...
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 Yom: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: 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. Again, wrong answer to my question...and I hope that I am not being too blunt when I say that.[/qb][/QUOTE]Have I been impolite? I always try to be polite in discussions, so I'm rather skeptical of this, but if I have I apologize. Your question was this: [i]"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?[/i] I.e., if "Habasha" meant the same thing as "Ethiopia" (i.e. "burnt face"). The answer to that question is no. I'm not saying that the word "Ethiopia" was used before Ezana, I doubt it was ever used before him because his usage of the term was probably influenced by his conversion to Christianity. What I [b]am[/b] saying is that Ethiopia has been used as the term for the people of the country (though distinct from "Aksumites " with the meaning of "capital-city dwellers," though not from "Aksumites" with the meaning of the main peoples of the Aksumite empire) since at least Ezana in the mid-4th century. I have shown evidence of its use from Amde Tsiyon (r.1314-1344) to the 16th century, and, if need be, I can add more examples form the 17th and 18th century (maybe also the 12th and 13th, though they will be harder to come by due to the lack of historical data on that era). After Ezana, inscriptions have not yet been found (except a late Aksumite one about Hatsani Dani'el), so we can't say whether the usage continued in Aksumite times. The coins only said King of the Aksumites but that doesn't exclude the usage of Ethiopia. Post-Aksumite and Zagwe times are also hazy wrt historical records. Egyptian patriarchal writings refer to the country as Abyssinia (whatever the Arabic term might be, Ard. al-Habasha maybe?), but that term was always used by the Arabs, regardless of the Ethiopian term, so it's not very relevant. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Yom: Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that [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]Like Conti Rossini or modern fools like Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. Major genetic impact would more accurately be a genetic impact substantial enough to have a visible phenomic impact, which I don't believe has happened. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), [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]You said no alphabet has been found to have developed in Egypt. Proto-Sinaitic was found in the Sinai rather than Egypt proper, so I named an alphabetic (abjad actually) script found in Middle Egypt. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.[/QUOTE]What [b]direct[/b] connections does that script have with "Ge'ez" or the local Aksumite script?[/QUOTE]No one said anything about a direct derivation into Ge'ez script from Ancient Egyptian. I'm saying that the Egyptian script could have divided into a northern version and a South Semitic one, which would be the predecessor of either Sabaean and Ge'ez or Sabaean, which later became Ge'ez. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.[/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?[/QUOTE]No. I'm simply asking whether its certain that ESA developed in South Arabia first. [QUOTE]The south Arabian Sabean script is approximated to have been used from around 6th century BC or so; the Sabean scripts in the African Horn have been attested to about more or less the same time, ca. 5th B.C. or so, while the Minean (also South Arabian language) counterpart has been attested to about 8th B.C. or so.[/QUOTE]D`mt was 8th-7th c. B.C., which is contemporary with the Minaean script, then. What's the difference between Minaean script and Sabaean, by the way (letter by letter would be appreciated, but general is fine if you don't know letter by letter differences)? A picture of Minaean script is fine, as I have access to images of some of the D`mt inscriptions in Ge'ez (language) and Sabaean. Where did you get those numbers, by the way? I've heard pre-8th century dates for the Minaean civilization (nothing about the script) before. [QUOTE]Here is [i]one[/i] perspective on why Ethiopic script likely developed from South Arabian rather than vice versa:[/QUOTE]I didn't include the quotation because Ayele Bekerie is a hack. He doesn't know anything about these types of things, and I'm not making the claim that Ge'ez script derived directly from Ancient Egyptian, just that ESA may have existed in both regions simultaneously (or perhaps even in Ethiopia first, there's not enough evidence to determine these things yet) from a previous South Semitic script (probably derived directly from Proto-Sinaitic). [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that [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."[/QUOTE]Note that his definition of mukarrib is not necessarily correct. The term Mukarrib doesn't mean priest-king. It's meaning is uncertain, perhaps meaning unifier (i.e. of the two main cultures - of Western Tigray plateau and of the Central Eritrean and Eastern Tigray plateau. See for this, e.g. "D`mt" in [i]Encyclopaedia Aethiopica[/i] by Alexander Sima. Note that what he's saying is widespread is the Sabaean-influenced civilization, not the Sabaeans. [QUOTE]And again... "The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, [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 some of the "certain aspects" of the aforementioned language, presumabley Ethiopic, in Ge'ez. But it is instructive that, the indicators of the early establishment of a "Ge'ez" tribe, was written in South Arabian language, rather than the local counterpart.[/QUOTE]The aspects they are referring to are most likely linguistic ones. The method of naming a peron's family wouldn't be an aspect similar to Ge'ez, but rather to a type of writing. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: [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]Forgive me for not being clear, but let me be clear here: the idea of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Yemeni colonist force colonizes and establishes civilization in Ethiopia has long been discredited. "Significant" above is referring to the migration being the basis for Ethiopian civilization, and the Sabaean migration also refers to the traditional theory, not any Sabaean migration. The traditional term was "Sabaean invasion" I believe, and had I used this, perhaps my views would have been clearer (but I've tried to avoid that term in other discussions because it wasn't an invasion). [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom: I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.[/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]I'm in denial of nothing, and your comment still has nothing to do with the Tihama cultural complex, which you were first referring to. Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a [i]Sabaean[/i] presence in Ethiopia. First of all, I don't think Sabaeans existed as a kingdom at this time. Again, I think you are misinterpreting my beliefs. I don't deny that there were ever Sabaeans in Ethiopia as there certainly have been. However, I do reject that the D`mt civilization was Sabaean in origin or rose due to Sabaean influences. [QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yom [QUOTE]Supercar: [QUOTE]Yom: I don't deny that [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'. [/QUOTE]I gave a definition above regarding genetics. Are you speaking genetically, culturally, what? [/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