...
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: Again, I don't know enough about specific lineages and the like to comment. Bring it up in the Ethiopian population history thread.[/QUOTE]It belongs in this thread as much as it belongs in the said topic, since you brought it up in the exchanges leading to this thread. Could it be, that you are admitting that your claim that Sabeans didn't have a "genetic" impact, was empty rhetoric? [QUOTE]Yom: What's your reason for insulting Dr. Pankhurst by calling him "Punkhurst?" He's a foremost scholar on Ethiopian history.[/QUOTE]Rather than rely on cowardly strawmen as a distraction, by relying on spelling mistakes and making them out to be something that they are evidently not, how about actually answering the mounting questions you continue to evade? I suppose I can use your tactics and say that when you wrote... Yom: [i]The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez. See again here, by Richard [b]Pankhrust[/b]: " 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."[/i] ...by writing "Pankh[b]rust[/b]", as opposed "Pankhurst", you were engaging in foul play. Lol. [QUOTE]Yom: Just because it's been out for 40 years does not mean that it's easily accessible.[/QUOTE]...to you perhaps, but the scholars we've quoted, have apparently had access to the said publication, and hence, would take note of anything considered "significant" therein. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, such a "significant" material would have made its way into future publications. [QUOTE]Yom: 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.[/QUOTE]I obviously don't, which is why the burden is on you to provide evidence on the idea that the so-called "Ge'ez" graffiti, is not the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script that every other publication has been talking about, including the most up-to-date ones. Your drivel about Munro-hay, is just a red-herring. [QUOTE]Yom: Given that he has cited the paper, however, then Drewes findings [b]are probably in the ESA alphabet[/b], rather than Ge'ez.[/QUOTE]By George, I think he is slowly but surely getting it. [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. [b]For proto-Sinaitic vs. proto-Canaanite, take it to the other thread.[/b][/QUOTE]This north Arabian vs south Arabian thing, is nothing but a futile distractive antic, that will surely not get you anywhere. As for the highlighted piece, my advice to you then is, don't keep bringing it up. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]What is "weird" to you is of no concern to me, but what you can substantiate to the contrary. What do you call the predecessor of South Arabian script then? and Why so? How does that make your 'term' anymore valid than what was given in the link? [QUOTE]Yom: It is relevant because it [i]can[/i] shed some light on the whole issue. See my next post.[/QUOTE]Well, if it is relevant to YOU, then hey, knock yourself out in producing the said info; just know that, it ain't my obligation. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]The burden is on you, to show that "common ancestor", which would NOT be "Ge'ez", and hence, making your aforementioned claim of a "Ge'ez" graffiti bankrupt. Speaking of which: [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Supercar: 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]You keep equating Daniels words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals". If the language has changed, then pray tell, what language would that have been, which would have been similar to south Arabian language? It certainly could not have been "Ge'ez" [as Daniels was pointing out], Amharic or any of the Semitic languages written in Amharic. The burden of evidence again, lies squarely on you. [QUOTE]Yom: Again, be civil in discussion. Simply explain what it is that you are trying to point out. It's not that difficult.[/QUOTE]Civility is a two way street; I am not sure when you'll understand that. I stand by my earlier point, that you didn't understand my post, and hence, "repetitively" misinterpreted it. I am not going to waste my time constantly reiterating the same point in multiple ways. It is clear and concise for the perceptive. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]It has been briefly noted in my citations on Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Did you miss those? [QUOTE]Yom: 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]Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"? [QUOTE]Yom: 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.[/QUOTE]Matter of fact, the term "Military" and "Trade" colonists was mentioned in the very same sentence. That you chose to focus on "trade" and ignore the "military" bit, is interesting. [QUOTE]Yom: 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.[/QUOTE]Apparently I've read the said piece, since I posted it. So asking me to read it, is just another distraction. One of the points of my posting the piece in the first place, was to make you see just how silly your fuss is about the term "colonists", and the other point was to make you see that, the notion of "colonialists", as "military" personnel, has not been proven, nor disproven. [QUOTE]Yom: Unfortunately, Munro-Hay doesn't explain more what exactly he means by the term.[/QUOTE]He doesn't have to explain further. It is clear and concise for those who understood the statement. [QUOTE]Yom: 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]Nothing therein justifies your claim about the Arabian "Tihama" complex being Ethiopian in origin. They talk about "influences", just as Sabean "influences" are talked about, with regards to the Pre-Aksumite complex. How does this equate to Ethiopian "origins"? Since you apparently dodged the question that was specifically asked, I'll hereby reiterate it: What set of parameters are you basing this claim on? [QUOTE]Yom: That they're not as large as previously assumed.[/QUOTE]What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here? [/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