posted
Rilly is now claiming that his Meroitic-Nilo-Saharan classification is so strong that he's able to place it comfortably within a language tree where it branches off just prior to Proto-Nubian and claims that it has likely been spoken since 2000 BCE, citing so-called "proto-Meroitic" personal names from Middle and early New Kingdom texts.
posted
Any French-speakers able to summarize this new Claude Rilly (2010) paper?
I'm learning the language now but am in no position whatsoever to translate anything. Google translation was able to provide some seemingly interesting quotes though where he's apparently echoing Kendall's view that the Kushites felt Egypt was a part of their ancient domain and "race" (this is the word that came across in the translation) and that between the 8th century to the Meroitic period, Kush can be regarded as the southern half of "Pharaonic civilization" (what I got out of it).
La civilisation napato-méroïtique qui domine le cours du Nil moyen, d’Assouan à Khartoum, depuis le viiie siècle av. J.-C. jusqu’au ive siècle apr. J.-C., fait suite à la colonisation égyptienne du Soudan ancien. Par sa religion, son idéologie, ses institutions, sa culture matérielle, elle se rattache étroitement au modèle égyptien à tel point que l’on peut parler d’une « civilisation pharaonique » dont l’Égypte et le Soudan ancien seraient les deux versants. L’histoire du royaume de Méroé est assez mal connue dans le détail, d’une part parce que les textes méroïtiques sont peu nombreux et très partiellement compris, d’autre part en raison d’une couverture archéologique relativement récente et clairsemée. Les sources extérieures, égyptiennes, grecques et romaines, sont assez laconiques et moyennement fiables. Les progrès récents de l’archéologie et de la philologie du Soudan ancien laissent toutefois espérer de prochaines avancées.
La civilisation napato-méroïtique qui domine le cours du Nil moyen, d’Assouan à Khartoum, depuis le viiie siècle av. J.-C. jusqu’au ive siècle apr. J.-C., fait suite à la colonisation égyptienne du Soudan ancien. Dès l’époque protodynastique, à la fin du quatrième millénaire, les Égyptiens étaient entrés en conflit avec leurs voisins du Sud. On leur attribue la disparition de la première culture post-néolithique du Soudan, le groupe A de Basse Nubie (3500 – 2500 av. J.-C.). Par la suite, ils n’eurent de cesse que de pousser leur avance vers le sud, dans le but de mieux contrôler leur approvisionnement en produits africains, au premier rang desquels figuraient l’or, l’ivoire, l’ébène, les peaux de félins, mais aussi les bovins, dont le Soudan ancien était riche et dont la domestication en Afrique avait sans doute commencé en Nubie.
2Vers 2000 av. J.-C., la montée en puissance du royaume de Kerma, le premier État historiquement connu d’Afrique noire, fondé au sud de la 3e cataracte cinq siècles plus tôt, stoppa l’avance égyptienne et contraignit les rois de la xiie dynastie à ériger un dispositif de forteresses entre la 1e et la 2e cataracte pour se protéger des incursions kermaïtes. Un nom apparaît alors dans les textes égyptiens pour désigner ce nouvel ennemi : Koush (ég. Kȝš), sans doute l’appellation que se donnaient les Kermaïtes eux-mêmes, et qui continuera à les désigner jusqu’à la disparition de la langue égyptienne.
3Sous la Seconde période intermédiaire (c. 1650 – 1550 av. J.-C.), le royaume de Thèbes, confronté à l’alliance entre les rois hyksôs, maîtres de la Basse et de la Moyenne-Égypte et les souverains de Kerma, qui n’hésitaient pas à lancer des expéditions jusqu’à El-Kab, non loin de la capitale, faillit succomber. Lorsque la fortune des batailles s’inversa, et que les Égyptiens, au début de la xviiie dynastie, eurent vaincu les Hyksôs, ils n’eurent de cesse d’anéantir la menace que représentait Koush sur leur flanc sud. Il leur fallut toutefois près d’un demi-siècle pour annexer la totalité du royaume de Kerma, jusqu’en amont de la 4e cataracte.
4Koush devint pour six siècles une colonie égyptienne, administrée par un gouverneur appelé le « fils royal de Koush ». L’influence de la civilisation pharaonique, jusqu’alors relativement limitée, imprégna durablement toutes les composantes de sa culture. C’est dans le domaine religieux qu’elle est sans doute la plus spectaculaire. Les dieux égyptiens, auxquels les souverains de la xviiie et de la xixe dynastie érigèrent en Nubie des temples innombrables, furent ainsi intégrés dans le panthéon indigène. Au premier rang venait Amon, assimilé à la divinité principale de Kerma, un dieu-bélier au nom inconnu. Il devait plus tard figurer au sommet du panthéon royal méroïtique sous le nom d’Amani, dont le vocalisme, antérieur à la fin de la xviiie dynastie, montre que l’emprunt se fit dès le début de la colonisation.
1 Voir D. Kahn, 2001 pour cette révision chronologique (on proposait auparavant 727 av. J.-C.). 5Vers le début du premier millénaire, le pouvoir pharaonique affaibli par les problèmes intérieurs de la Troisième période intermédiaire relâcha son emprise sur la Nubie. Mal lui en prit, car en quelques générations, une lignée de princes koushites de la région de Napata, dans la grande boucle du Nil, acquit une redoutable puissance militaire. En l’an 21 de son règne (sans doute en 732 av. J.‑C.1), le roi Piankhy mena ses troupes à la conquête de l’Égypte et ses successeurs y régnèrent en tant que pharaons de la xxve dynastie, dite « koushite » (cf. Annexe 2). Toutefois, cette domination ne dura qu’une soixantaine d’années, puisqu’en 664 le roi Tanouétamani, devant l’avance des Assyriens, dut se replier sur le Soudan. Bien que désormais limités au territoire ancestral, les souverains de Koush n’abandonnèrent jamais leurs prétentions à la légitimité pharaonique et, jusqu’à la fin du royaume de Méroé, ils se présentèrent, dans leurs inscriptions en égyptien, comme « rois de Haute et Basse-Égypte » (nsw bjty). Sur leur coiffure apparaissent, non pas un, mais deux uraei (cobras royaux), l’un symbolisant la domination sur Koush, l’autre sur l’Égypte.
2 Stèle du roi Nastasen, Caire JE 48884, ligne 3. Voir Fontes Historiae Nubiorum [FHN], ii, p. 441. (...) 3 Voir FHN, ii, p. 687-688. 4 Les statues des rois de Koush sont représentées tenant dans la main l’étui-mekes, qui contient le (...) 5 Voir par exemple la stèle de l’élection d’Aspelta, Caire JE 48866, l. 15-16, voir FHN, I, p. 238. (...)
6La xxve dynastie a constitué pour les royaumes qui vont se succéder au Soudan une ère fondatrice. Bien que les fouilles archéologiques récentes, notamment à Kerma / Doukki Gel (l’antique Pnoubs), aient montré que certains éléments culturels du royaume de Kerma avaient survécu à la longue rupture due à la colonisation égyptienne, la culture koushite ultérieure se rattache étroitement au modèle égyptien par sa religion, son idéologie, ses institutions, sa culture matérielle, à tel point que l’on peut parler, pour la période qui s’étend du viiie siècle av. J.-C. à la fin de l’Antiquité, d’une « civilisation pharaonique » dont l’Égypte et le Soudan ancien seraient les deux versants. Le souverain de Koush est, comme le roi d’Égypte, le « fils d’Amon, (né) de son corps, celui qu’il aime2 ». Dans les textes démotiques égyptiens gravés en Basse Nubie, il est appelé pr-˓ȝ « Pharaon »3. Comme le roi d’Égypte, il possède de droit divin la totalité du monde et est propriétaire de toutes les terres de son royaume4. Il exerce la prêtrise sur l’ensemble du territoire koushite et c’est en son nom que se fait le culte divin5.
7On peut même parler d’une « surenchère dans l’égyptianité » de la part de l’idéologie royale de Koush. Car ce n’est pas l’Égypte contemporaine, au prestige terni par les dominations étrangères (Perses, Macédoniens, Romains) qu’elle entend imiter. C’est de l’Égypte des Sésostris iii, Thoutmosis iii, Amenhotep iii ou Ramsès ii, tous souverains dont les monuments jalonnaient la Nubie, qu’elle se veut l’héritière. Ainsi Taharqo, de la xxve dynastie, sur un relief de temple conservé au Musée de Khartoum, proclame qu’« il a bâti son monument à son père, Khakaourê ». Sésostris iii, dont c’est le nom de couronnement, a pourtant mené des expéditions contre la Nubie au temps du royaume de Kerma. En rendant hommage à cet ennemi de Koush (mais le savait-on encore ?), Taharqo, dix-sept siècles après le règne de ce pharaon, se place non seulement dans sa lignée, mais aussi dans la continuité de Thoutmosis iii qui, vers 1450 av. J.-C., avait bâti à Semna, près de la deuxième cataracte, un temple à ce glorieux ancêtre. Semblablement, les rois de Koush prirent souvent pour nom de couronnement celui d’un de ces anciens pharaons : à la fin du premier siècle de notre ère, le roi Amanakhareqerema se fit ainsi appeler Neb-Maât-Rê, nom de couronnement d’Amenhotep III, inscrit en hiéroglyphes géants sous les architraves de son temple de Soleb. C’est dans le même esprit qu’il faut interpréter la reprise de la forme pyramidale pour les tombes des rois koushites, huit siècles après que les souverains égyptiens l’eurent abandonné au profit des hypogées. Tous les souverains du Soudan, jusqu’à la fin de Méroé, se firent ainsi ériger des pyramides, de dimensions certes modestes, mais qui illustraient dans la pierre leur lien direct avec les temps les plus glorieux de l’Égypte.
8On pourrait multiplier les exemples de cette « égyptianité » revendiquée. Était-ce un simple calcul pour justifier la légitimité des rois de Koush au trône d’Égypte ? Si tel était peut-être le cas originellement, il faut croire que les Koushites se prirent à leur propre jeu et finirent par se convaincre que les racines de la civilisation égyptienne se trouvaient chez eux. Agatharchide de Cnide, qui visita l’« Éthiopie » (c’est-à-dire Koush) au début du iie siècle av. J.‑C., s’en fait l’écho :
6 Cité par Diodore de Sicile, Bibliothèque historique, 3 [1]-[2] (trad. de l’auteur). Ils [les Koushites] disent que les Égyptiens sont des colons venus de chez eux et qu’Osiris prit la tête de cette colonisation. […] La plupart des coutumes des Égyptiens sont selon eux éthiopiennes, les colons ayant conservé leurs traditions anciennes. Ainsi l’idée selon laquelle les rois sont des dieux, le soin extrême apporté aux sépultures, et bien d’autres choses similaires sont des habitudes éthiopiennes, comme sont éthiopiens l’aspect des statues et la forme des signes d’écriture6.
9Après la perte de l’Égypte s’ouvre ce que l’on appelle la période napatéenne, ou « royaume de Napata ». Ce nom, entériné par la tradition universitaire, est quelque peu trompeur, puisque Napata était déjà la capitale de Piankhy et de ses ancêtres, et que ses successeurs de la xxve dynastie d’Égypte, même s’ils régnèrent depuis Memphis pour d’évidentes raisons stratégiques, avaient tous grandi dans la métropole koushite. De plus, Napata ne resta pas longtemps le siège du pouvoir royal. En 591, le pharaon Psammétique ii, de la xxvie dynastie, lança une expédition préventive contre son dangereux voisin méridional, profitant sans doute des troubles qui semblent avoir accompagné l’accession au trône du jeune roi Aspelta. Ce raid sans lendemain fut toutefois un véritable traumatisme pour le royaume koushite : Napata fut atteinte et dévastée, les statues royales furent brisées dans les temples dynastiques. À la suite de cet épisode calamiteux, sous le règne même d’Aspelta, la décision fut prise de déplacer la capitale administrative du royaume trois cents kilomètres au sud-est, sur le site de Méroé, afin de l’éloigner d’éventuelles invasions venues du nord. L’ancienne métropole garda toutefois ses prérogatives religieuses et dynastiques : c’est à Napata que les nouveaux souverains venaient de Méroé pour se faire couronner, c’est aux abords de la cité sainte qu’ils se firent inhumer, dans les nécropoles royales de Nuri, puis de Barkal.
10Or, vers le début du iiie siècle av. J.-C., le roi Arkamani rompit cette tradition, en faisant ériger sa pyramide à l’extrémité du cimetière sud de Begrawwiya, deux kilomètres à l’est de la ville de Méroé. Avec son règne commence la période méroïtique ou « royaume de Méroé ». Ici aussi, c’est Agatharchide, cité par Diodore de Sicile, qui fournit une explication, longtemps tenue pour véridique :
7 Diodore de Sicile, Bibliothèque historique, 6 [3]-[4]. Dans les temps anciens, les rois obéissaient aux prêtres, non qu’ils eussent été vaincus par la force ou par les armes, mais leur esprit était dominé par la superstition. Or sous Ptolémée ii, le roi d’Éthiopie [c’est-à-dire Koush] Ergamène, qui avait reçu une éducation grecque, incluant la philosophie, fut le premier à dédaigner cet état de fait. Prenant en effet une décision digne de la royauté, il se rendit avec ses soldats vers le sanctuaire où se trouvait le naos d’or des Éthiopiens, il massacra tous les prêtres et ayant aboli cette coutume, gouverna selon ses propres choix7.
8 Voir notamment G.A. Reisner, 1923. 9 C. Bonnet et D. Valbelle, 2005. 10 Voir L. Török, 1992, FHN ii, p. 566-567 et 649-650, L. Török, 1997, p. 420-423. 11Ergamène est manifestement la transcription grecque du nom Arkamani, et le fait que sa pyramide fût la première tombe royale érigée à Méroé apportait un supplément de crédit à cette narration. Les premières interprétations historiques qui suivirent les fouilles fondatrices de Garstang et de Reisner à Méroé avant la Première Guerre mondiale8 distinguèrent donc deux périodes différentes dans l’histoire de l’État koushite après la perte de l’Égypte : le royaume de Napata jusqu’au début du iiie siècle av. J.‑C. et le royaume de Méroé jusqu’au ive siècle apr. J.‑C. Le premier aurait été une théocratie où les souverains auraient été réduits au rôle de « rois-fainéants », tandis que le second correspondrait à une autocratie où ils auraient exercé la plénitude du pouvoir, après avoir transféré la capitale à Méroé. Toutefois, les fouilles et les analyses qui suivirent relativisèrent déjà cette distinction. Il n’y avait en effet aucune différence fondamentale dans l’organisation de l’État, théocratie et autocratie se fondant dans la divinité de la personne royale. L’examen des textes napatéens tardifs et le résultat des fouilles de Garstang dans la cité de Méroé indiquaient de plus très clairement que cette ville était le siège de l’administration royale bien avant le règne d’Arkamani, et les découvertes récentes à Doukki Gel9 ont permis d’attribuer, comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, le transfert de la capitale au règne d’Aspelta, vers le début du vie siècle. L’étude critique du texte d’Agatharchide, notamment par l’historien L. Török10, a montré que la geste d’Ergamène, plutôt qu’un témoignage historique de première main, était un agrégat de thèmes divers, tirés notamment d’Hérodote, avec un écho très audible des idées politiques et philosophiques qui préoccupaient le monde hellénistique aux débuts de l’époque lagide. Au final, de la distinction entre royaume de Napata et de Méroé ne demeure que le déplacement de la nécropole royale, fait certes significatif, mais qui peut être attribué avec bien plus de vraisemblance à l’émergence d’une nouvelle dynastie issue des lignages aristocratiques locaux de Méroé, dont le cimetière sud de Begrawwiya était la nécropole ancestrale depuis le viiie siècle.
11 Son nom, Amani, apparaît aussi bien dans celui d’Arkamani, premier roi de Méroé, que dans celui du (...) 12 Proto-soudanique oriental nord *Abede, l’élément final ‑mak(a) signifiant « dieu » en méroïtique : (...) 13 Le nom méroïtique, Shebo (Sebo), est récemment apparu dans les fouilles du musée de Berlin à Naga (...) 12La culture méroïtique proprement dite, c’est-à-dire celle du royaume de Méroé, présente toutefois quelques différences avec la culture napatéenne. On peut parler d’un éloignement croissant des modèles égyptiens, mais cette prise de distance s’opérant pour l’essentiel à partir de la fin du iiie siècle av. J.-C., elle ne peut être directement mise en parallèle avec le changement dynastique qui s’opéra sans doute un demi-siècle auparavant. Dans le domaine religieux, si Amon reste la principale divinité du panthéon royal11, on voit accéder au culte officiel d’anciennes divinités locales, au premier rang desquelles se situe Apedemak, un dieu à tête de lion, à la fois créateur et guerrier. Nous avons montré que son nom devait être mis en relation avec celui du démiurge, principal dieu des locuteurs de la langue ancêtre du méroïtique12. Il s’agit donc d’une divinité très ancienne, mais dont le culte n’avait pas été transcrit dans l’iconographie officielle, jusqu’à l’érection de temples spécifiques, connus à Musawwarat sous le roi Arnekhamani, vers 240 / 220 av. J.‑C., puis à Naga sous les corégents Amanitore et Natakamani, vers 60 apr. J.-C. D’autres divinités locales acquièrent une visibilité : Amesemi, parèdre d’Apedemak, représentée comme une femme aux joues scarifiées dont la tête est surmontée d’un ou de plusieurs faucons ; Shebo, parfois appelé Sebioumeker d’après la transcription égyptienne13, un dieu d’apparence humaine coiffé de la double couronne pharaonique ; Masha, dieu-soleil dont on ne possède aucune représentation certaine, mais dont le clergé est cité dans les textes.
14 A. Łatjar, 2006. 15 Voir I. Hofmann, 1991, p. 202-206. 13Dans le domaine politique se fait jour un phénomène nouveau, dont on n’a pas de traces antérieures incontestables, l’accession au trône de reines en tant que souverains à part entière, les Candaces. Contrairement à la situation qui prévalait en Égypte ancienne, où le pharaon est par essence un mâle et où les rares reines régnantes accèdent au trône dans des circonstances exceptionnelles (généralement en abusant, à l’instar d’Hatshepsout, de leur position de régente du royaume durant la minorité du successeur du roi défunt), à Méroé, elle jouissaient apparemment d’une légitimité égale à celle des rois. Elles sont d’ailleurs représentées comme des femmes, éventuellement armées et massacrant les ennemis, contrairement à une Hatshepsout qui se fait figurer en homme. Dans les textes méroïtiques, elles sont nommées qore « souverain », outre leur titre de kdke « Candace ». Les mieux connues sont Amanirenas et Amanishakheto, qui règnent à la fin du ier siècle av. J.‑C., ainsi que, vers 60 apr. J.‑C., la Candace Amanitore, qui exerça le pouvoir en corégence, sur un pied d’égalité absolu, avec le roi Natakamani, sans doute son fils. L’institution dura probablement très tard, puisqu’une stèle latine gravée par un visiteur venu de Rome, retrouvée à Musawwarat et récemment réétudiée14, rend hommage à une reine inconnue que l’on doit replacer à la charnière des iiie et ive siècles de notre ère. Toutefois, la possibilité pour une femme de monter sur le trône de Méroé n’implique pas, comme on l’a parfois extrapolé, que la civilisation méroïtique ait été régie par une sorte de matriarcat. Les fonctions administratives et religieuses sont ainsi l’apanage des hommes15.
16 Par exemple le mot mère (ég. mwt) est précédé d’un article masculin (pA), le méroïtique ne connais (...) 17 Système d’apparence alphabétique, mais à base syllabique, où chaque signe consonantique nu compren (...) 18 Voir C. Rilly, 2003. 14Enfin, dans le domaine de l’écrit, une véritable révolution s’opère en quelques décennies entre la fin du iiie siècle et la fin du iie siècle av. J.‑C., à savoir l’apparition d’une écriture spécifique pour la langue méroïtique. En effet, depuis le développement de la royauté koushite à Napata, au viiie siècle, la seule langue écrite était l’égyptien. Les textes des rois de la xxve dynastie, y compris sur le sol soudanais, puis ceux de leurs successeurs napatéens, étaient ainsi rédigés dans la langue des anciens colons, le méroïtique n’apparaissant que dans les transcriptions phonétiques en hiéroglyphes égyptiens des noms de naissance des rois et des notables, comme on le fera en Égypte pour les Ptolémées et autres Cléopâtre. Le dernier texte d’ampleur en égyptien est la stèle du roi napatéen Nastasen (Berlin 2268), vers la fin du ive siècle avant J.‑C. Il a manifestement été rédigé par un scribe koushite, à en juger par les approximations phonétiques et grammaticales qui trahissent la langue maternelle du scripteur16. Vers la fin du iiie siècle, sans doute à partir d’une forme de démotique (cursive tardive égyptienne) locale, dont les témoignages restent à découvrir, une écriture simple, à base phonétique, composée de 23 signes et d’un séparateur de mots, est élaborée. Il s’agit non d’un alphabet, mais d’un alphasyllabaire17 dont les principes sont assez semblables à ceux des écritures indiennes et sud-asiatiques, sans pour autant qu’il y ait un lien génétique entre ces systèmes. Elle apparaît d’abord vers 200 av. J.‑C. dans les graffiti laissés par les pèlerins dans les temples dynastiques18 et accède à la fin du iie siècle au statut d’écriture officielle sous la reine Nahirqo, puis sous son successeur Taneyidamani qui fait rédiger le plus long texte connu dans cette écriture (161 lignes), sa stèle du Jebel Barkal aujourd’hui conservée à Boston. C’est sous le règne de ce roi, selon toute vraisemblance, qu’une seconde écriture, destinée à remplacer les hiéroglyphes égyptiens dans les inscriptions monumentales, est créée. Seule la forme des signes, empruntés aux hiéroglyphes égyptiens, diffère de la cursive, le système et le nombre de caractères étant identiques. Cette écriture d’emploi assez limité est appelée hiéroglyphique méroïtique.
19 Pour ces regains d’influence égyptienne, qui semblent paradoxalement correspondre à des périodes d (...) 15On a parlé, à propos de cette évolution de la civilisation méroïtique, d’une « africanisation » croissante. Cette qualification, moins choquante certes que le terme d’« abâtardissement » que n’hésitaient pas à employer les archéologues du début du xxe siècle, n’en est pas moins idéologiquement douteuse et historiquement fausse. On ne peut évidemment mettre dans le même sac toutes les cultures d’Afrique, tout en excluant bien sûr cette culture éminemment africaine qu’est la civilisation égyptienne. De plus, il apparaît de plus en plus que des regains d’influence égyptienne ont eu lieu durant certains règnes : c’est entre autres le cas sous les corégents Amanitore et Natakamani, dont les nombreux monuments exhibent côte à côte des inscriptions en égyptien, certes d’ampleur limitée mais tout à fait corrects, et des textes méroïtiques19.
20 L. Török, 1997. 21 Pour un état complet de la question, on se référera à notre publication récente C. Rilly, 2007. (...) 22 Ces fouilles soudano-canadiennes ont été reprises en 1999 par K. Grzymski, du Royal Ontario Museum (...) 16Il n’est évidemment pas possible dans une aussi courte contribution de présenter dans le détail l’histoire du royaume de Méroé. On se référera au Handbook de László Török20 qui constitue une somme actuellement insurpassée. Au reste, on doit souligner que notre connaissance de cette histoire est très lacunaire et souvent incertaine. D’une part, les textes méroïtiques sont peu nombreux (1100 documents, dont moins d’une trentaine de textes officiels) et très partiellement compris, la langue méroïtique étant fort mal connue, même si l’on sait, depuis le déchiffrement des deux écritures par F. Ll. Griffith en 1911, la lire lettre par lettre et si quelques éléments de lexique et de syntaxe sont élucidés21. D’autre part, la couverture archéologique des vestiges méroïtiques est relativement récente et clairsemée. Le site urbain de Méroé, par exemple, a été fouillé de façon peu méthodique par le Britannique John Garstang entre 1909 et 1914, puis sur une moindre échelle par le regretté Peter L. Shinnie entre 1965 et 198422, mais ces excavations n’ont mis au jour qu’un tiers de la surface occupée. Les temples et les sites funéraires sont en règle générale mieux connus que les sites d’habitation : ainsi la cité méroïtique de Faras, l’une des plus importantes de Basse Nubie, a été submergée sous les eaux du lac de retenue du barrage d’Assouan sans être véritablement fouillée, alors que les cimetières attenants avaient fait l’objet de plusieurs campagnes financées par l’université de Liverpool dans les années 1930.
23 Voir Le Monde de la Bible, n° 178, juillet-août 2007, p. 25-31. 24 Voir A.M. Abdel Rahman, C. Rilly, 2008. 17Certaines périodes ne sont représentées que par des noms de souverains inscrits sur un monument unique, voir sur une simple table d’offrandes funéraires retrouvée dans un contexte archéologique bouleversé par les pillards de tombes, comme c’est le cas d’Amanitaraqide, d’Aryesbokhe ou de Tamelordeamani (voir Annexe 2). De nouveaux noms apparaissent régulièrement. Celui d’Amanakhareqerema (vers 90 apr. J.-C.), connu depuis quelques années seulement, a pu être mis tout récemment en relation avec un temple à Amon que dégage à el-Hassa, près de Méroé, l’équipe française de Vincent Rondot23, ainsi qu’avec le temple 200 de Naga, où ce roi est attesté dans des inscriptions récemment mises au jour par la mission du Musée de Berlin. Mais le nom lacunaire du roi Pa[.]khedateqo, découvert sur un graffito des carrières du Gebel Suweigat, près de Napata, n’est actuellement associé à aucun monument, temple ou pyramide, et sa datation ne repose que sur la paléographie24.
25 Voir J. Desanges, 1992. Ces textes sont publiés in extenso dans les Fontes Historiae Nubiorum (FHN (...) 26 Strabon, Geographie, 17.1.53-54 ; Res gestae Divi Augusti, 26.5. 18Les sources extérieures, égyptiennes, grecques et romaines, sont assez laconiques et moyennement fiables, comme on l’a vu à propos de la geste d’Ergamène/Arkamani. On trouve ainsi chez Strabon, Diodore de Sicile, Pline, Claude Ptolémée, des éléments souvent empruntés à des géographes alexandrins dont l’œuvre est par ailleurs perdue, comme Ératosthène, Bion de Soles ou Agatharchide de Cnide25. Un des épisodes les mieux connus est le récit de l’expédition militaire envoyée par Auguste contre les Méroïtes. En effet, à la faveur de l’annexion de l’Égypte par Octave après la bataille d’Actium, le pouvoir méroïtique, toujours habité, comme nous l’avons vu, par l’idée que la terre des Pharaons lui revenait de droit, tenta sa chance. En 25 av. J.‑C., les autorités méroïtes locales de Basse Nubie avaient lancé une incursion dans la zone de la 1ère cataracte, attaquant et prenant Philae, Assouan et Éléphantine. Pour l’épauler, le pouvoir royal dépêcha une armée depuis le Sud. Le nouveau préfet d’Égypte, Cornelius Petronius, fut envoyé contre les Méroïtes. Il leur reprit les villes égyptiennes et, poussant son avantage, s’enfonça dans le territoire de Méroé, selon le témoignage de Strabon et le propre testament d’Auguste26, jusqu’à la ville de Napata qu’il prit et rasa, malgré la résistance des armées du « prince » et les tentatives de pourparlers de la « Candace ». Les hostilités furent conclues en 21/20 av. J.‑C., par le traité de Samos, signé entre Auguste et les émissaires de la reine de Méroé. Il n’était d’ailleurs pas défavorable aux Méroïtes, qui échappaient à la colonisation romaine et à un lourd tribut mais devaient reconnaître la domination romaine sur la Dodécaschène, la province qui s’étend sur une centaine de kilomètres au sud d’Assouan.
27 Malgré l’imprécision des sources, on a calculé que l’expédition sur Napata, avec retour à Alexandr (...) 28 Actes 8 : 26-40. 29 On a longtemps pensé que la première stèle d’Hamadab, un temple près de Méroé fouillé par Garstang (...) 19Toutefois, la pénétration de l’armée romaine de Petronius si loin de sa base alexandrine en un temps record27 n’a pas laissé d’inspirer quelques doutes sur la réalité historique de la prise de Napata, que les Romains pourraient avoir ajoutée par désir de propagande. Semblablement, on ignore quelle est la Candace à laquelle ils s’attaquèrent : les récits grecs et latins semblent confondre le titre et le nom de la reine, comme le fera quelques décennies plus tard le rédacteur des Actes des Apôtres, qui décrit la conversion par le diacre Philippe d’un eunuque de « Candace, reine d’Éthiopie28 ». Faute de posséder une contrepartie méroïtique aux récits grecs et latins de la guerre contre Méroé29, on hésite entre les reines Amanirenas et Amanishakheto, qui se succédèrent aux alentours du début de l’ère chrétienne, sans que l’on puisse préciser davantage les dates de leurs règnes.
30 Aussi écrit pesto, ce mot semble être un emprunt à l’égyptien p3 snty « le diœcète », qui désigne (...) 20Si les chroniques royales inscrites en méroïtique échappent pour l’essentiel à notre compréhension, il n’en va pas de même pour les textes funéraires, très nombreux (la moitié du corpus) et suffisamment stéréotypés pour que Griffith et ses successeurs aient pu élucider la majeure partie de leur contenu. Nous possédons notamment un ensemble considérable de stèles et de tables d’offrandes inscrites pour des notables à travers toute la Basse Nubie entre le iie et le début du ive siècle de notre ère. Contrairement aux documents funéraires du sud du royaume, ces épitaphes septentrionales sont très prolixes, nous livrant de nombreux détails sur les structures familiale, cultuelle et administrative de la région. Ces textes sont composés selon un schéma récurrent : après une invocation initiale aux dieux de l’au-delà, Wos (Isis) et Asori (Osiris), le défunt (ou la défunte) y est nommé(e), avec sa filiation maternelle et paternelle. Suit une « description » où sont énumérés ses titres et dignités (pour les hommes), arrangés en forme de cursus honorum, puis ses rapports familiaux avec les personnalités en vue de son clan (« il était le neveu / la nièce du grand-prêtre d’Amon de Napata, X », etc.). Le texte se termine par des bénédictions où les divinités citées initialement sont invitées à lui fournir l’eau, le pain et le repas dont il a besoin pour sa survie dans l’autre monde, à l’image de ce que l’on connaît pour le culte des morts en Égypte. Nous sommes ainsi à même, notamment pour les sites de Karanóg, Shablul, Gebel Adda, Faras, Nag Gamus (voir Annexe 1), de reconstituer de véritables prosopographies des notables locaux. Le personnage le plus important de Basse Nubie est le peseto30, sorte de vice-roi délégué par le souverain dans cette marche éloignée. D’autres représentants du pouvoir central sont cités, des officiels dont les titres sont rarement traduisibles, mais nommément rattachés au souverain ou à la Candace. Comme il faut s’y attendre dans ce royaume de type pharaonique, les détenteurs de fonctions administratives possèdent souvent aussi des dignités religieuses : ant « prêtre », beloloke « grand-prêtre », etc. Ainsi, le vice-roi Abratoye (vers 260 apr. J.-C.) est « prêtre d’Amon de Pedeme [Qasr Ibrim] », « scribe royal [?] d’Isis de Philae » et détient le rang de « prêtre depuis Boqe [Kubban, près de Bouhen] jusqu’à Pedeme».
31 Concernant ces proscynèmes, voir A. Burkhardt, 1985, l’étude la plus complète sur la question. (...) 21Un autre ensemble d’inscriptions, bien comprises puisqu’elles sont majoritairement en égyptien, nous donne un aperçu de l’histoire locale dans la Dodécaschène, la région au sud d’Assouan. Nominalement rattachée à l’Égypte romaine, elle forme une sorte de principauté théocratique autonome centrée sur le temple d’Isis de Philae. À partir du iie siècle apr. J.-C., l’influence méroïtique y est prépondérante. Sur les murs du sanctuaire de Philae et de celui de Thot à Dakka ont été inscrits de nombreux « proscynèmes », textes d’adoration laissés par des pèlerins. Trente-six d’entre eux, écrits pour des Méroïtes par des scribes égyptiens, constituent les proscynèmes les plus étendus31. Ils témoignent des liens étroits qu’entretenait avec la Dodécaschène l’administration méroïtique, décrivent dans le détail les ambassades du roi de Méroé auprès d’Isis de Philae, et nous livrent, à l’instar des textes funéraires avec lesquels de nombreux recoupements ont pu être faits, une prosopographie des notables locaux, issus de familles où se mêlent Égyptiens et Méroïtes.
32 On distinguera la Nubie, terme géographique désignant la région égypto-soudanaise comprise entre l (...) 33 Voir FHN, III, p. 1066-1072, à propos de deux inscriptions aksoumites en grec retrouvées à Méroé, (...) 22Le royaume de Méroé disparut au milieu du ive siècle de notre ère sous les coups conjugués des tribus nubiennes et de l’empire d’Aksoum. Les Nubiens32 sont mentionnés pour la première fois par Ératosthène, au iiie siècle av. J.-C., puis dans les textes méroïtiques (Nob) à partir de la fin du iie siècle. Il s’agit d’un ensemble de tribus nomadisant à l’ouest du Nil, avec lesquels les Méroïtes étaient régulièrement en conflit. Vers le début du ive siècle apr. J.‑C., il semble que l’empire montant d’Aksoum, au nord de l’Éthiopie, avait déjà lancé des expéditions victorieuses contre la cité de Méroé33. Les Nubiens profitèrent sans doute de cet affaiblissement du pouvoir central pour se lancer à l’assaut du royaume, s’installant sur les rives du Nil et s’avançant vers l’Éthiopie. Vers 350, le roi d’Aksoum Ezana, fraîchement converti au christianisme, réagit fortement en repoussant l’invasion nubienne et en poursuivant l’ennemi sur ce qui restait du royaume de Méroé. Vainqueur, il érigea des stèles triomphales qui nous ont gardé le récit de ces batailles et qui constituent historiquement une sorte d’acte de décès de l’État méroïtique. Bientôt, les Nubiens, maîtres du Nil moyen, y établirent trois royaumes, la Nobadia au nord, Makouria au centre et Alodia au sud. Avec l’avènement du christianisme en Nubie au vie siècle, les traditions méroïtiques furent abandonnées et cette civilisation millénaire disparut des mémoires.
34 Le méroïtique appartient à la famille soudanique orientale nord, rameau des langues nilo-saharienn (...) 23L’histoire de Méroé reste encore largement une terre inconnue. De vastes zones d’ombre subsistent, mais on peut toutefois s’attendre à de substantiels progrès dans les décennies à venir. D’une part, les missions archéologiques se multiplient sur le territoire du Soudan, notamment dans la région entre Napata et Méroé qui n’avait pas bénéficié de la même attention que la Nubie au cours du siècle passé. D’autre part, les recherches sur la langue méroïtique ont bien avancé, avec notamment le repérage récent de la famille linguistique à laquelle elle appartient34. À plus ou moins long terme, on peut espérer traduire les textes royaux jusqu’à présent presque entièrement opaques, qui nous apporteront de nouvelles lumières sur la plus ancienne civilisation connue d’Afrique subsaharienne.
Haut de page Bibliographie
Abdel Rahman, A. M. et Rilly, C., 2008, « Royal and Private Devotion to Amun of Napata. Two Meroitic graffiti recently discovered in Jebel Suweigat », Kush, 19, p. 127‑137.
Bonnet, C. et Valbelle, D., 2005, Des pharaons venus d’Afrique. La cachette de Kerma, Paris, Citadelles & Mazenod.
Burkhardt, A., 1985, Ägypter und Meroiten im Dodekaschoinos / Untersuchungen zur Typologie und Bedeutung der Demotischen Graffiti, Berlin [Meroitica, 8].
Desanges, J., 1992, « Bilan des recherches sur les sources grecques et latines de l’histoire de la Nubie antique dans les 30 dernières années », in C. Bonnet (dir.), Études Nubiennes. Actes du viie Congrès International d’Études Nubiennes. 3-8 sept. 1990, Genève, vol. I, p. 363‑378.
FHN i : Eide, T., Hägg, T. et alii, 1994, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD, vol. I. From the Eighth to the Mid-Fifth Century BC, Bergen.
FHN ii : Eide, T., Hägg, T., et alii, 1996, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD, vol. ii. From the Mid-Fifth to the First Century BC, Bergen.
FHN iii : Eide, T., Hägg, T., et alii, 1998, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD, vol. III. From the First to the Sixth Century AD, Bergen.
Hofmann, I., 1977, « Der Feldzug des C. Petronius nach Nubien und seine Bedeutung für die meroitischen Chronologie », in E. Endesfelder (dir.), Ägypten und Kusch, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients, Berlin, p. 189-205.
Hofmann, I., 1991, Steine für die Ewigkeit / Meroitische Opfertafeln und Totenstelen, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung. Beiheft 6, Vienne.
Kahn, D., 2001, « The Inscription of Sargon ii at Tang-i Var and the Chronology of Dynasty 25 », Orientalia, 70, I, p. 1-18.
Łajtar, A., 2006, « Rome - Meroe - Berlin. The Southernmost Latin Inscription Rediscovered (Cil III 83) », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 157, p. 193-198.
Reisner, G.A. 1923, « The Meroitic Kingdom of Ethiopia: A Chronological Outline », Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 9, p. 34-79.
Rilly, C., 2001, « Approche comparative de la paléographie et de la chronologie royale de Méroé », Meroitic Newsletters, 28, p. 71-89.
Rilly, C., 2003, « Les graffiti archaïques de Doukki Gel et l’apparition de l’écriture méroïtique », Meroitic Newsletter, 30, p. 41-55.
Rilly, C., 2005, « Meroitic Palaeography as a Tool for Chronology: Prospects and Limits », ARKAMANI Sudan Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology. URL :http://www.arkamani.org/arkamani-library/meroitic_conference_paris/rilly_paleography.htm
Rilly, C., 2007, La langue du royaume de Méroé. Un panorama de la plus ancienne culture écrite d’Afrique subsaharienne, Paris, Champion [coll. de l’École pratique des hautes études, Tome 344].
Rilly, C., 2010, Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique, Paris-Louvain, Peeters [Coll. SELAF, 454, Afrique et Langage, 14].
Török, L., 1992, « Amasis and Ergamenes », in U. Luft (dir.), Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies Presented to L. Kákosy, Budapest, p. 555-561 [Studia Aegyptiaca 14].
Török, L., 1997, The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization, Leyde, E.J. Brill [Handbook of Oriental Studies I. The near and Middle East].
Yoyotte, J., 1989, « Le nom égyptien du “ministre de l’économie” – De Saïs à Méroé – », Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, janvier-mars 1989, p. 73‑88.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike Clyde, Rilly is not claiming to fully decipher Meroitic, at least the last time I checked. He has only been able to unlock certain lexicon and thereby doing a comparative analysis with other languages, including the so-called "Northern East Sudanic" languages mentioned above, in order to determine or estimate its language affiliation. Now only, this latest report suggests that he has been able to place "Meroitic" in the Nilo-Saharan language tree with a better sense of certainty than he had earlier.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike Clyde, Rilly is not claiming to fully decipher Meroitic, at least the last time I checked. He has only been able to unlock certain lexicon and thereby doing a comparative analysis with other languages, including the so-called "Northern East Sudanic" languages mentioned above, in order to determine or estimate its language affiliation. Now only, this latest report suggests that he has been able to place "Meroitic" in the Nilo-Saharan language tree with a better sense of certainty than he had earlier.
How do the experts explain that the neighbors of Meroitic speakers to the North, the Egyptians spoke an Afroasiatic language, when the ancestors of the Egyptians are supposed to have come from Northern Sudan?
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Your question is very misleading Mel (it assumes linguistic diversity can't exist within the same geographic space and that language families don't overlap within that space), but if you don't mind I'd like this thread to stay on topic, assuming that people are interested in it.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Unlike Clyde, Rilly is not claiming to fully decipher Meroitic, at least the last time I checked. He has only been able to unlock certain lexicon and thereby doing a comparative analysis with other languages, including the so-called "Northern East Sudanic" languages mentioned above, in order to determine or estimate its language affiliation. Now only, this latest report suggests that he has been able to place "Meroitic" in the Nilo-Saharan language tree with a better sense of certainty than he had earlier.
^Indeed, I don't understand Clyde Winter's criticism and this exchange here, doesn't seem to clarify his point.
@ Clyde, you don't seem to offer a better alternative to Rilly at all. The idea that the Meroitic script is derived from Kushana just seems patently absurd. Either you are presenting your argument very poorly or there's nothing actually behind it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Your question is very misleading Mel (it assumes linguistic diversity can't exist within the same geographic space and that language families don't overlap within that space), but if you don't mind I'd like this thread to stay on topic, assuming that people are interested in it.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Unlike Clyde, Rilly is not claiming to fully decipher Meroitic, at least the last time I checked. He has only been able to unlock certain lexicon and thereby doing a comparative analysis with other languages, including the so-called "Northern East Sudanic" languages mentioned above, in order to determine or estimate its language affiliation. Now only, this latest report suggests that he has been able to place "Meroitic" in the Nilo-Saharan language tree with a better sense of certainty than he had earlier.
^Indeed, I don't understand Clyde Winter's criticism and this exchange here, doesn't seem to clarify his point.
@ Clyde, you don't seem to offer a better alternative to Rilly at all. The idea that the Meroitic script is derived from Kushana just seems patently absurd. Either you are presenting your argument very poorly or there's nothing actually behind it.
posted
Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana makes it clear that the Gymnosophist lived in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Empire. The Gymnosophists were Buddhists.
There were Gymnosophist communities in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Sudan. The Gymnosophists used Tocharian and the Kharosthi script to write their scriptures. This makes it clear that Tocharian and Kharosthi were important means of communication for this Meroite population. Tocharian was therefore probably a major language in the Meroitic Sudan.
The historical evidence makes it clear that there was probably two migrations of Buddhist Gymnosophists to Egypt and the Meroitic Empire.Asoka was a supporter of Buddhism. Zacharias P. Thundy, in Buddha and Christ make it clear that the edits of Asoka (c.274-236 BC) indicate that this ruler sent missionaries to Egypt to preach the Buddhist Dharma(pp.242-243). Thundy maintains that archaeological evidence exist for a community of Indian sages living in Memphis as early as 200 BC (p.243).We know that decendents of these missionaries were still in Egypt over two hundred years later because they were visited by Apollonius of Tyana.
Asoka used Kharosthi to write his edits. The Buddhist also used this writing system to record their scriptures. This means that the Gymnosophists would have had a long tradition of employing Kharosthi to communicate their ideas.
The Gymnosophists were probably well respected by the Meroites and some Meroites probably had knowledge of Buddhist teachings and literacy. Some Meroites may have played an important role in Buddhist because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka (see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474). Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " wehave a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465).The Buddhist text where Blemmya were mentioned are very old. The Vinaya pitaka, is dated to the 4th century B.C.E.
If Blemmya are mentioned in Buddhists text we can be sure that Meroites were not ignorant of Kharosthi. This would explain why many of the Meroitic symbols agree with Kharosthi. They agree because some Meroites were probably already literate in Kharosthi due to the influence of Buddhism in the Meroitic Empire. There seems to have been a second migration of Buddhists to the Meroitic Empire many years after Asoka sent missionaries to Egypt. These migrants came to the Meroitic Empire after their king was murdered.
Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol.1 , claimed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana(p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers.
The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians, the Gymnosophists in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271).According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed.
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka , which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India(London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius.Confirmation of the Ganges story,supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized -Meroites that could have introduced the Tocharian trade language to the Meroites.
In addition to the classical mention of the Indians settling Meroë, and Asoka's edit sending missionaries to Egypt, we also have a horde of Kushana coins that were found on the floor of a cave at the present monastery-shine at Debra Demo in modern Ethiopia in 1940.
Moreover, there were other Indians in Egypt in addition Gymnosophist/Buddhist communities in Upper Egypt and Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda,Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system. All of this supported the traditions of the Meroites that speak of a knowledge of the Kushana/Indians among the Meroites.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade languagedid not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, itis a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites. The fact that the Nubians who were probably not part of the"Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that the Meroites could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough the Kushites wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, they would not have had to abandon their own language. .
posted
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory.The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites. The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence:
1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic
2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa;
3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. Meroitic is not related to languages spoken in this area. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian and failed. K.H. Priese tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; he also failed.The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who were engaged in constantly conflict with the Meroites , failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed. They must prove that:
1. there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence.
The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves isstrong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. This hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis.
The predicting power of the original theory: the Gymnosophist introduced Meroitic to the Kushites due to the influence of Buddhism in Meroe, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia].
I constructed three testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: If the meroites used a writing system of non-African origin a tradition mentioning this fact will exist. (Hypothesis confirmed. Classical literature mentions Indian scholars in ancient Meroe.)
Hypothesis: 2. If the classical literature mentions Indians who lived in Egypt influencing the Meroites their should be historical evidence relating to this tradition. (Hypothesis confirmed .Classical literature mentions a King who left his country is mentioned in the Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka.)
Hypothesis: 3. If Classical literature is true about the Indian origin of the Gymnosophists Indians will be found living near the Meroites around the time the Meroitic inscriptions appear. (Hypothesis confirmed. Artifacts and coins with Indian inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Ethiopia.) Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above , and
1) the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia;
2) Asoka sent many Buddhist missionaries to Egypt who wrote their scriptures in Kharosthi and Tocharian;
3) a Blemmya--native to the Meroitic empire, is mentioned in numerous Buddhist Pali text;
4)the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;
5) cognate lexical items;
6)cognate verbs and
7) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
As a result of these facts we can now use Tocharian or Kushana to read the Meroitic text. The historical evidence make it clear that the Meroites were probably not strangers to Kharosthi literacy since the Gymnosophists had been in Upper Egypt and Meroitic Empires hundreds of years.
The evidence is clear Tocharian and Kharosthi was a popular media among Upper Egyptians and Meroites. As a result, it was a nativized Meroitic language spoken by a major group of Meroites.
. What part of my argument is absurd?Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [QB] ^Your question is very misleading Mel (it assumes linguistic diversity can't exist within the same geographic space and that language families don't overlap within that space), but if you don't mind I'd like this thread to stay on topic, assuming that people are interested in it.
Ok but I'm trying to get at the ultimate origins.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory.The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites. The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence:
1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic
2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa;
3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. Meroitic is not related to languages spoken in this area. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian and failed. K.H. Priese tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; he also failed.The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who were engaged in constantly conflict with the Meroites , failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed. They must prove that:
1. there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence.
The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers is supported by the Indians themselves isstrong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. This hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis.
The predicting power of the original theory: the Gymnosophist introduced Meroitic to the Kushites due to the influence of Buddhism in Meroe, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction.
I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia].
I constructed three testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: If the meroites used a writing system of non-African origin a tradition mentioning this fact will exist. (Hypothesis confirmed. Classical literature mentions Indian scholars in ancient Meroe.)
Hypothesis: 2. If the classical literature mentions Indians who lived in Egypt influencing the Meroites their should be historical evidence relating to this tradition. (Hypothesis confirmed .Classical literature mentions a King who left his country is mentioned in the Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka.)
Hypothesis: 3. If Classical literature is true about the Indian origin of the Gymnosophists Indians will be found living near the Meroites around the time the Meroitic inscriptions appear. (Hypothesis confirmed. Artifacts and coins with Indian inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Ethiopia.) Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above , and
1) the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia;
2) Asoka sent many Buddhist missionaries to Egypt who wrote their scriptures in Kharosthi and Tocharian;
3) a Blemmya--native to the Meroitic empire, is mentioned in numerous Buddhist Pali text;
4)the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;
5) cognate lexical items;
6)cognate verbs and
7) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language.
As a result of these facts we can now use Tocharian or Kushana to read the Meroitic text. The historical evidence make it clear that the Meroites were probably not strangers to Kharosthi literacy since the Gymnosophists had been in Upper Egypt and Meroitic Empires hundreds of years.
The evidence is clear Tocharian and Kharosthi was a popular media among Upper Egyptians and Meroites. As a result, it was a nativized Meroitic language spoken by a major group of Meroites.
. What part of my argument is absurd?
A fascinating theory. I remeber hearing about some connection with Meroe and India but I had no idea about gymnophast living there.
One thing however The Kushans did not really establish themselves in North West India as a major power until about 100 CE that's when they became involved in maritime trade across the Indian ocean. The origins of Meroitic script are supposed to date back to about 200 B.P or so.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Meroitic is translateable as Tocharian/Kushana/Kharosthi where is the lexicon and grammar and why aren't there publications of Meroe's myriad of documents? What is the discipline waiting on?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: If Meroitic is translateable as Tocharian/Kushana/Kharosthi where is the lexicon and grammar and why aren't there publications of Meroe's myriad of documents? What is the discipline waiting on?
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
Meroitic is Niger-Congo language. Cambell-Dunn claims that indo-european is related to niger-congo languages.
The result was the modern genetic constitution of Europe, 35% African, 65% mixed Mediterranean or Afro-Asian.This is in accord with the genetic evidence which testifies to the unity of the Mediterranean peoples and does not recognise a separate “Indo -European” stock. Arnaiz -Villena, Gomez-Casado and Martinez-Laso (2002) state clearly that there is no genetic trace of an Aryan migration, and that if it occurred, it must have been a domination by a small élite.
Asia Minor, before the coming of the Afro-Asiatic farmers, was also colonised by African peoples, as Runoko Rashidi (1993) has argued in a recent publication by Karnak House. The survival in antiquity of a Niger-Congo language on Lemnos, which was closely related to Etruscan is proof of this. And Minoan Crete, as we now know , (Campbell-Dunn in Minoan Linear Scripts : The Niger-Congo Context), was African (Niger-Congo). A non-Indo-European language was still spoken at Praisos on E. Crete in the fourth century BC (Stanford 1948 : II, 322).
The shores of the Aegean and Mediterranean therefore were originally occupied by Africans, and subsequently overlaid by Afro-Asiatic farmers. It follows that the Mediterranean was once, in the remote past, the home of African blacks. No doubt this is the reason that the Mediterranean peoples are olive skinned, a blend of Afro- Asiatics and of black Africans, from closer to the equator. But this is not a linguistic question, and raises controversial issues outside the ambit of our inquiry. So we will not pursue it further.
posted
Maurice Pope in THE STORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DECIPHERMENT, has made it clear that before an unknown language can be deciphered you must have the right theoretical structure to base your inquiry upon. Pope found that in the historical decipherments of ancient languages three preliminary conditions must be met:
1) confidence that a script can be deciphered; 2) location of proper names must be determined; 3) the grammatical rules of the target language/ script must be found .
We were able to read Meroitic because these preliminary conditions were met, and we were able to develop new hypothesis based on historical evidence to determine the cognate language of Meroitic. Conditions number one and two were met by Griffith when he deciphered the Meroitic script in 1910, and his discovery of the proper names of the Meroitic gods and individuals in Meroitic text. Griffith also discovered the direction the Meroitic writing was written.
This recognition by Griffith of the solubility of the Meroitic text was reinforced in 1978, with publication of UNESCO's The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of the Meroitic Script. This was an important publication because it provided researchers with up-to-date information on the status of Meroitic.
Condition number three for the decipherment of Meroitic was met in 1979 when Fritz Hintze published his Beitrage zur meroitischen Grammatik . The research of F. Hintze (1979) and I. Hoffmann (1981) have made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989). The work of Griffith and Hintze fulfilled all the requirements for the decipherment of the Meroitic writing. The comparative method was used to find the cognate language of Meroitic. Using this method Meroitic scholars have compared the "known" Meroitic terms to vernacular African languages to establish morphological cognition between Meroitic and an African language. Up to now these linguistic comparisons failed to reveal the cognate language of Meroitic. Researchers working on the Meroitic language do not believe that it was a member of the Afro-Asian group. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian. K.H. Priese, tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; and F. Hintze, attempted to compare Meroitic with the Ural-Altaic group. Recently Siegbert Hummel, compared the "known" Meroitic words to words in the Altaic family which he believed was a substrate language of Meroitic. These scholars failed to find a match between Meroitic and the vernacular languages of Nubia and the Sudan. This made it necessary to turn to the historical literature concerning the Kushites to form a new hypothesis related to possible sources of the Meroitic language. The historical literature of the Kushites comes from Egyptian and classical sources.
LINGUISTIC SUPPORT
The classical literature supported the view that we might be able to find the Meroitic cognate language through a comparison of the Meroitic terms and Kushan lexical items. To test the Kushana hypothesis we had to then: 1) find agreement between Kushana and Meroitic terms; 2) compare Central Asian and Egypto-Sudanese toponomies; 3) compare Kushana and Meroitic grammatical forms.
Hintze's (1979) grammar of Meroitic provided the necessary material to compare Meroitic with other languages to find its cognate language. Hintze (1979) recognized three approaches to the study of Meroitic: 1) philological, 2) comparative, and 3) structural (i.e., the morphological-syntactical). The philological methods of Hintze (1979) were informed guesses based upon context.
In the comparative method the structures of two or more languages are compared to determine the relationship between languages. Hintze's (1979) discussion of the Meroitic affixes provided us with the linguistic material to compare Meroitic successfully with Tocharian. Linguist to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states uses the comparative method.
The comparative linguist looks for patterns of correspondence, i.e., the isolation of words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regard for location and/or type of vowel. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain locations in words having analogous meanings.
Using the comparative methods proposed by Hintze we have found that the Meroitic inscriptions are written in Tocharian, a language used as a lingua franca in Central Asia by the Kushana or Kush people. The Kushana people ruled Central Asia and India. Linguist prefer to call the Kushana language Tocharian, after the Sanskrit term for Kushana: Tu-kara.(Winters 1984,1989) There is structural, morphological and toponymic evidence which support the view that Tokharian is cognate to Meroitic (Winters 1984,1989).
There are many Central Asian place names that agree with toponomies in Nubia/ Sudan. Below we list a few of these common toponomies:
Central Asia Sudan
Pap Pap Karnak Karnak Kukushka Kurush Shaur Sarur Kandi Kandi Urban Borgan Khara Kara- Kupuri Gabur, Capur
These placenames cam be compared with the maps of Central Asia and the Sudan supplied me by Dr. Vamos-Toth and attached hereto.
Some of the alleged Meroitic terms, but not all have being verified by my decipherment. What you must remember though, is that most of the alleged Meroitic lexical items were simply guesses by the researchers themselves. These Meroitic terms could only become valid when they can be read in all the Meroitic text and have consistent meaning. I found that some of these terms are homonyms, while other terms "discovered " by Griffith and others were good guesses that do not prove valid given our discovery of the cognate language of Meroitic. There are several recognized Meroitic words they are not of Egyptian origin (Hintze 1979). The following words correspond to Tokharian words:
Meroitic Tokharian
0 kadke / ktke # queen 0 katak # master of the house 0 ato # water 0 ap # 0 s # 'race' 0 sah # 'man' 0 wide # youth 0 wir # 0 qor # monarch 0 oroce # 'the grand king' 0 parite # agent 0 parwe # 'first' 0 apote # 'envoy' 0 ap # 'father'
Around 57% of these terms show agreement. This made it highly probable that Meroitic and Tokharian were cognate languages.
The grammar of Meroitic by Hintze, Beitrage zur meroitischen Grammatik (1979) also allowed us to make comparisons with Tocharian to test the Kushana hypothesis for reading Meroitic. This comparison of grammatical structures showed cognition between this language and Meroitic. Hintze was sure that there were number of Meroitic affixes including:
p ye -te -to -o
B.G. Trigger in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned several other possible Meroitic affixes including:
-n -te -b
In addition , A. M. Abdalla in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned three possible verbal suffixes , including:
-n -t -y
The Kushana language includes all of these affixes. Recognition of analogous structural elements in relation to Kushana and Meroitic allowed us to divide the Meroitic phonemes into words. Griffith provided us with evidence for selected Meroitic nouns. Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including: hr, the, tk, we, pl, do, mde and yi mde.
Following this lead we searched the Kushan language to determine if it possessed any verbs that might match the proposed hypothetical verbs of Abdalla. A comparison of Kushan and Meroitic proved to be successful. We now know that he was absolutely right about his interpretation of possible Meroitic verbs. Below is the interpretation of these Meroitic verbs:
hr to have dignity the to move tk to set in motion, to investigate w-e to give escort pl to boast, to praise m-de measure the offering y i m-de go make (full) measure of the offering
Recognition of these Meroitic terms as verbs gave us any more confirmation that Kushana was probably the Meroitic cognate language. This discovery of Meroitic verbs and nouns, and cognate toponomies in Central Asia and Upper-Nubia-Sudan proved that Meroitic could be read using Kushana lexical items.
The discovery that Tocharian is cognate to Meroitic has led to the full decipherment of the Meroitic script. We can now translate Meroitic using Tokharian. This allows us to obtain new information about the Meroitic civilization. My research into Kushan or Tokharian has led me to recognize that this language was probably used as a lingua franca or trade language in Central Asia by the diverse peoples living there in an intense bilingual environment. C. A. Winters (1991) has illustrated how the Greek and Slavic terms in Tokharian were loanwords, absorbed by Tokharian after the Greek conquest of Bactria. This borrowing pattern was consistent with the spread of the Greek language into Bactria by a small elite group of warriors.
To test this hypothesis at attepted to decipher an inscription from Mussawarat es-Sufra. The inscription included several Meroitic signs.
The picture associated with this inscription is a graphic depiction of a sexual experience.
Reading from right to left we have the following Meroitic words
Nem pkh ote
In Kushana these words had the following meaning in Kushana
Nam = tendency Pak = to aim Ote = Wonderment
This allows us to read the Musawwarat es-Sufra inscription as follows: "The tendency (is) to aim for the Wonderment of (sex)!
Once I had made this breakthrough in the decipherment of Meroitic I began to decipher other Meroitic inscriptions and learn more about the Meroitic language.
Meroitic Language
The classical and Egyptian sources make it clear that Upper Nubia and numerous tribes inhabited the Sudan. The possible early use of Kushan\Tokharian as a trade language made it an ideal candidate for use by the Meroitic elites who ruled an empire that was made up of many diverse ethnic groups as the language for literate Meroites.
Meroitic is basically a suffixing language. The funerary tablets are written in the third person.
Conclusion
In conclusion the multiethnic populations that lived in the Meroitic empire used the Meroitic language as a lingua franca. This would explain the inability of earlier researchers to find the cognate language of Meroitic in the Sudan, even though they might find some analogous lexical items.
As a result of the above, I believe that my decipherment of the Meroitic script is correct. You will find that these lexical items allow us to gain insight into the Meroitic religious and funerary world. I look forward to finding some historical Meroitic text, but up to now I have just found materials relating to funerary customs and the Meroitic religion. The Meroitic chamber inscription is interesting , but it also deals mainly with things funerary.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: [qb] A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
Meroitic is Niger-Congo language. Cambell-Dunn claims that indo-european is related to niger-congo languages.
But you've also classed Meroitic along with Blemmye, which we now know today as Beja. Beja speak Afro-asiatic languages. How do you reconcile three different language families (and possibly four if including Nilo-Saharan who some claim is related to Niger-Congo via Niger-Kordofanian)? Indeed, this is more ambitious than the Nostraic theory.
Honestly, your argument is all over the place. Must you really rely on a proposed relationship between Niger-Congo and Indo-European for this to work? Shouldn't you first be trying to build the argument that this isn't an isolated fringe view from ONE scholar who MAY have suggested it? Your bibliographic references amount to undeveloped scholarship that isn't widely accepted. Why is it so hard to just find decent support for your position? Seriously, I can make any argument I want if I just find people that agree with me. It's like saying:
So and so (1993) believes aliens built the pyramids, therefore this strengthens my argument that Egyptians spoke Martian.
^No, you need more support from your peers. It cannot be simply because you're Black, that is a cop-out, why is it that your theories are so out there and rejected by mainstream scholarship? Black or White, anyone can convince any one (or at least make them shut up) with a good enough argument. The "race" excuse is disgusting (and I only bring it up because you've made that excuse before). You really should dig down and think about why nobody ever accepts any of your theories. The decipherment of Meroitic would be a phenomenal achievement and it boggles the mind that you show no gumption in forcing a discussion about it since if you could see something that everyone else could see and have actually deciphered it, NO ONE can deny you, yet you've been on the side line for how many years with these claims? You should not be trying to prove this to US, you have bigger fish to fry.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata - Without taking a position on the issue. Your thinking is extremely limited. Did you think that the ex-Africa migrants INVENTED their languages and learned to speak AFTER they left Africa?
Well the answer is no, they did not. Therefore ALL Human language is African. The ONLY issue can be which has the CLOSER relationship.
Since modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: [qb] A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
Meroitic is Niger-Congo language. Cambell-Dunn claims that indo-european is related to niger-congo languages.
But you've also classed Meroitic along with Blemmye, which we now know today as Beja. Beja speak Afro-asiatic languages. How do you reconcile three different language families (and possibly four if including Nilo-Saharan who some claim is related to Niger-Congo via Niger-Kordofanian)? Indeed, this is more ambitious than the Nostraic theory.
Honestly, your argument is all over the place. Must you really rely on a proposed relationship between Niger-Congo and Indo-European for this to work? Shouldn't you first be trying to build the argument that this isn't an isolated fringe view from ONE scholar who MAY have suggested it? Your bibliographic references amount to undeveloped scholarship that isn't widely accepted. Why is it so hard to just find decent support for your position? Seriously, I can make any argument I want if I just find people that agree with me. It's like saying:
So and so (1993) believes aliens built the pyramids, therefore this strengthens my argument that Egyptians spoke Martian.
^No, you need more support from your peers. It cannot be simply because you're Black, that is a cop-out, why is it that your theories are so out there and rejected by mainstream scholarship? Black or White, anyone can convince any one (or at least make them shut up) with a good enough argument. The "race" excuse is disgusting (and I only bring it up because you've made that excuse before). You really should dig down and think about why nobody ever accepts any of your theories. The decipherment of Meroitic would be a phenomenal achievement and it boggles the mind that you show no gumption in forcing a discussion about it since if you could see something that everyone else could see and have actually deciphered it, NO ONE can deny you, yet you've been on the side line for how many years with these claims? You should not be trying to prove this to US, you have bigger fish to fry.
Indeed, it's telling that a supposed academic chooses a poorly moderated message board as his venue for promoting his "hypotheses" despite having easy access to peer-reviewed journals.
Why does he want Meroitic Kush to have any connection with some Central Asian nomads anyway?
Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: [qb] A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
Meroitic is Niger-Congo language. Cambell-Dunn claims that indo-european is related to niger-congo languages.
But you've also classed Meroitic along with Blemmye, which we now know today as Beja. Beja speak Afro-asiatic languages. How do you reconcile three different language families (and possibly four if including Nilo-Saharan who some claim is related to Niger-Congo via Niger-Kordofanian)? Indeed, this is more ambitious than the Nostraic theory.
Honestly, your argument is all over the place. Must you really rely on a proposed relationship between Niger-Congo and Indo-European for this to work? Shouldn't you first be trying to build the argument that this isn't an isolated fringe view from ONE scholar who MAY have suggested it? Your bibliographic references amount to undeveloped scholarship that isn't widely accepted. Why is it so hard to just find decent support for your position? Seriously, I can make any argument I want if I just find people that agree with me. It's like saying:
So and so (1993) believes aliens built the pyramids, therefore this strengthens my argument that Egyptians spoke Martian.
^No, you need more support from your peers. It cannot be simply because you're Black, that is a cop-out, why is it that your theories are so out there and rejected by mainstream scholarship? Black or White, anyone can convince any one (or at least make them shut up) with a good enough argument. The "race" excuse is disgusting (and I only bring it up because you've made that excuse before). You really should dig down and think about why nobody ever accepts any of your theories. The decipherment of Meroitic would be a phenomenal achievement and it boggles the mind that you show no gumption in forcing a discussion about it since if you could see something that everyone else could see and have actually deciphered it, NO ONE can deny you, yet you've been on the side line for how many years with these claims? You should not be trying to prove this to US, you have bigger fish to fry.
I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I am just discussing the fact that Meroitic was not a Nilo-Saharan language.
As I have discussed elsewhere in understanding the Meroitic language you have to acknolwedge four facts:
1. Egypt and Meroe were Confederations made up of nationalities speaking diverse languages.
2. The Egyptian language was a lingua franca used to unite the various populations of Meroe and Egypt up until Roman times.
3. Once Egyptians were forced out of Egypt in Roman times, the Meroites chose a new lingua franca: Kushana (Tocharian) which had been used in Central Asia earlier to unite the diverse speakers in the Kushana empire.
4)Kharosthi was used to create the Meroitic script to write since it was a known writing system used by the Gymnosophists (Buddhists) of Meroitic Kush.
Since the Meroites spoke numerous languages the affiliation of their individual language may it be Nilo-Saharan or Niger-Conger did not matter since they Meroitic was a lingua franca used to unite the Meroites that belonged to the Meroitic empire.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Once Egyptians were forced out of Egypt in Roman times, the Meroites chose a new lingua franca: Kushana (Tocharian) which had been used in Central Asia earlier to unite the diverse speakers in the Kushana empire.
And why would the Meroites use a language that originated thousands of miles away in Central Asia as their lingua franca?
Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have published numerous articles on Meroitic. . You can also check out the following site where I explain my decipherment in detail: Meroitic Decipherment
You seem to have access to a good library you can also check out these articles:
C.A. Winters. (1984). "A note on Tokharian and Meroitic", Meroitic Newsletter, 23, 18-21.
__________. (1989). "Cheikh Anta Diop et le déchiffrement de l’écriture Méroïtique,"Revue Martiniguaise de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature, No. 8, 149-152.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Temple architecture and mortuary practices, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (1), 29-33.
_________.(1998a). Meroitic Funerary text: Stelae and funerary tables, InScription: Journal of Ancient Egypt,1 (2), 41-55.
___________ (1998c). The inscriptions of Tanyidamani. Nubica et Ethiopica IV \ V, 355-388.
'
This is the longest Meroitic inscription.
,
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: [qb] A strong relation to Tocharian/Kushana would essentially make Meroitic an Indo European langauge. Y'all know that, right?
That seems highly doubtful.
Meroitic is Niger-Congo language. Cambell-Dunn claims that indo-european is related to niger-congo languages.
But you've also classed Meroitic along with Blemmye, which we now know today as Beja. Beja speak Afro-asiatic languages. How do you reconcile three different language families (and possibly four if including Nilo-Saharan who some claim is related to Niger-Congo via Niger-Kordofanian)? Indeed, this is more ambitious than the Nostraic theory.
Honestly, your argument is all over the place. Must you really rely on a proposed relationship between Niger-Congo and Indo-European for this to work? Shouldn't you first be trying to build the argument that this isn't an isolated fringe view from ONE scholar who MAY have suggested it? Your bibliographic references amount to undeveloped scholarship that isn't widely accepted. Why is it so hard to just find decent support for your position? Seriously, I can make any argument I want if I just find people that agree with me. It's like saying:
So and so (1993) believes aliens built the pyramids, therefore this strengthens my argument that Egyptians spoke Martian.
^No, you need more support from your peers. It cannot be simply because you're Black, that is a cop-out, why is it that your theories are so out there and rejected by mainstream scholarship? Black or White, anyone can convince any one (or at least make them shut up) with a good enough argument. The "race" excuse is disgusting (and I only bring it up because you've made that excuse before). You really should dig down and think about why nobody ever accepts any of your theories. The decipherment of Meroitic would be a phenomenal achievement and it boggles the mind that you show no gumption in forcing a discussion about it since if you could see something that everyone else could see and have actually deciphered it, NO ONE can deny you, yet you've been on the side line for how many years with these claims? You should not be trying to prove this to US, you have bigger fish to fry.
Indeed, it's telling that a supposed academic chooses a poorly moderated message board as his venue for promoting his "hypotheses" despite having easy access to peer-reviewed journals.
Why does he want Meroitic Kush to have any connection with some Central Asian nomads anyway?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Once Egyptians were forced out of Egypt in Roman times, the Meroites chose a new lingua franca: Kushana (Tocharian) which had been used in Central Asia earlier to unite the diverse speakers in the Kushana empire.
And why would the Meroites use a language that originated thousands of miles away in Central Asia as their lingua franca?
Simple: The Meroite Buddhist were already familiar with the writing system. We can assume that these Buddhist Meroites belonged to diverse tribes.
posted
The Meroites abandoned the Egyptian language after 1000’s of Egyptians settled in the Meroitic Empire after the Romans took control of Egypt.
Since the Assyrians first conquered the Egyptians there has been a slow replacement of ancient Egyptians by Middle Eastern and Western European peoples.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other ancient Egyptian caused political and military conflicts that led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deerters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testfy to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language. As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign dominantion the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
^Your question is very misleading Mel (it assumes linguistic diversity can't exist within the same geographic space and that language families don't overlap within that space)...
On point, about diversity and the prospect for language overlap. It occurs to me that Kushitic/Meroitic language likely had a certain amount of creole-like tendencies about it. On the one hand, elements of it were influence by Egypt, while the remainder, local languages. Like Egyptic would have been in the north, i.e. a regional lingua franca for the discrete localities brought under a central government, the Kushitic language was probably formed out of mostly related but discrete local/regional languages brought under the governance of a single Kushitic government. Egyptic influences would have stemmed from not only the need to facilitate trade with Kemet, but also from AE military involvement in the south. I'd opened a thread on this point years ago, about potential for the Nile Valley languages having served as regional lingua francas.
As a matter of observation, some wall murals of Kushitic personalities feature people with diverse attire, which might well be an indication of local diversity therein.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Sundjata - Without taking a position on the issue. Your thinking is extremely limited. Did you think that the ex-Africa migrants INVENTED their languages and learned to speak AFTER they left Africa?
Well the answer is no, they did not. Therefore ALL Human language is African. The ONLY issue can be which has the CLOSER relationship.
Since modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection.
It is not that simple in finding relationships between languages.
Linguistic research is based on the classification or taxonomy of languages. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes . First, it is necessary for the identification of language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a people and discover its regular sound correspondences.
There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal. A genealogical classification groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or Proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A topological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.
Given this criterion you should be very specific in identifying a linguistic relationship.Linguist claim that the Indo-European languages share a genetic relationship based on the features they share in common. But this is inaccurate.
It is inaccurate because the Greeks and Indo-Aryan speakers were in contact in ancient times. This historical connection explains the relationship between European and Sanskrit. They are related because when the grammar of Sanskrit , which is a lingua franca, was codified by Pannini Greek was spoken in the region, so Greek vocabulary was included in Sanskrit.
Moreover, when the Indo-Europeans came in contact with Blacks they had no culture. As a result, they adopted many Afro-Dravidian culture terms to name the cultural items they acquired from Black people. This is why there are five different IE roots for horse. This multiplicity of IE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the IE proto-lexicon, and illustrates how IE populations absorbed the culture of black people like a sponge..
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Since modern European languages, the so-called Indo-European, are derived from the Indian languages of the Dravidians, plus the East Asian languages of people like the Persians, plus whatever the Aryans and other White Central Asians spoke, plus the languages of the native Black Europeans that they melded with.
Point being, that modern languages are modern combinations of ancient languages - the English language is a perfect example. Therefore a case can be made for just about any connection.
The relationship between English and ancient language is mainly due to literacy, not the combination of ancient and modern languages. Speakers of the Germanic languages (which) include English) lexicalized many Greek and Roman terms as they became literate in these languages.
Blacks spread civilization around the world. As other people came in contact with these bLacks they adopted cultural traditions and the terms that came along with the new way of life introduced to Europeans by the Blacks. This is evident in the relationship between Greek, and the two major lingua francas of Central asia and South Asia: Tocharian and Sanskrit.
It is important to remember that the relationship between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan language, especially Sanskrit is via the Greek language. Greek influenced other European languages because it was recognized as a language of culture and civilization by the Romans.
It was in Pakistan that the Greek language was probably incorporated into Sanskrit. Many of the rules for Sanskrit were codified by Panini, who was born in Salatura, in Northwest Pakistan. Panini’s grammar contains 4000 rules.
When Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit, it was spoken by the elites in the area. Greek was also popular when Panini wrote the Sanskrit grammar. The Greeks were called Yunani or Yavana. Thus we learn from Agrawala (1953) that the Yavanani lipi (edict) was well known in Gandahara, and even Panini mentions the Yavana in his grammar . The term Yauna meant Ionian (Woodcock, 1966).
The history of Greeks in the area is quite interesting. When Alexander entered the HinduKush region in 327 B.C., Greek settlements were already in the area. By 180 BC, as the Mauryas fell into decline, the Greek Kings of Bactria took control of Western Punjab and Gandhara up to the Indus River. Under King Menander (d.130 B.C.) the Greeks had their capital at Taxila. The center of Greek culture in the area was Charsadda near Peshawar (Woodcock,1966).
Many Greek terms were probably already incorporated in the Prakrits of Northern India-Pakistan and Central Asia. Here the Greeks minted their coins with Kharoshthi, Brahmi and Greek inscriptions.
Greek was used for commercial purposes and served as a patrician lingua franca of the Kabul valley and of Gandhara. During the rule of Pushyamitra many Greeks settled in India. Due to the long history of Greeks in India, Ashoka had some of his edicts written in Greek and Aramaic bilinguals. In 44 A.D., Appolonius of Tyana when he visited Taxila found that merchants and kings learned Greek “as a matter of course” (Rahman, 2004; Woodcock,1966).
Given the popularity of Greek in the region it is not surprising that Sanskrit would show such a strong relationship to the Indic languages, since it was spoken throughout the area of a couple of hundred years. Commenting on the Greek rulers of India, Kulke and Rothermund (1998), said that “They are referred to as ‘Indo-Greeks’, and there were about forty such kings and rulers who controlled large areas of northwestern India and Afghanistan….They appear as Yavanas in stray references in Indian literature, and there are few but important references in European sources. In these distant outposts, the representatives of the Hellenic policy survived the defeat of their Western compatriots at the hands of the Parthians for more than a century” (p.70). The greatest of the Indo-Greek rulers was Menander, who is mentioned in the famous Milindapanho text. The Shakas adopted many elements of Indo-Greek culture which they perpetuated in India for over 100 years (Rahman, 2004).
It is impossible to argue for a genetic relationship between Vedic and Greek languages based on the fact that speakers of these languages formerly lived in intimate contact in historical times. Secondly, we know the Dravidians were in Greece before the Indo-Europeans enter the country. These non-I-E speakers were called Pelasgians. As a result, Anna Morpurgo Davies, The linguistic evidence:Is there any?, in Gerald Cadogan, The End of the early Bronze Age in the Agean (pp.93-123), says that only 40% of Greek is of Indo-European etymology (p.105). Since only 40% of the Greek terms are of I-E origin, many of the Greek terms that agree with the Indic languages may be from the 60% of the Greek lexical items that came from non-I-E speakers which as noted by Lahovary in Dravidian origins and the West, were people who spoke either Dravidian languages, or other languages from Africa, genetically related to the Dravidian group.
In conclusion, as a result of the Greek influence in Bactria and India-Pakistan , Indians and Bactrians had to acquire "Greek Culture" to enhance their position and opportunity in North India and Bactria during Greek rule. Greek rule placed prestige on status elements introduced into the region by the Greeks, especially the Greek language. Status acquired by Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis was thus centered around acquisition of Greek language and Greek culture. This supported by the evidence that Indian elites used Greek in business and government (Rahman, 2004). This would have inturn added pressure on the Bactrians to incorporate Greek terms into a Bactrian lingua franca (i.e., Tocharian).
Given the fact that Greek administrators in Bactria and Northern India-Pakistan ,refused to fully integrate Bactrians and Indians into the ruling elite, unless they were “well versed in Greek culture and language) led to subsequent generations of native Bactrians and Indian-Pakistanis to progressively incorporate more Greek terms into their native language. This would explain why Tocharian has many features that relate to certain IE etymologies and Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, present many terms that are associated with the Greeks, but illustrates little affinity to Indo-Iranian languages which are geographically and temporally closer to Tocharian.
Some researchers might dispute the influence of the Greek language on Sanskrit because Panini’s grammar was suppose to have been written around 400 B.C. This date for the grammar might be too early, because Rahman (2004) and Agrawala (1953) maintains that Greek was spoken in Gandahara in Panini’s time.
The influence of colonial Greeks in Central Asia would explain why the most important evidence of an I-E relationship with Sanskrit. The historical connections between the so-called Indo-European languages probably respect an areal linguistic relationship—not genetic relationship.
Here I discuss in detail the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic