...
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, 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]You brought up, again! [QUOTE]Yom: Based on a few genetic studies I've read and the shortness of their historical presence, according to Munro-Hay.[/QUOTE]Which "few" genetic studies? Did these studies not mention lineages like "J", for instance? If so, what does the presence of "J" lineages mean to you? [QUOTE]Yom: I admitted the misunderstanding was mine. It never involved saying that proto-Sinaitic was an intermediary script, however.[/QUOTE]You can attribute that to your lack of paying attention to what is being stated. [QUOTE]Yom: 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. [b]Note that the Pankhurst article doesn't make a reference to D`mt or the inscriptions found by AJ Drewes mentioning D`mt.[/b] Also notice that Munro-Hay cites AJ Drewes 1955 work, not 1962. [b]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.[/b][/QUOTE]I am not concerned about what "Punkhurst" article doesn't make reference to, but what you can prove, by showing that the said "Ge'ez" was not "ESA" that so many scholars on the Pre-Aksumite complex have mentioned. Where is it? I mean we are talking about a finding that was published in a 1962 publication. Secondly, the latter highlighted statement is nonsensical; how can Munro-Hay NOT mentioned this "significant" piece of information in the a section where he, himself, talks about the need to see more archeological findings, to learn more about this period? Plus, I know he was aware of the publication, because he even mentioned it: [i]Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using [b]palaeographical information[/b] (Pirenne 1956; [b]**Drewes 1962**[/b]: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia.[/i] - Munro-Hay I thought you might question his awareness of the 1962 publication, which frankly, I see as an insult to Mr. Munro-Hays work on this subject. So, if you are claiming that what Drewes found, was not Epigraphic South Arabian, then the burden is on you to show such. Surely, a finding that dates back to 1962, and particularly significant to learning about Pre-Aksumite, should be easily accessible among the scholars who have focused on Pre-Askumite study. [QUOTE]Yom: Links would be good. [b]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.[/b] Nabatean, for instance, is from Aramaic, and north Arabian Thamudic is derived from South Arabian.[/QUOTE]"ESA" is [i]Arabian[/i] script! So, I am not sure where you are going with that claim, as highlighted above. And again, Arabian scripts diverged from Proto-Canaanite, which is basically the same thing, from what I can tell, as "proto-Sinaitic". http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/alpha-map.gif [QUOTE]Yom: You asked for sources for the chronology. I assume Sima's chronology is somehow supported by those sources.[/QUOTE]That doesn't answer my question, which was: On what "evidence" do you base your dating of "D'MT" on, since the inscriptions that do mention the term, have been dated to about 5th century B.C.? How does a brief bibliography answer that question? [QUOTE]Yom: You fullfilled the request,[/QUOTE]Good. Hence, you don't need to keep ranting about how I haven't provided the "chronology of south Arabia", which has no relevance to the post in question. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]Like a broken record, I'll say this again: only relevant if it can shed light on the origins of seemingly "common" traits of Pre-Aksumite and South Arabian complexes. Beyond that, feel free to show the said "chronology" at your own discretion. It isn't my obligation. [QUOTE]Yom: [b]All of the chronologies are linked[/b] and therefore all of importance in the discussion and origins of certain traits and influences.[/QUOTE]To you, perhaps, but not to me. See post right above. [QUOTE]Yom: That's probably the case, but [b]depends on the dating of the earliest Ge'ez scripts[/b]. They are obviously closely related, though.[/QUOTE]...scripts which, burden of showing us, lies squarely on you, as I haven't found any so-called "earliest" Ge'ez script that is different from "Epigraphic South Arabian" script. [QUOTE]Yom: [b]My point with interdentals wasn't to show that Ge'ez pre-dated ESA[/b], but that the loss of linguistic features cannot be used to say that South Semitic scripts are South Arabian in origin.[/QUOTE]Well, Daniels point was to show that early Ethiopic script derived from South Arabian script [and not vice versa]; do you disagree with this? If so, you haven't yet refuted that position. Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes. As Daniel points out: [i]"...he [Ayele] 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 [b]the script underlying the Ethiopic[/b] was [b]devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez[/b]; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were [b]retained in the script[/b] even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to [b]catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings.[/b] If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is [b]no way the **homophonous letters** could have been consistently assigned to the **etymologically appropriate** sounds.[/b][/i] - P. T. Daniels Hence, [b]letters have been retained[/b] in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been? [QUOTE]Yom: I don't understand what relevance this has,[/QUOTE]Can't help you with language barrier problems on your end, since that is the only way for you not to understand something that has been repeatedly relayed to you. [QUOTE]Yom: 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.[/QUOTE]See post above. You have apparently not understood my post. [QUOTE]Yom: I didn't begin this conversation unilaterally. It requires by definition two participants.[/QUOTE]I don't know what that has to do with the point I made, which was that, if you are in fact not denying "Sabean" influences, then what are you arguing about, since nobody here "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influences? [QUOTE]Yom: 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]If you can answer the question I just posed above, maybe you'll see why I said your argument could boil down to a red herring. ;) [QUOTE]Yom: The traditional argument has included the meaning of "originators" within the term "colonist."[/QUOTE]Okay. What bearings does that have on the notion of Sabean "colonists" in Pre-Aksum? [QUOTE]Yom: [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]You belittled yourself, when you inadequately interpreted the citation, when I first posted it, as you have done again. You chose to see "Trading" and ignore "Military" [i]colonists[/i] in the above citation. Again, even at this point, I'm not sure you fully understood the earlier highlighted piece. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]Hmmm. I'll have to look into the said "complex" in South Arabia, originating in "Ethiopia". What set of parameters are you basing this claim on? It would seem that you are quick to attribute an Arabian complex to African origins, but not vice versa. [QUOTE]Yom: It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.[/QUOTE]...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how? [/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