:

The info is key to the debate, however, as it seems to me that there's no reason in assuming (naming of scripts aside) why ESA need have developed in Yemen only, rather than being a shared innovation from an earlier proto-South Semitic alphabet predecessor, given that ESA has been dated (reliably, as I'll show in my next post), to the same era in Yemen as in Ethiopia/Eritrea.

As far as the south Arabian development of "[b]Sabean" or "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, as connoted by these terms, Daniels provides a good reason, and the other is that you had at least two languages in the Pre-Aksumite complex, among which "pure" Sabean was one, and another, an unidentified language, possibly a local language. In south Arabia, you didn't have the early "Sabean" script written in an local Pre-Aksumite language; at least not one brought to my attention, not to mention Kings using south Arabian terms for rulers or what have you.

quote:
Yom:
I never claimed to have evidence of a common ancestor or that such a relationship is certain. I maintain only that the possibility exists.

Which is where Daniels point comes in, that it is more likely that the script was developed for languages like the South Arabian ones, rather than Ge'ez.


quote:
Yom:
Okay, if you want to be specific, interdentals and ghayin. The three "s" sounds (s [s], š [ʃ], and ś [ɬ], the latter of which isn't really an s-sound) were maintained in Ge'ez, though s and š merged in the letter šin (representing both sounds, not a loss, however)....

You are still equating Daniels' words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals" and "ghayin", even in the face of the examples he provided:

"...it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (**laryngeals, sibilants**) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with..." - P.T. Daniels.


quote:
Yom:

You accuse me of creating Red Herrings, but what relevance do Amharic or the other Semitic languages have in this debate? Of course those inscriptions weren't in those languages, because they're all derivatives of Ge'ez or one of its dialects or sister languages.

I don't accuse you of 'creating red herrings'. That is what you do, and the post above, is one of them. The relevance of mentioning the other languages, can be seen in your own post, as highlighted. This is why the language around which the Epigraphic script was designed, was likely one similar to those spoke in South Arabian. That this potential language, even if local, doesn't help the "Ethiopian" context by being extinct, save for some influences in languages that lived longer.


quote:
Yom:

The presence of interdentals in itself does not make that language similar to South Arabian ones rather than more similar to Proto-Semitic (and therefore more similar to South Arabian languages due to their closeness to proto-Semitic in this regard).

You can talk about "proto-Semitic" all day; fact is you haven't produce any material on the the Ethiopian "language" with which the "Epigraphic script" could have been designed around. Whereas, it easy to see these scripts could have been designed around the languages spoken in South Arabian.


quote:
Yom:

I have been civil up to now, but your arrogance and incivility is incorrigible, it seems.

It is funny, I was just thinking the same about you. You keep solidifying that point, with rubbish like the above.


quote:
Yom:

No, I read them, but you never separate between your views and those of Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Is your interpretation simply that of Munro-Hay?

It is your responsibility to pay attention to the posts; I don't post them, because they look beautiful on the screen.


quote:
Yom:

quote:
Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?
I just answered that question.
In other words, your complaints about "Sabean colonists" have no logical foundation.


quote:
Yom:

It's all speculation, and since it has not been proven (the idea of Sabaean colonists), then you should revert to the inherent assumption, that the kingdom was home-grown. Just as you should assume, without proof otherwise, that Egyptian civilization was home-grown. Ockham's razor in action.

Well, the Pre-Aksumite complex may well be home-grown, a point which it looks like I have to reiterate you time and again, I don't see how that has any bearings on the possibility of "military" colonization or presence in the region. From Fattovich, 2002:

The late second and early first millennia BC were marked by the decline of Egyptian power, and the rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush in Nubia, and the kingdoms in southwest Arabia.. **Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians**, but it is possible , however, that the Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak under the control of the kingdom of Saba. At this time, the pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat was surely an important partner of Saba.

In the early first millennium BC, the South Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba.. That contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat.. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial center and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara.

In the late first millennium BC, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed. The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms,…

As such, who knows. The idea of "military" colonists has therefore not been proven, but hasn't been disproven. That's just the way they way it is, pending any new revelations via archeology.

quote:
Yom:

Not at all. There are multiple possibilities that he could be proposing. Granted, similar in nature, but different nonetheless.

Well, since you can't understand it, that is your problem; nobody else's.

quote:
Yom:
I cited Martin Richards et al, and this is what they said: "The Afro-Arabian Tihama cultural complex, for which an African origin seems most likely, arose in the mid-2nd millennium." Apparently the 1997 work is different from the Urban complex article (it is cited thus: Fattovich R (1997) The Near East and eastern Africa: their interaction. In: Vogel JO (ed) Encyclopedia of precolonial Africa. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, pp 479–484.) Unless by African, they mean an area other than N Ethiopia/Eritrea, then I stand by my statement. As I said, I am not positing the African origin myself, I'm simply repeating what I have read. I don't know what exactly the other Fattovich article says because I don't have access to it, but it must have something positing an African origin for the paper to say that an "African origin seems most likely."

I could "repeat" traditional claims of Pre-Aksumite complexes being "Sabean" in origin, but that won't do us any good. I need more than a mere claim that the Arabian "Tihama" complex is "Ethiopian" in origin. I need to first see those "parameters" I requested, which provide another example of unanswered requests, from which point, let the chips fall where they may.


quote:
Yom:

quote:
What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?
It's relative, hence the "as large as previously assumed."
Do you consider "Sabean" influences "significant", or not?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read the Fattowich article Fattowich web page

From reading the article fattowich gives a great discussion of the rise of urbanism in North Africa. He makes it clear that the Tihama pottery was related to the C-Group and Kerma people. This supports the movement of some of the groups into the Horn from this region.

In reading the article I found nothing proving that the Da'amat culture was founded by South Arabians. It would appear that Fattowich's insistence that the Sabaeans founded Da'amat is bsed purely on conjecture. And as I have noted in earlier post the earliest Sabaean inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia at Matara
[IMG]

http://www.shaebia.org/meterawriting.jpg

http://www.shaebia.org/meterawriting.jpg[/IMG]

The earliest Sabaen inscription found at Ma'rib is hundreds of years later:
[IMG]
http://nabataea.net/Yemen49.jpg

[/IMG]

Let's not forget that Ethiopia has a long history of civilizations and Empires beginning with Punt they also had a highly devloped system of government led by kings and queens like the rest of Africa, as indicated by the statues from Haulti/Hawlti
[IMG]
http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/atobrukh/archaeology/matara/images/Hwltithrone1sml.jpeg
[/IMG]

[IMG]
http://hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/skipbdahlgren/sdahlgren/images/hawultistatue.jpeg


[/IMG]

Daniels has a fine book and Fattowich provides great evidence on the rise of civilization in Ethiopia, but if we are to use these two sources to gage the origin of literacy on the Horn, it would appear that Sabaean originated in Ethiopia and not Yemen. The Yemeni cultures are dated much later than those in Ethiopia, and support Ethiopia traditions that civilization was taken from Ethiopia to Yemen and not the other way around.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yom:
Forget the semantics, though.

I am glad that you are convinced that your attack on the idea of "Proto-Arabic" is semantics on your end, without material. You did so, because you don't like the "Arabic" part which would posit its origin in Arabia, specifically south Arabia. It could even be said that that author's term is even more valid, in that Sabean script would have had to gone through intermediary developments into its final state. Hence, the predecessor of Sabean cannot be South Arabian script in itself; it will have been proto-South Arabian/Sabean script.


quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
He makes it clear that the Tihama pottery was related to the C-Group and Kerma people. This supports the movement of some of the groups into the Horn from this region.

I'll relay the same question to you as I have done earlier: What set of parameters do you use to attribute origin of "cultural complex" to a specific group of people?


quote:
Clyde:

Daniels has a fine book and Fattowich provides great evidence on the rise of civilization in Ethiopia, but if we are to use these two sources to gage the origin of literacy on the Horn, it would appear that Sabaean originated in Ethiopia and not Yemen.

I haven't seen anything from any of the sources you mentioned, supporting non-Sabean origins of "Epigraphic South Arabian [not Ethiopian]" script. If anything, it appears from Daniels' note, that a south Arabian origin of the Sabean script is favored. I haven't seen mention by Fattovich either, of an Ethiopic origin for ESA/Sabean script. If they did, it has not come to my attention. Please provide the said sources making specific claims to this end.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


I'll relay the same question to you as I have done earlier: What set of parameters do you use to attribute origin of "cultural complex" to a specific group of people?


The parameter(s) I use is that where ever a cultural tradition first occurs,temporally , it is that place where the cultural complex originated. In relation to Ethiopia we find three things: 1) a long tradition of statehood (Egyptian and Ethiopian records), 2) early engagement in trade (Sumerian and Egyptian text discussing the Puntite and Meluhha civilizations), and 3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen. Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.

.

.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Mystery Solver         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


The parameter(s) I use is that where ever a cultural tradition first occurs,temporally , it is that place where the cultural complex originated. [/quote]

Would this be a single tradition or multiple? If multiple, please lay out the "full range" of the criterea used; If single, how can you claim that a "complex" culture is of so and so origin based on a single "tradition", while ignoring other traditions that may or may not have been imported?

Moreover:

In other for you to claim that a cultural complex at a certain location is not of in situ origin, you'd have to prove that there was no cultural complex there to begin? Can you show us how your claim about the "Tihama" complex fits into this criterea.

quote:
Clyde:
3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.

What was this "script" called and what date has specifically been attributed to this script, in the exact words of the cited author; not to mention why he said so? Present the 'specifics' contained in this 'evidence' in the words of the author you attribute it to.

I have cited several others, who talk about the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script in both south Arabia and in the African horn, spanning more or less the same time era. Although, I don't have the specifics, Munro-Hay mentioned "new" discoveries in Yemen, involving "paleography", that may push date-approximations of the Ethio-Sabean contact in pre-Aksume complex back to ca. 800th cen. or so. I suspect this includes the south Arabian scripts that one website attributed to Minean dialect. Now, Epigraphic "South Arabian" is not something that implies "Ethiopic" script; similarily "Sabean" script as you keep referring to it, does not imply "Ethiopic". You also ignore the fact that the "Epigraphic South Arabian" scripts found in Ethiopia, are written both in pure Sabean, and some unidentified, presumably local Ethiopic language. Why is that? Have you identified some Ethiopic language in "Sabean/ESA" script in South Arabia? If not, Why? It would also be interesting how you address Daniels' notes on those early scripts found.

quote:
Clyde:

Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.

Nobody but you, claims that Sabeans are local Pre-Aksumites, rather than South Arabians, who had contact with the locals of the Pre-Aksumite complex in early first Millenium B.C. Next, you'll tell us that Saba was in Ethiopia, right?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mystery Solver
Member
Member # 9033

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mystery Solver         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An edited version of the above, since that function amongst others cease to exist:


quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The parameter(s) I use is that where ever a cultural tradition first occurs,temporally , it is that place where the cultural complex originated.

Would this be a single tradition or multiple? If multiple, please lay out the "full range" of the criterea used; If single, how can you claim that a "complex" culture is of so and so origin based on a single "tradition", while ignoring other traditions that may or may not have been imported?

Moreover:

In other for you to claim that a cultural complex at a certain location is not of in situ origin, you'd have to prove that there was no cultural complex there to begin? Can you show us how your claim about the "Tihama" complex fits into this criterea.

quote:
Clyde:
3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.

What was this "script" called and what date has specifically been attributed to this script, in the exact words of the cited author; not to mention why he said so? Present the 'specifics' contained in this 'evidence' in the words of the author you attribute it to.

I have cited several others, who talk about the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script in both south Arabia and in the African horn, spanning more or less the same time era. Although, I don't have the specifics, Munro-Hay mentioned "new" discoveries in Yemen, involving "paleography", that may push date-approximations of the Ethio-Sabean contact in pre-Aksume complex back to ca. 800th cen. or so. I suspect this includes the south Arabian scripts that one website attributed to Minean dialect. Now, Epigraphic "South Arabian" is not something that implies "Ethiopic" script; similarily "Sabean" script as you keep referring to it, does not imply "Ethiopic". You also ignore the fact that the "Epigraphic South Arabian" scripts found in Ethiopia, are written both in pure Sabean, and some unidentified, presumably local Ethiopic language. Why is that? Have you identified some Ethiopic language in "Sabean/ESA" script in South Arabia? If not, Why? It would also be interesting how you address Daniels' notes on those early scripts found.

quote:
Clyde:

Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.

Nobody but you, claims that Sabeans are local Pre-Aksumites, rather than South Arabians, who had contact with the locals of the Pre-Aksumite complex in early first Millenium B.C. Next, you'll tell us that Saba was in Ethiopia, right?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yom
Member
Member # 11256

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Yom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll respond in full later (i.e. tomorrow), but here's a note on chronology again. The 8th c. date for Ma'in (Minaeans) and D`mt seem to be the first inscriptions in ESA known to date. Not sure if the first in Saba' (Sabaeans) were 8th c. or 7th, but the dating seems to be becoming more and more certain.

Walter W. Muller identifies Karab'il Watar as being from the early 7th century and having an inscription noting a Hadramite (from Hadramawt - first non-Hadramawt mention) king named Yada`'il (that's ayin and alif, not a typo) as his ally, so the earlier date seems to be certain based on more than regular dating, but instead synchronies.

--------------------
"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 | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3