...
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]Forget "causasoid"; Do you consider "J" lineages, for instance, Eurasian or not?[/QUOTE]As I said above, I don't know enough about this type of stuff to really discuss it with a level you'll be satisfied with. [QUOTE]It is a red-herring, because you know that we've already talked about the "proto-Sinaitic" type alphabets in Wadi el-Hol script. So pretending that I wasn't aware of this, is a distractive antic that will lead you to a dead end.[/QUOTE]We talked about proto-Sinaitic, but I don't remember talking about Wadi el=Hol. Even if we did, though, mentioning something already discussed doesn't mean that it's a red herring because it's still a script developed in Southern Egypt that could have been tramistted southwards. Either way, discussing whether or not it's a red herring isn't going to get us anywhere. Note that I'm not saying that Ge'ez or Sabaean derived [i]direct[/i] from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script. [QUOTE]When I said "no such alphabet was found to have been developed in Egypt", it was followed by several other words. What were those words? At least have the honesty, to quote the citation in its full context. But for clarification purposes, I was referring to the notion that any alphabets that can be directly linked to Ethiopic or Sabean.[/QUOTE]I don't make the claim that they can. I do think that they can be connected through one or two southern intermediaries which have not yet been found. Given the lack of evidence, however, we don't know their origin (aside from coming from Proto-Sinaitic). [QUOTE]To come to that conclusion, you'd have to point out that "common" ancestor in both South Arabia, and the Ethiopian region.[/QUOTE]I'm not basing this on evidence of a common ancestor found but rather on ancient Ge'ez (I presume alphabet) graffiti that has been found. See above by Xcross breed. [QUOTE]Are you suggesting that Ethiopic developed directly from "proto-Sinaitic", without intermediary developments?[/QUOTE]No, I'm suggesting it developed through a South Semitic intermediary, or perhaps that and then ESA. [QUOTE]You don't have script in the pre-Aksumite complex which dates to ca. 8th B.C, if the Minean script in South Arabia can indeed be attested to about 8th century BC or earlier. As such, there is no reason to claim that a conclusion cannot be deduced in one direction or another.[/QUOTE]What is your basis for saying there's no script dated to 8th c. B.C. in Ethiopia if Minaean is attested to 8th c. BC? All modern publications regarding the time that D`mt existed are clear on this point: 8th-7th c. BC. Here is the first sentence on the entry in [i]Encyclopaedia Aethiopica[/i] by Alexander Sima: D`mt (Da`əmat or Da`amat, vocalization unknown) is mentioned ten times in six Sabaic [refferring to the script] pre-Aksumite royal inscriptions, [b]to be dated approximately to the 8th-7th cent. B.C.[/b] [QUOTE]You haven't shown that any Sabean/Ethiopic inscription in the pre-Askumite complex dates back to 800 B.C.[/QUOTE]I said 8th-7th c. B.C., which would include 800 BC - 601 BC. I don't have pictures or sources online, but I gave you a quotation above. [QUOTE]It's already been provided. [/QUOTE]Sorry. I didn't see that "browsing" was linked. Looking through it, it doesn't address South Arabian chronology, though. [QUOTE]This is not so; not according to Peter Daniels' notes. This is what Daniels' rationale is: Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the [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]I'm not saying that Ge'ez didn't derive from Sabaean. As I said earlier, it [i]probably[/i] did derive from a type of ESA (the only way it wouldn't have is if they shared a common ancestor but for some reason Sabaean was used instead of Ge'ez or if Ge'ez previously had interdental consonants that were later lost, which probably didn't happen). What Daniels is saying, however, is that Ge'ez never had these interdentals. If you define Ge'ez specifically as the Ethiopian language spoken prior to 1000 AD and without interdentals, then that's a fact, but you have to consider that in the early D`mt inscriptions, interdentals are used consistently. Later inscriptions, however, do not correctly distinguish between sounds. In fact, the existence of interdentals is one of the ways the date of the inscriptions is classified, with interdental inscriptions part of "Groupe I" (according to A.J. Drews and Roger Schneider) and those without part of "Groupe II." [29][i]`ṯtr : l'orthographe avec ṯ indique que le texte appartient au groupe I.[/i] [the orthography with ṯ indicates that the text belongs to group I.] [32][i]La graphie a été rangée à la fin de la période A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111.... Pour la transcription 'i`gz avec z au lieu de ḏ, voir déjà Littmann, D.A.E., 27, commentaire, ainsi que les deux textes suivants, numéros 32 et 33. L'absence des interdentales dans le dialecte de l'inscription est confirmé par la graphie `str pour `ṯtr dans le texte II.[/i][The writing was arranged into the end of period A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....For the transcription 'i`gz with z instead of ḏ, see again Littman, D.A.E., 27, comentary, along with the two following texts, numbers 32 and 33. The absence of interdentals in the dialect of the inscription is confirmed by the graph `str instead of `ṯtr in text II.] [i]La transcription w`ztm avec z au lieu de ḏ est fondée sur le témoignage du texte parallèle suivant, no. 33, où apparaît la graphie hḥdsw, avec s au lieu de ṯ. Il est tout à fait improbable qu'une interdentale ait disparu et que l'autre se soit maintenue; voir déjà Littmann, commentaire de D.A.E. 27.[/i][The transcription w`ztm with z instead of ḏ is founded on seeing the following parallel text, no. 33, where the graph hḥdsw appears, with s (i.e. Shin, which is either s or Sh) instead of ṯ. It's altogether improbable that one interdental disappeared while the other was kept. See again Littman, comentary of D.A.E. (Deutsch Aksum-Expedition) 27. [i]hḥdsw avec s au lieu de ṯ permet de ranger le texte dans les inscriptions du groupe II, de même que le texte parallèle 32. [/i][hḥdsw with s instead of ṯ allows us to arrange the text with the inscriptions of group II, the same as the parallel text 32.] [QUOTE]The point is, certain features of the early language, presumably Ethiopic, and Sabean script made their way into the latter scripts used in the Aksumite era.[/QUOTE]I don't dispute this. [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]Yes, that some inscriptions are in Sabaean language. What you said was this: "The [i]type[/i] of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" [i]Sabean[/i]. (emphasis yours) He's above speaking about the language. The script is a type of ESA. [QUOTE]Then you must not have been paying attention, because I have been consistent in my stance on that issue all along.[/QUOTE]You've been stressing Sabaean influences, so that wasn't apparent. No need to discuss this issue any further, then. [QUOTE]What is unfounded, is claims made in this comment of yours. Where has anyone mentioned "proto-Ge'ez"? I do however, recall posting this: [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]No one said the inscriptions are unfounded. I said that the idea of colonists and colonised is unfounded. The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez. See again [URL=http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm]here[/URL], by Richard Pankhrust: " It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia." [QUOTE]By this, you are not referring to the Munro-Hay citation, are you?[/QUOTE]No, I am not. [QUOTE]And even after showing you twice, you still couldn't figure out, why I said you were contradicting yourself, when you wrote: [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]As I told you, the Tihama cultural complex was [i]African[/i] in origin, not South Arabian. Either way, the existence of the cultural complex [i]has nothing to do with the existence of Sabaeans in Ethiopia[/i]. I was merely pointing out that shared cultural affinities need not be due simply to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia. [QUOTE]Are you suggesting that the South Arabian complex has Ethiopian origins?[/QUOTE]Which South Arabian complex? I'm suggesting that the Tihama cultural complex has Ethiopian origins. [QUOTE]Not from what I can tell; if you did, you would be refuting the said revelations of Sabean influences, instead of simply denying them. On that note, first do as you preach, i.e. not being rude, before suggesting it for others, and then you‘ll be treated accordingly.[/QUOTE]As I said before, I always try to be civil in discussions. Perhaps you are reading malice into my writing because of the lack of paralanguage in online discussions. [QUOTE]Well, that is what I'm talking about, the Munro-Hay citations I provided, which are enough to convince anyone of the Sabean presence in the region, in the pre-Aksumite period. So I am not sure why you think clinging onto "Tihama cultural complex" has any bearings on that point.[/QUOTE]Again, I do not doubt the [i]existence[/i] of Sabaean presence in Ethiopia but rather the [i]nature[/i] of their presence as per Conti Rossini and Joseph W. Michels. The Tihama cultural complex was merely to illustrate that connections between Ethiopia and Yemen exist prior to the Sabaean period. [QUOTE]By this, I presume you are talking about the Sabean polity, not Sabeans as people per se - right?[/QUOTE]Correct. [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]The Munro-Hay citations in fact form part of the [i]basis[/i] for my argument. That "actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo" (but so far nowhere else), and that "these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so — or perhaps even only a few decades — as a separate and identifiable people" (Munro-Hay). [QUOTE]Wrong, and so, again: "[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]See above wrt Pankhurst. [/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