...
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] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yom: I don't have any specific citations for Conti Rossini, but see [URL=http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm]here[/URL]. For Megalomattis, see [url=]here[/url], with this quotation: "It is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara – Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn were the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. The event has traces in the past of course, but was intensified and generalized over the past 50 years, under colonial academic and diplomatic guidance of the Abyssinian ruling class. "[/QUOTE]Okay. That's good enough for me. :) [QUOTE]Yom: Regarding the genetic studies you refer to, I'm not adequately knowledgable to comment on their veracity, but it would not surprise me if some of those lineages determined to be "Eurasian" existed in the pre-Out of Africa migration population of the Horn of Africa and that Yemeni contributions to the Ethiopian gene pool would be difficult to measure due to this closeness. Also, many of these study refer to "Caucasoid" genes, which is an artificial construct, as completely non-mixed Ethiopians can also be said to be craniofacially "Caucasoid." See [URL=http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2002_v70_p265-268.pdf]here[/URL] for an interesting study on the ancientness of Ethiopian genes.[/QUOTE]Forget "causasoid"; Do you consider "J" lineages, for instance, Eurasian or not? [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.[/QUOTE]It's not a red herring.[/QUOTE]It is a red-herring, because you know that we've already talked about the "proto-Sinaitic" type alphabets in Wadi el-Hol script. So pretending that I wasn't aware of this, is a distractive antic that will lead you to a dead end. Speaking of which: [QUOTE]Yom: You said "no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt," so I pointed to an alphabet developed in middle Egypt as opposed to the Proto-Sinaitic script, which is located closer to Canaan and the Levant.[/QUOTE]When I said "no such alphabet was found to have been developed in Egypt", it was followed by several other words. What were those words? At least have the honesty, to quote the citation in its full context. But for clarification purposes, I was referring to the notion that any alphabets that can be directly linked to Ethiopic or Sabean. [QUOTE]Yom: I didn't deny the close relation of Ge'ez and Sabaean script. Ge'ez probably derived from Sabaean, but I don't rule out the possibility that it instead shares a common ancestor with it.[/QUOTE]To come to that conclusion, you'd have to point out that "common" ancestor in both South Arabia, and the Ethiopian region. [QUOTE]Yom: Proto-Sinaitic's only relevance is that it (or the Wadi el-Hol script) could have been transmitted through trade southward instead of first north and then south.[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting that Ethiopic developed directly from "proto-Sinaitic", without intermediary developments? [QUOTE]Yom: If the first inscriptions of the Minaean script are in the 8th c. B.C., contemporary with the D`mt civilization which used a type of ESA in Ethiopia, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be made either way.[/QUOTE]You don't have script in the pre-Aksumite complex which dates to ca. 8th B.C, if the Minean script in South Arabia can indeed be attested to about 8th century BC or earlier. As such, there is no reason to claim that a conclusion cannot be deduced in one direction or another. [QUOTE]Yom: I'm not saying D`mt was a script, just noting that it used a type of ESA at the same time period as the Minaean script. Looking at the inscriptions in the 8th edition of [i]Annales d'Ethiopie[/i], it seems to be the standard ESA (some versions have a "B" that looks like an M, e.g. or an "R" that isn't just one curve or an "M" that doesn't consist of distinct triangles).[/QUOTE]You haven't shown that any Sabean/Ethiopic inscription in the pre-Askumite complex dates back to 800 B.C. [QUOTE]Yom: I'd love a source, still. I don't doubt your claims, but what I know about SA chronology is limited since it is still so little known.[/QUOTE]It's already been provided. [QUOTE]Yom: The existence of contemporary inscriptions does not show that the origin is Sabaean (actually Minaean, I guess) rather than a shared cultural trait.[/QUOTE]This is not so; not according to Peter Daniels' notes. [QUOTE]Yom: Peter Daniel's point would indicate that the script was originally for Sabaean due to the loss of interdentals and ghayin in Ge'ez, but these phonetic changes were in the process of happening during the time of D`mt. Earlier texts use "ṯ," "ḏ," while later texts use "s/š" and "z."[/QUOTE]Nope. This is what Daniels' rationale is: Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the [b]script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez[/b]; when some of the [b]consonantal phonemes[/b] (laryngeals, sibilants) merged [b]in Ge`ez[/b], the [b]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.[/b] 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, [b]there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds.[/b] - P. T. Daniels I don't see the resemblance between what is stated therein, and that of yours, much less that you've addressed it, to the extent of disproving the argument put forth: Ge'ez/Ethiopic script developed from Sabean script, rather than the other way around. [QUOTE]Yom: I have addressed the questions of interdentals (which is what I believe what you're referring to) above.[/QUOTE]Not from what I can tell. See post above. [QUOTE]Yom: It's more stylistic, though grammar could play a part. Grammatical features and to a lesser degree vocabulary are more likely what they're referring to.[/QUOTE]The point is, certain features of the early language, presumably Ethiopic, and Sabean script made their way into the latter scripts used in the Aksumite era. [QUOTE]Yom: I don't understand what you're talking about here. I thought you were referring to the non-royal "pure" Sabaean language inscriptions. If you're talking about the alphabet, then it's without a doubt ESA.[/QUOTE]I talking about this: "The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, [b][i]pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).[/i][/b] All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay Do you understand the above? [QUOTE]Yom: I'm glad you realize that the indigenous origin possibility is the more likely of the two,[/QUOTE]Then you must not have been paying attention, because I have been consistent in my stance on that issue all along. [QUOTE]Yom: but given what you just cited (complex cultures) and the use of a sort of Proto-Ge'ez in all of the Royal inscriptions of D`mt, it seems to me that the idea of "colonists" is unfounded.[/QUOTE]What is unfounded, is claims made in this comment of yours. Where has anyone mentioned "proto-Ge'ez"? I do however, recall posting this: [b]Inscriptions[/b] found at some of these sites include the [b]names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib[/b], apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, [b]not otherwise known in Ethiopia[/b] (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro-Hay Wherein the above, is "proto-Ge'ez" mentioned? And what about the said inscriptions is unfounded, and how so? [QUOTE]Yom: The whole idea comes from Conti Rossini's ideas, which, according to Pankhurst in a link above "were largely based on conjecture."[/QUOTE]By this, you are not referring to the Munro-Hay citation, are you? [QUOTE]Yom: Whatever. I was the one who made a reference to the Tihama cultural complex, but you were the one who cited that section of my post to put your response saying "I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right?" as if the existence of the Tihama cultural complex had anything to do with a Sabaean migration.[/QUOTE]And even after showing you twice, you still couldn't figure out, why I said you were contradicting yourself, when you wrote: [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[/b], such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).[/i] How many times must I quote you on this same citation, before it gets through to you, what I've been saying? [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".[/QUOTE]I'm talking about the Tihama cultural complex.[/QUOTE]Are you suggesting that the South Arabian complex has Ethiopian origins? [QUOTE]Yom: I read them. Again, do not be rude in discussions, it only stalls them.[/QUOTE]Not from what I can tell; if you did, you would be refuting the said revelations of Sabean influences, instead of simply denying them. On that note, first do as you preach, i.e. not being rude, before suggesting it for others, and then you‘ll be treated accordingly. [QUOTE]Yom: The Munro-Hay notes have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however. He doesn't refer to the Tihama cultural complex except in passing.[/QUOTE]Well, that is what I'm talking about, the Munro-Hay citations I provided, which are enough to convince anyone of the Sabean presence in the region, in the pre-Aksumite period. So I am not sure why you think clinging onto "Tihama cultural complex" has any bearings on that point. [QUOTE]Yom: During the time of the Tihama cultural complex, which began mid-second millenium BC (but ended 1st millenium, when Sabaeans would have existed).[/QUOTE]By this, I presume you are talking about the Sabean polity, not Sabeans as people per se - right? [QUOTE]Yom: I never asked you to provide evidence of their presence in the region. What I dispute is the nature and extent of their presence.[/QUOTE]Well, now that you've cleared it, my response to you, had to do with this: [i]Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.[/i] As far as, the extent and nature of their presence is concerned, you haven't refuted anything that the Munro-Hay citations provided. But maybe you'll do better, as we go on. [QUOTE]Yom: [b]The language of the inscriptions indicates this.[/b] The only evidence that it could have been begun by Sabaeans is the use of the same script, whose origins are still not well-known.[/QUOTE]Wrong, and so, again: "[b]Inscriptions[/b] found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the [b]traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib[/b], apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, [b]not otherwise known in Ethiopia[/b] (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon." - S. Munro Hay [QUOTE]Yom: I have addressed this above. [/QUOTE]Not really. See above. [/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