...
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: Supercar, for future reference, ESA is [b]Epigraphic South Arabian[/b] (also known as MSA, Monumental South Arabian).[/QUOTE]Glad we cleared that up. ;) [QUOTE]Yom: Well, I don't know about J haplotypes, so I can't answer that question.[/QUOTE]Then, not knowing this, how can you claim that the Sabeans could not have left a 'genetic impact' on the locals? [QUOTE]Yom: From just the name of the script, it was first found in the Sinai, but I don't remember you posting any recent finds from Upper Egypt. This is tangential to the discussion, however.[/QUOTE]Can't help you, if you don't pay attention to posts. It was posted! [QUOTE]Yom: Yes, it is irrelevant; the discussion came about because of a request for an intermediary but which I interpreted as a request for an example of a more southerly script in Egypt. I don't maintain that Sabaean or Ge'ez came directly from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script.[/QUOTE]The misunderstanding was apparently on your end, since I was fully aware that "proto-Sinaitic" could not have been the "intermediary" script. [QUOTE]Yom: Agreed (not the equivalence of proto-Canaanite and proto-Sinaitic, but that's a different argument [and a futile semantic one at that] for a different thread)[/QUOTE]What is said to be the difference between "proto-Sinaitic" and "proto-Canaanite". Please, enlighten me through a comparative analysis. From what I can tell, the difference in name stems from the locals the scripts were found, as opposed to the style of the scripts. [QUOTE]Yom: Where does it say that this is the graffiti found by A.J. Drewes and published in [i]Inscriptions de l’Ethiopie antique[/i] (1962)?[/QUOTE]I haven't read the said literature, and if you have, then please share with us the matter in question. I however, came to the conclusion that he was referring to "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, because that is the script with which the name "D'MT" was located, unless you know of the said Ge'ez script different from "ESA", that mentions "D'MT". This from Munro-Hay, assisted me in coming to that conclusion: [i]"The inscriptions of [b]mukarribs[/b] of [b]D`MT[/b] and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and **[b]Drewes[/b]**1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93).[/i] I would imagine that since, by the time Stuart Munro-Hay wrote this piece, he was fully aware of the 1962 Drewes publication, and hence, would have taken it into consideration. There you have it; that is how I made the extrapolation - I don't just blindly read things, I try to understand them - wrongly or rightly so. ;) [QUOTE]Yom: Apparently the reference of proto-Sinaitic is from a misunderstanding as noted above. Either way, there aren't even known intermediaries between ESA and proto-Sinaitic, so we can't make any determinations.[/QUOTE]What about potential connections between Sabean and earlier Arabian scripts? I have come across claims about earlier Arabian scripts, from which old north Arabian and south Arabian scripts derived from. I'll see if I can get a hold of good links from the web. [QUOTE]Yom: If the inscriptions found by A.J. Drewes are indeed in ESA script but Ge'ez language rather than both Ge'ez script and language(i.e. if the earliest forms of Ge'ez aren't contemporary or nearly comtemporary with SA), then Ge'ez almost certainly derived from Sabaean (as I believe it probably did right now), but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/QUOTE]See my notes earlier about your question of my citation of S. Munro-Hay on the "ESA", citing the word "D'MT". [QUOTE]Yom: Unfortunately, Alexander Sima (as well as Stuart Munro-Hay) has passed away recently, so I can't email him as to his sources, but the Literature he cites at the end of the article is as follows: Francis Anfray, Les anciens Éthiopiens. Siècles d'histoire, Paris 1990, 60f.; Gianfrancesco Lusini "A proposito delle iscrizioni sudarabiche d'Etiopia," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 17, 200, 95-113, here 99f.; David W. Phillopson, Ancient Ethiopia. Aksum: its antecdents and Successors, London 1998, 45-8.[/QUOTE]And...? [QUOTE]Yom: You don't have to address it, but it's critical to the debate. [/QUOTE]You bet ya I don't; it has no relevance to what I had posted. You questioned where I had got my information from, and I gave it to you. Request fulfilled. [QUOTE]Yom: As stated by Munro-Hay, "the precise nature of the contacts between the two areas, their range in commercial, linguistic or cultural terms, and their chronology, is still a major question." So, a discussion of the chronology (as you have asked of me of D`mt, which I wish I could provide more info for) would be helpful.[/QUOTE]The only chronology relevant to me, is one that compares the seemingly 'common' cultural traits, so as to discern their origins; whether in situ in the African Horn, or South Arabia. [QUOTE]Yom: Epigraphic South Arabian = ESA. Its independent development is a possibility until it's cleared up what exactly is meant by "Ge'ez graffiti."[/QUOTE]I retain the stance on the idea that "Ethiopic" had been strongly influenced, if not derived, from South Arabian script, pending substantiation to the contrary. [QUOTE]Yom: As I said above, it probably was, but the date of the first inscription using the Ge'ez alphabet needs to be determined to say so definitively. [b]As you can see by the citations I gave regarding interdentals above, however, the existence of these interdentals during the early period of D`mt means that ESA need not have been a South Arabian creation based on language but could have been a shared alphabet inherited from an even earlier, yet not found, South Semitic successor, as ESA certainly didn't derive [i]directly[/i] from Proto-Sinaitic.[/b][/QUOTE]What you haven't shown, is anything that contradicts Daniel's point about early Ethiopic script, having derived from [i]"South Arabian"[/i], regardless of whether these "south Arabians" called themselves "Sabeans" or not, at the time of the introduction of the script in the African Horn. [QUOTE]Yom: Obviously both were written in ESA. I have never denied that. The "pure" Sabaean (it's Sab[b]a[/b]ean by the way, from the root shin-bet-alif; Sabeans or Sabians are a different people from the Qur'an spelled with a Tsadey) referred to by Stuart Munro-Hay is clearly referring to the language, not inscriptions, though. The D`mt inscriptions were all written in a form of Epigraphic South Arabian as far as I can tell, though. Note that the name of the script is properly ESA as it was used also by the Himyarites, Qatabans, and Minaeans, all of whom probably had their own variations (I'm aware of a few for some of the letters, though I don't know to which civilization the variant belongs).[/QUOTE]If you weren't denying that both were in "south Arabian" [Since Sabean script was basically "south Arabian"], then what is the whole point of repeating everything I had just pointed out to you time and again; for instance, about the "two" languages that were written in "Sabean"/"South Arabian" alphabets, hence the use of the term "pure"? [QUOTE]Yom: [b]I'm not denying that there were any Sabaean influences, but they have always been overemphasized and exaggerated by past (and still some contemporary) historians.[/b] Moreover, these influences are not even necessarily Sabaean in origin. Connections and cultural exchanges between Ethiopia and Yemen have existed long before the Sabaeans. Some of the so-called influences (e.g. stone-working, agriculture, the plough) were certainly extant in Ethiopia before Sabaean influences, and other influences, like certain god-cults (e.g. Dhat Ba`adan or Dhat Himyam) weren't very long-lasting.[/QUOTE]Then why are we having this conversation, if you are not indeed denying "Sabean influences". Nobody here, has "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influence. Hence, unless you indicate otherwise, I would say that your argument has been a red herring all this time. [QUOTE]Yom: Until evidence is shown to the contrary, should not a civilization be assumed to be the result of indigenous peoples?[/QUOTE]What has Sabean "Colonialists" have anything to do with "origins" of a cultural complex? The Romans invaded Egypt; does this mean that there were no cultural complexes in Egypt prior to the Roman's doing so? So I'm not sure why you are equating "colonialists" with "originators". [QUOTE]Yom: "Colonialists" as in founders of a new civilization. The above quotation does not support the idea of colonists (though he notes it is still supported by Michels).[/QUOTE]The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists": [i]Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. [b]They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status.[/b][/i] - Stuart Munro-Hay The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed. [QUOTE]Yom: The Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. It is not the same as the Sabaean complex as far as I know, though I'm sure there was exchange between the two complexes due to their geographic proximity (the Tihama is right next to the kingdom of Saba')[/QUOTE]To save myself from needless repetitions, let me put it simply: Do you believe the said complex, extended into South Arabia? If so, then are you not claiming that the South Arabian complex is "Ethiopian" in origin, by claiming that "Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin"? I hope that question is straightforward enough. [QUOTE]Yom: The affirm that Sabaean presence was short-lived and limited to certain localities, though the D`mt civilization was widespread.[/QUOTE]We knew this; it has be posted by myself countless times now. Now what about it? [/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