...
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]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]Again, I don't know enough about specific lineages and the like to comment. Bring it up in the Ethiopian population history thread. [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]What's your reason for insulting Dr. Pankhurst by calling him "Punkhurst?" He's a foremost scholar on Ethiopian history. Just because it's been out for 40 years does not mean that it's easily accessible. You obviously don't have access to it, so why would you assume I [i]do[/i]? Dr. Munro-Hay's work is certainly pretty comprehensive, but it is not the end-all of pre-Aksumite studies. He is, after all, only human. Given that he has cited the paper, however, then Drewes findings are probably in the ESA alphabet, rather than Ge'ez. [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]Arabian in the sense that it has been found in the Arabian Peninsula. By "Arabian" scripts, however, I meant north Arabian, which are derived from Aramaic and Phoenician, as ESA is more specifically defined as a South Semitic script. For proto-Sinaitic vs. proto-Canaanite, take it to the other thread. That your map defines the predecessor of ESA as "proto-Arabic" (which is wrong anyway, since they spoke South Semitic languages, not Arabic or one of its predecessors) is an error and weird naming on their part. [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]See the next post, where I'll talk about chronology. [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]It is relevant because it [i]can[/i] shed some light on the whole issue. See my next post. [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.[/QUOTE]That the situation is not vice versa is certain. It's not certain that Ge'ez and ESA don't share a common ancestor from which Ge'ez lost some letters, but that this did not happen does seem to be the case. [QUOTE]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. 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](deleted long quotation) Of course the language has changed to lose interdentals. As I pointed out earlier, the existence or lack of interdentals is one of the methods used for dating and classifying pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I quote again A.J. Drewes and Roger Schneider's "Documents Épigraphiques de l'Éthiopie - 2" in [i]Annales d'Éthiopie, Tome Huitième[/i], 1970, pps.59-61. [QUOTE][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] [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]Again, be civil in discussion. Simply explain what it is that you are trying to point out. It's not that difficult. [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]Explain exactly what you think Sabaean (again note the "a" after "Sab" before "-ean") influences are and we can determine whether or not this discussion is necessary. [QUOTE]Okay. What bearings does that have on the notion of Sabean "colonists" in Pre-Aksum?[/QUOTE]The traditional argument supports the idea of Sabaean colonists founding and originating Ethiopian civilization, which is what is therefore repeated by some scholars, which is obviously not the case if you look at the evidence. [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]Oh no, I read the word "military," however it's clearly explained just a little later in the sentence that it's significantly different from the traditional interpretation. If you read further in the same sentence ("[i]They may have been military or trading colonists, [b]living in some sort of **symbiosis**[/b] with the local Ethiopian population, [b]perhaps under a species of **treaty-status**."[/b]), you'll see that his idea of "military colonists" is significantly different from that of Michels and the traditional interpretation. Unfortunately, Munro-Hay doesn't explain more what exactly he means by the term. [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]My attribution is simply based on the sources given to me. I've only seen two: one is [URL=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1180338]this[/URL] pub-med genetic analysis on maternal gene flow into Yemen that's been seen on this board before, citing Fattovich (1997). The other is Fattovich's most recent publication on the Eritreo-Sudanese borderlands, which may be from 1997, I'm not sure. Here's the passage from his most recent one (if there's a 1997 one, I don't have access to it). [QUOTE]Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millenium BC (the 'Tihama Cultural Complex', c. 1500-1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea,Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq' in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and 'C-Group' of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the 'Gash Group' at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980).[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?[/QUOTE]That they're not as large as previously assumed. [/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