...
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: No, because if the Sabaeans had such a large genetic impact you would expect to see high levels of "caucasoid" lineages in Yemen and significantly less "caucasoid"-derived lineages in Ethiopia (unless you're proposing a nearly complete population replacement).[/QUOTE]What would those "Caucasoid" lineages be; spell them out; would this include "J"? The "population replacement" that you keep referring to, has already been pointed out to you as not being the case. I can only say that its incorporation here, is yet another red herring. [QUOTE]Yom: The situation, however, is that the number of "caucasoid"-derived lineages in both areas are similar (with higher levels in Yemen, of course). See [URL=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/425161&erFrom=7061571044106393572Guest]here[/URL] for example. Judging from your activities on this site, you seem to know much about genetic lineages, so please enlighten me regarding J lineages and the like.[/QUOTE]I would assume that you would have known these things, before claiming that Sabeans couldn't have had a "genetic impact" on the locals. [QUOTE]Yom: "Cowardly strawmen?" Stop insulting me, this is supposed to be a friendly discussion. Do you or do you not want to have a friendly discussion?[/QUOTE]How about not insulting me, by accusing me of slandering a scholar, simply because you happened to come across a spelling error. It is an eye for an eye scenario; you are "friendly", so will I. [QUOTE]Yom: You can't blame me for thinking that you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "u" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard.[/QUOTE]...just as you can't blame me for thinking you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "r" is nowhere near a "u" on the keyboard. Lol. [QUOTE]Yom: Next time just say that it was a typo and move on; I'll take your word for it. I answered your question, you just chose not to quote it.[/QUOTE]Next time, stop grasping at the straws of spelling errors, to set up ad hominem attacks. You haven't answered a number of questions. For instance, you haven't answered the genetic question, you haven't answered the request to produce the "Ge'ez" graffiti that you keep talking about, you haven't fulfilled the request for the "common ancestor" possibility that you keep referring to, you haven't adequately answered the question of what bearing you talk of "traditional invasion" theories on the use of the terms "Sabean colonists". These are just but examples. [QUOTE]Yom: Again with the insults. I'm getting tired of your tirades and attempts to distract the issues with these.[/QUOTE]Just as no one is fooled by your tirades and blatant attempts to distract from the issues; like the one above. [QUOTE]Yom: I answered your question,[/QUOTE]See post above. [QUOTE]Yom: yet instead of simply quoting the relevant part, you break my response into four sections and attack irrelevant parts. I conceded the point to you, so what's the use in quoting the earlier parts of the [b]same paragraph[/b] as if I was neglecting the point?[/QUOTE]If you failed to see the relevance of breaking up your response, via the posts in reply to them, again that is a personal problem that you'd have to confront "personally". I can't help you in that department. [QUOTE]Yom: Did your mother never teach you manners? [/QUOTE]Yeap, but obviously your mama hasn't taught you manners. Your question itself is evidence enough. [QUOTE]Yom: I meant "north Arabian," so all you have to do is substitute "Arabian" in my comment to "north Arabian." Either way, you haven't provided any "Arabian" predecessor to the north Arabian and ESA scripts.[/QUOTE]It has been provided in the link, "proto-Arabic" script. That you don't like the term, is your problem alone. ;) [QUOTE]Yom: I call it South Semitic, as it is the predecessor of all alphabets used to write South Semitic languages. "Proto-Arabic" is invalid because Proto-south Semitic by definition [b]cannot[/b] be proto-Arabic. Proto-Arabic would be the predecessors of the Arabic script, like Nabatean and Syriac (or perhaps another Aramaic derived alphabet). [/QUOTE]"Arabic" is indicative of something that originates in "Arabia". Your complaint that it cannot be "Proto-Arabic" without foundation. [QUOTE]Yom: Forget the semantics, though.[/QUOTE]I am glad that you are convinced that your attack on the idea of "Proto-Arabic" is semantics on your end, without material. You did so, because you don't like the "Arabic" part which would posit its origin in Arabia, specifically south Arabia. [QUOTE]Yom: You said that you have come across claims of Arabian predecessors to both the north and the south scripts.[/QUOTE]I will have to look into it, as I have said. I don't have any solid ideas on this yet. [QUOTE]Yom: There's no such thing as obligation in a discussion. Whether or not you want to find out what the situation is what the issue is. You don't seem to, however, since you're not interested in finding the info yourself (and as I noted in the above post, [b]I'm going to post the info,[/b] my computer crashed as I was posting it, however). [/QUOTE]Good. Make it your obligation to produce the said info, and stop complaining about my not seeing the relevance of posting entire chronologies of "south Arabia". [QUOTE]Yom: The info is key to the debate, however, as it seems to me that there's no reason in assuming (naming of scripts aside) why [b]ESA need have developed in Yemen only, rather than being a shared innovation from an earlier proto-South Semitic alphabet predecessor, given that ESA has been dated (reliably, as I'll show in my next post), to the same era in Yemen as in Ethiopia/Eritrea.[/QUOTE]As far as the south Arabian development of "[b]Sabean[/b]" or "Epigraphic [b]South Arabian[/b]" script, as connoted by these terms, Daniels provides a good reason, and the other is that you had at least two languages in the Pre-Aksumite complex, among which "pure" Sabean was one, and another, an unidentified language, possibly a local language. In south Arabia, you didn't have the early "Sabean" script written in an local Pre-Aksumite language; at least not one brought to my attention, not to mention Kings using south Arabian terms for rulers or what have you. [QUOTE]Yom: I never claimed to have evidence of a common ancestor or that such a relationship is certain. I maintain only that the possibility exists.[/QUOTE]Which is where Daniels point comes in, that it is more likely that the script was developed for languages like the South Arabian ones, rather than Ge'ez. [QUOTE]Yom: Okay, if you want to be specific, interdentals and ghayin. The three "s" sounds (s [s], š [ʃ], and ś [ɬ], the latter of which isn't really an s-sound) were maintained in Ge'ez, though s and š merged in the letter šin (representing both sounds, not a loss, however)....[/QUOTE]You are still equating Daniels' words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals" and "ghayin", even in the face of the examples he provided: "...it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language [b]richer in consonants than Ge`ez[/b]; when some of the consonantal phonemes (**[b]laryngeals, sibilants**[/b]) merged in Ge`ez, the [b]letters for them were retained[/b] in the script even though the scribes could [b]not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with...[/b]" - P.T. Daniels. [QUOTE]Yom: You accuse me of creating Red Herrings, but what relevance do Amharic or the other Semitic languages have in this debate? Of course those inscriptions weren't in those languages, because they're [b]all derivatives of Ge'ez or one of its dialects or sister languages.[/b][/QUOTE]I don't accuse you of 'creating red herrings'. That is what you do, and the post above, is one of them. The relevance of mentioning the other languages, can be seen in your own post, as highlighted. This is why the language around which the Epigraphic script was designed, was likely one similar to those spoke in South Arabian. That this potential language, even if local, doesn't help the "Ethiopian" context by being extinct, save for some influences in languages that lived longer. [QUOTE]Yom: The presence of interdentals in itself does not make that language similar to South Arabian ones rather than more similar to Proto-Semitic (and therefore more similar to South Arabian languages due to their closeness to proto-Semitic in this regard).[/QUOTE]You can talk about "proto-Semitic" all day; fact is you haven't produce any material on the the Ethiopian "language" with which the "Epigraphic script" could have been designed around. Whereas, it easy to see these scripts could have been designed around the languages spoken in South Arabian. [QUOTE]Yom: I have been civil up to now, but your arrogance and incivility is incorrigible, it seems.[/QUOTE]It is funny, I was just thinking the same about you. You keep solidifying that point, with rubbish like the above. [QUOTE]Yom: No, I read them, but you never separate between your views and those of Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Is your interpretation simply that of Munro-Hay?[/QUOTE]It is your responsibility to pay attention to the posts; I don't post them, because they look beautiful on the screen. [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?[/QUOTE]I just answered that question.[/QUOTE]In other words, your complaints about "Sabean colonists" have no logical foundation. [QUOTE]Yom: It's all speculation, and since it has not been proven (the idea of Sabaean colonists), then you should revert to the inherent assumption, that the kingdom was home-grown. Just as you should assume, without proof otherwise, that Egyptian civilization was home-grown. Ockham's razor in action.[/QUOTE]Well, the Pre-Aksumite complex may well be home-grown, a point which it looks like I have to reiterate you time and again, I don't see how that has any bearings on the possibility of "military" colonization or presence in the region. From Fattovich, 2002: The late second and early first millennia BC were marked by the decline of Egyptian power, and [b]the rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush in Nubia, and the [i]kingdoms in southwest Arabia.[/i][/b]. **[b]Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians[/b]**, but it is possible , however, that the Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak under the control of the kingdom of Saba. [b]At this time, the pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat was surely an important partner of Saba.[/b]… In the early first millennium BC, the South Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. [b]Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba.[/b]. That [b]contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat.[/b]. An urban society, [b]reflecting the south Arabian pattern[/b], appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial center and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara. In the late first millennium BC, [b][i]after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia[/i], the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed.[/b] The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms,… As such, who knows. The idea of "military" colonists has therefore not been proven, but hasn't been disproven. That's just the way they way it is, pending any new revelations via archeology. [QUOTE]Yom: Not at all. There are multiple possibilities that he could be proposing. Granted, similar in nature, but different nonetheless.[/QUOTE]Well, since you can't understand it, that is your problem; nobody else's. [QUOTE]Yom: I cited Martin Richards et al, and this is what they said: "The Afro-Arabian Tihama cultural complex, for which an African origin seems most likely, arose in the mid-2nd millennium." Apparently the 1997 work is different from the Urban complex article (it is cited thus: Fattovich R (1997) The Near East and eastern Africa: their interaction. In: Vogel JO (ed) Encyclopedia of precolonial Africa. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, pp 479–484.) Unless by African, they mean an area other than N Ethiopia/Eritrea, then I stand by my statement. As I said, I am not positing the African origin myself, I'm simply repeating what I have read. I don't know what exactly the other Fattovich article says because I don't have access to it, but it must have something positing an African origin for the paper to say that an "African origin seems most likely."[/QUOTE]I could "repeat" traditional claims of Pre-Aksumite complexes being "Sabean" in origin, but that won't do us any good. I need more than a mere claim that the Arabian "Tihama" complex is "Ethiopian" in origin. I need to first see those "parameters" I requested, which provide another example of unanswered requests, from which point, let the chips fall where they may. [QUOTE]Yom: [QUOTE]What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?[/QUOTE]It's relative, hence the "as large as previously assumed."[/QUOTE]Do you consider "Sabean" influences "significant", or not? [/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