...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] Apologies for early repros of the same topic. Experienced some technical problems, but it's all resolved. :) And now back to: Rather than let a discussion that supposedly started out as an "Isaaq" genetic question, ramble on off-topic about Somali clan issues on one hand, while on the other hand, about the issue of whether the term "Ethiopia" [as in the contemporary nation of Ethiopia] is a recent construct or not, along with how much influence the Sabeans had on ancient African Horn, I felt it necessary to make this an issue on its own. Thus in response to Yom, I hereby present: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: This doesn't answer the question posed.[/QUOTE][b]Sure it does.[/b] You asked what it means, and I told you that it's simply a name. It doesn't have a meaning. Possible cognates to the h-b-š root exist, though. I don't remember what they are, however.[/QUOTE]I am assuming you are a capable reader, and as such, can you keep a straight face, and insist that the non-answer above, answers this: [i]"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?[/i] ^It is precise and concise; it doesn't say [i]what does "Habasha" mean[/i]? Got it. [/QUOTE]Need I be so blunt (and please be more polite in your response)? Here is your answer: "[b]no[/b]." [/QUOTE]Need [i]I[/i] be blunt? Politeness is a two way street - not one way. So, stop beating around the bush, and directly answer the question that was asked, and not an imaginery question in your head. And if your "no" answer is anything to go by, then Yonis is right, in that you cannot equate "Habasha" with "Ethiopia" since that the latter is a relatively recent political construct, as a contemporary nation state in the African Horn. [QUOTE]Yom: Long answer: I don't remember exactly what the h-b-š root referred to, but I believed it involved trade, and in Arabic had something to do with gathering of troops, or the like. Don't quote me on the former, but I think I'm right on the latter.[/QUOTE]Again, wrong answer to my question...and I hope that I am not being too blunt when I say that. [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Yom: Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that [b]substantial[/b] Sabaean migration (i.e. enough to change the population or found Aksum) has been discredited, which it has.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Supercar: And who would have proposed a population replacement?[/QUOTE]No one here, but many past scholars. I wasn't countering a population replacement, anyway, but a major genetic impact (i.e. that Ethiopians are highly miscegenated).[/QUOTE]Scholars like who? And what do you define as "major genetic impact"? [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), [b]it would seem more likely to me that the alphabet would have been transmitted directly from Egypt to the Horn and South Arabia in the form of a South Semitic alphabet.[/b][/QUOTE]Firstly, no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt, at least not in a direct sense. Secondly, the Arabian script was found to have been in use before its use in the African Horn. Thirdly, the Sabeans had been to the region; hence, that they could have taken their script along with them, comes as no surprise.[/QUOTE]What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?[/QUOTE]What about it? [QUOTE]Yom: There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.[/QUOTE]What [b]direct[/b] connections does that script have with "Ge'ez" or the local Aksumite script? [QUOTE]Yom: When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.[/QUOTE]What you're now in denial about the connections between the Sabean script and the predecessor of Amharic script, from which Amharic script is a further development? The south Arabian Sabean script is approximated to have been used from around 6th century BC or so; the Sabean scripts in the African Horn have been attested to about more or less the same time, ca. 5th B.C. or so, while the Minean (also South Arabian language) counterpart has been attested to about 8th B.C. or so. Here is [i]one[/i] perspective on why Ethiopic script likely developed from South Arabian rather than vice versa: Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that [b]doesn't mean that the D`mt civilization was founded by Sabaeans[/b], just as the common Greek inscriptions of Aksum (coins were only in Greek, even the bronze and silver ones for more domestic use, for a long time) doesn't mean that the civilization was founded by Sabaeans. Further, since Ge'ez is now known [i]not[/i] to be a descendent of Sabaean, the actual use of Sabaean as a primary language is unlikely.[/QUOTE]If Munro-Hay's notes are anything to go by, it would appear that the DMT elites were likely native Ethiopians, as opposed to Sabean rulers. "Ge'ez" itself is Ethiopian, NOT south Arabian, but the script with which it was subsequently communicated, show obvious south Arabian influences. [/QUOTE]Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.[/QUOTE]You have missed the main points laid out in Munro-Hay's notes, which would have been instructive. Scripts in [b]pure[/b] Sabean language and another language, presumably Ethiopic, have been found... From Munro Hay: [b]Inscriptions[/b] found at some of these sites [b]include the names of persons[/b] bearing the [b]traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib[/b], apparently indicating [b]a ruler with something of a priest-king status[/b], [b][i]not otherwise known in Ethiopia[/i][/b] (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite [b]Sabaean-influenced cultural province[/b] did [b]not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts[/b], but was a [b]wide-spread[/b] and well-established phenomenon." And again... "The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, [b][i]pure[/i] Sabaean[/b] and another [b]language with [i]certain aspects[/i] found [i]later[/i] in Ge`ez[/b] (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay What does this imply? "Pure" as used here, suggests that the other inscription, used alphabets that were likened to the Sabean alphabets, but likely had [b]grammatical[/b] features that distinguished it from its Sabean counterpart. The aforemention citation of Munro-Hay should be instructive, once again: "...and another [b]language with [i]certain aspects[/i] found **[i]later[/i]** in Ge`ez[/b] (Schneider 1976). A number of different tribes and families seem to be mentioned by the inscriptions of this period, but there is no evidence to show whether any of these groups lasted into the Aksumite period. Only the word [b]YG`DYN, man of Yeg`az, might hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan tribe was established [i]so early[/i][/b], though [b]the particular inscription which mentions it is written in the [i]South Arabian[/i] rather than the [i]Ethiopian language[/i][/b] (Schneider 1961). [b]Some of the other apparently tribal names also occur in [i]both groups[/i] of inscriptions.[/b] [i]The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions is `N. of the family N. of the tribe N.', possibly also reflected later by the Aksumite `Bisi'-title; `king N. man of the tribe/clan (?) N.' (Ch. 7: 5).[/i]" - S. Munro-Hay The latter italicized piece may reflect continuation of the "certain aspects" of the aforementioned language, presumably Ethiopic, into Ge'ez script. But it is instructive that, the indicators of the early establishment of a "Ge'ez" tribe, was written in South Arabian language, rather than the local counterpart. [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: [b]In case you misread, if you re-read what I wrote[/b], it said that the Tihama cultural complex was African (i.e. N. Ethiopian and Eritrean) in origin (I inserted the probably because I only cited one source claiming that).[/QUOTE]That would make the two of us, who must have 'mis-read' your writing, because you said: [i]Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as [b]cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC [/b](which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).[/i] Clearly that statement, contradicts your earlier statement that Sabean migration had been discredited![/QUOTE]As I said above, by Sabaean migration I didn't mean [i]any[/i] migration, but the traditional hypothesis of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Sabaean colonist force takes control of N. Ethiopia and marks the beginning of civilization there. [/QUOTE]You use the term "As I have said", as though your claims have been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment. At first you claimed that the Sabean migration was discredited, and then you claimed that it wasn't "significant", and now you are claiming that you mean that it was some "superior colonist force". You are incoherent, my friend. [QUOTE]Yom: I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.[/QUOTE]The point is not necessarily to convince a person such as yourself, in denial, to see objective material presented, but for the understanding of the perceptive. Hence, you don't see a cultural complex with "Sabean" influences, described in the aforementioned Munro-Hay notes, as evidence of Sabean presence in the region, but I do. [QUOTE]Yom [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: I don't deny that [b]any[/b] migration has taken place, though.[/QUOTE]Of course you can't deny it; the evidence against such a denial is overwhelming. There has apparently been no population replacement at any point of bidirectional migration across the Red Sea, but you don't have evidence to conclude that there was no significant migration from South Arabia in the pre-Aksumite period. [/QUOTE]What do you define as significant? [/QUOTE]Good question; it would depend on what [i]you[/i] mean by 'significant'. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3