...
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] Supercar, the proto-Canaanite vs. proto-Sinaitic discussion is for the other thread. And, for what it's worth, I don't even think that discussion really matters as it's simply a semantic argument, whether someone chooses to separate the two or consider the latter just a form of the earlier. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: Then, not knowing this, how can you claim that the Sabeans could not have left a 'genetic impact' on the locals?[/QUOTE]Based on a few genetic studies I've read and the shortness of their historical presence, according to Munro-Hay. [QUOTE]The misunderstanding was apparently on your end, since I was fully aware that "proto-Sinaitic" could not have been the "intermediary" script.[/QUOTE]I admitted the misunderstanding was mine. It never involved saying that proto-Sinaitic was an intermediary script, however. [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]I have not read the publication, or else I would know whether the inscriptions found were in Ge'ez script or Sabaean sript. All of the inscriptions mentioning D`mt (10 in all) are in ESA, but not all of the inscriptions from that period mention D`mt. Note that the Pankhurst article doesn't make a reference to D`mt or the inscriptions found by AJ Drewes mentioning D`mt. Also notice that Munro-Hay cites AJ Drewes 1955 work, not 1962. He probably would have been aware of it, but as his work on pre-aksumite times is "not of major concern" to the whole book, we can't assume that he explained all facets of the discussion. [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]Links would be good. I'm pretty certain that ESA is a separate development from proto-Sinaitic, unlike the Arabian scripts which are derived from North Semitic scripts like Canaanite. Nabatean, for instance, is from Aramaic, and north Arabian Thamudic is derived from South Arabian. [QUOTE]And...?[/QUOTE]You asked for sources for the chronology. I assume Sima's chronology is somehow supported by those sources. [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]You fullfilled the request, but the issue of dating is [b]central[/b] to this argument, and the dating of South Arabian civilizations and D`mt are both linked to a degree, I believe. Sabaean chronology is also linked to Assyrian references to a Karibal Watar, I believe. [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]All of the chronologies are linked and therefore all of importance in the discussion and origins of certain traits and influences. [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]That's probably the case, but depends on the dating of the earliest Ge'ez scripts. They are obviously closely related, though. [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]My point with interdentals wasn't to show that Ge'ez pre-dated ESA, but that the loss of linguistic features cannot be used to say that South Semitic scripts are South Arabian in origin. [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]I don't understand what relevance this has, as the D`mt script was obviously in ESA. I have never denied this or proposed otherwise. I was quoting because of a discussion over linguistic features at first, and then because you somehow thought "pure" referred to the script. The script is without a doubt ESA, and the language is an Ethiopian language on the royal inscriptions (and probably some non-royal ones), while it is "pure Sabaean" on some others. [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]I didn't begin this conversation unilaterally. It requires by definition two participants. Don't call my argument a red herring without substantiating your claims. What have I said irrelevant to this discussion (and not recognized by me as a misunderstanding) to further a point? [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]The traditional argument has included the meaning of "originators" within the term "colonist." [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]Of course I understand the context, don't belittle others. "Trading colonists" is not the same thing as a generic "colonist" or "colonizer," which is what I'm arguing against. [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]Yes, the Tihama complex extended into South Arabia, and yes the South Arabian Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. Its relations to Sabaeans is not yet known, as far as I can tell. [QUOTE]We knew this; it has be posted by myself countless times now. Now what about it?[/QUOTE]It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized. [/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