...
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 Israel: [QB] This is for those who seek to understand a critique of Bekerie's book, and his REBUTTAL to the argument. I personally think that the critique was excellent. Zerbe makes it clear that Bekerie doesn't necessarily have direct proof concerning the connection between AE and Ethiopia. Nonetheless, in my opinion, Bekerie's suggestion of a connection is significant. Also significant is that David Zerbe mentioned that the South Arabian "genesis" of Ethiopia is an HYPOTHESIS! Check it out..... Ayele Bekerie, Ethiopic, An African Writing System (Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, 1997. Pp. 176, $18.95 paperback) Reviewed by David S. Zerbe As the title of the book suggests, this study examines the origins and history of the system of writing called Ethiopic, from which the first language in Ethiopia formed was Ge'ez , today the liturgical writing system of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. This fact, however, is never articulated in the text. Nor is there a discussion as to how other offshoots of the Ethiopic system of writing were established, such as Tigre, Tittering, or Amharic, and these are but two of the deficiencies in this text. The introduction establishes the conceptual framework of the study. The conceptual framework is based on "locational theory." Ayele Bekerie postulates that the roots of the writing system of Ethiopic, as a system of knowledge, is an endogenous creation. What is theorized by Bekerie is that there is an endogenous flavor regarding causality between the Ethiopic writing system and Ethiopian civilization itself, i.e. that both are indigenous to Africa, and that the Ethiopic writing system is an effect of the establishment of an indigenous Ethiopian civilization, indigenous to Africa and not from South Arabia. Ayele Bekerie in fact refutes the South Arabia historiographic paradigm, which hypothesizes that the roots of Ethiopic as a writing system are contained in the Sabaean civilization's writing system, which emanated in South Arabia from the area of what today comprises the state of Yemen, and according to some historians was transplanted through commercial activity across the Red Sea to what is today the Eritrean coast and Ethiopian hiqhlands. From this theoretical model, Ayele Bekerie commences with the first of a four chapter text. He attempts to examine Ethiopian historiography in the context of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Bekerie argues that the genesis of Ethiopian civilization itself is not of Semitic origin, that this is in fact a synthesis of 19th century Eurocentric historiography, which still remains in place today. The argument continues that Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa. Besides secondary source information which shows commercial relations to have existed between Egypt and the "land of Punt" from 2743 BCE, there is no primary-source data, no linkage to the claim of Puntites establishing themselves in what is today Ethiopia, and no mention that Puntite and Sabaean civilizations could have coexisted in the highlands of what is today Ethiopia. Further, he does not establish that the Puntite peoples are the original inhabitants of Ethiopia and, if assumed the Puntites are the original inhabitants of the Ethiopian highlands, Bekerie does not effectively argue that Ethiopic as a writing system had its origins with the Puntites. It is commonly held to be the case in the historiography of the Horn of Africa that the Puntites today are the ancestors of peoples from the Isaak clan in what is now the de facto state of Somaliland. Regarding Egypt, Bekerie also attempts to link the writing systems of Ethiopic and ancient Egypt, but cannot explain why there is a system of hieroglyphics in Egypt and not in Ethiopia, and consequently he fails to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and ancient Egyptian writing systems. There is only cursory mention of the relationship between Coptic and Ge'ez scriptures. Even without any evidence or with scant evidence, Ayele Bekerie is bent on arguing that Ethiopic is not of Semitic origin, but of African origin, but does come to the conclusion in the second chapter that the origins of Ethiopic and of Ethiopian civilization itself are to date still indeterminable. Ayele Bekerie moves forward and discusses in some detail the principles of Ethiopic as a writing system. He establishes this discussion on the premise that the writing system of Ethiopic is actually a philosophy, because the ideographical iconography of the Ethiopic alphabet is conducive in generating knowledge, such as beliefs and concepts. Though he does not address the relationship between linguistics and the philosophical knowledge directly, he establishes that The Ethiopic Book of Henok, written in the BC era in Ge'ez, is not only a religious text but a philosophical one as well. Throughout chapters three and four, Ayele Bekerie demonstrates the significance of Ethiopic as a writing system through Abyssinian literature, such as the Book of Enoch, and the legendary epic tale Kebra Nagast. This book was written in the time of Amda-Tsion in the 14th century, but this pertinent information is not included in the text. This tale of Solomon and Sheba helped lead to the consolidation of the Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia until 1974 by claiming that Menelik I was the son of the two, thereby directly relating Ethiopia to King Solomon. The literary and historiographic magnitude of this on the system of personal rule in Ethiopia is neglected. It does show, however, that the Ethiopic writing system in the form of Ge'ez has produced a number of culturally significant works. Ayele Bekerie concludes the text with the convincing argument that Ethiopic, whether the roots are indigenous to the Puntites and spread to the Ethiopian highlands, or whether Ethiopic as a writing system originated from South Arabia in the BC era and became extinct there, is an African writing system by virtue of the fact that Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya, and Tigre directly correlate with the Ethiopic writing system. To end the tome, the author poses questions for his next work, many of which are not addressed here, such as the relationship between a writing system and a philosophical system of knowledge, why and how 19th century archaeologists discovered evidence linking Ethiopic to Semitic origins in South Arabia, or the process of extinction and resurrection of writing systems. The text entitled Ethiopic decisively demonstrates that there is a great literary tradition in Ethiopia, and as such the third and fourth chapters carry the strongest arguments of the study. Paradoxically perhaps, the greatest strength of Ayele Bekerie's argument is also its greatest weakness, other than clinging to the notion that Ethiopic is not Semitic in origin. Though thoroughly demonstrating that through Ethiopic there has been a rich cultural, literary, and religious tradition among the languages associated with Ge'ez, such as Tigre, Tigrinya, and Amharic, this is only true among the Christian highlanders of Tigrinyan, Tigrean, and Amhara ethnicities. Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, Gojjame, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin. They are of Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic origin, respectively. As such, they do not conform to this linguistic and cultural model, for the aforementioned ethnic groups combined comprise over 50% of present-day Ethiopia's population. As such, the Ethiopic writing system, a system imposed on the predominantly Muslim Somali and Oromo peoples through the system of imperialist Amhara personal rule from the 19th century, has ended with the EPRDF government in Ethiopia, from 1991 to the present. Ethiopic, even if not Semitic in origin, certainly is not of Cushitic, Omotic, or Nilo-Saharan origin. Prof. David Zerbe is a graduate of Central Connecticut State University and the American University at Cairo. Return to Table of Contents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rejoinder From: Ayele Bekerie, Cornell University Thank you for inviting me to send you a rejoinder to the review of my book by David S. Zerbe. First of all, I commend Mr. Zerbe for taking his time to review the book. The review seems to concentrate on paradigmatic issues that are addressed from the perspective of the old school. According to this school, the origin of the Ethiopian civilization, its writing system, its classical language are presumed to have external origin. True to the old school, the reviewer continued to divide the Ethiopian people by identifying the Ethiopic writing system with the "Semitic" people of the northern part of Ethiopia, thereby continuing to pursue a racist divisive theory, between the so-called Semitic and Hamitic peoples of the Horn of Africa. Contrary to the claim that "imperial Amhara's imposition" of their language and FIDEL writing system (a modified and expanded Ethiopic writing system developed for Amharic) on non-Amharas, the people of the south, just to cite one example, chose Amharic after 1991, as their official language together with FIDEL. In other words, Amharic is no longer the imperial language; it is a language the majority of the Ethiopian people opted to have as their official language. Besides the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in Ethiopia, they do have constitutional rights to use their languages as major modes of communication and commerce in their geo-cultural regions. It seems to me that apart from presenting a general description of the format of the text as well as some critical and valuable comments, the review does not thoroughly interrogate the "history and principles" of the Ethiopic writing system, which is the central defining theme of the book. This point became apparent to me when Mr. Zerbe referred to the Ethiopic writing system as an "alphabet." The Ethiopic is not an alphabet; it is a syllabic writing system. As a matter of fact, I suggested a term "syllography" in order to reflect the syllabic feature of the system. I wonder how such a critical distinction ended up being overlooked by the reviewer. In Chapter 1 on "The Arabian Peninsula in Ethiopian Historiography," I clearly stated my positions: "The most critical question that must be raised is: What is the logic of beginning a history of a people from a source other than their own? Are Ethiopians incapable of making their own history? A history of a people that begins with an external source is quite problematic. It would not be the history of the Ethiopian people, but the history of South Arabians in Ethiopia. A history of a people cannot begin from outside or by outsiders. History records the material and spiritual cultures of all peoples. All people make history. All people are of history." (p.38) This is the principle that I followed throughout the text. The purpose of my study was to investigate the historical data regarding the Ethiopic writing system, primarily from within and to present an interpretation of the history, fully cognizant of the languages, the cultures, and experiences of the people of Ethiopia. In one of his critical comments, Mr. Zerbe wrote: ". . . Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa." The "migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt" was not my idea. I see migration, in the African context, with its varying and vast ecological zones as multidirectional and the initial migration was probably from the south to Upper and Lower Egypt. Punt is a term the Ancient Egyptians reportedly used for the people of the south. The coastal region of northeast Africa, roughly between today's Red Sea port of Suwakin in the north, and the Cape of Guardafui in the southeast, was known to the ancient Egyptians as the land of the Punt, the land of spices, incense, and deities. "The Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origin as the Egyptian themselves. The physical characteristics of the Punts from the wall-picture of Deir el-Bahri, based on studies made, differ little from the Egyptians' physical attributes. Zayed (1990) attempted to limit the geographical locale of Punts to Somaliland; he cited the similarity of the term BARCHI or headdress both in Somali and ancient Egyptian language. Zayed perhaps did not know that round seats with three legs are also called BARCHUMA in the Amharic and Oromo languages of Ethiopia." (p. 53) At least from the time of the V Dynasty, there was a reference to the Land of the Punt. "In the XVIII Dynasty, Pharaoh Hatshepsut sent Nehasi to Punt with five ships. He was accepted by the Punt king Perehu. All Godly fragrant woods of God's land was presented by the Queen to Amon." (p.53) The Godly fragrant woods, such as incense woods are found on the highlands of Ethiopia. In other words, the land of Punt cannot be restricted to the "Isaak clan" in Somaliland. Regarding the question of pictographic writing systems, Mr. Zerbe was quick to point out my "failure to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and Ancient Egyptian writing systems." While it is true that comparable pictographic writing system to Egyptian hieroglyphics are not yet found in Ethiopia, the Ethiopic writing system definitely displays pictographic and ideographic properties. (Please see the part on the "Description and Analysis of the Major Properties of the System, pp. 82-96, particularly Table 13 on p. 85.) According to Mr. Zerbe, the epic tale of KEBRA NAGAST (THE GLORY OF KINGS) "was written in the time of Amda-Tsion [1312- 1342A.D.] in the 14th century." King Amde-Tsion was not the "restorer' of the Solomonic line of rule. Saint Takla Haymanot in the reign of Yekuno Amlak (1268-1283) is recognized in Ethiopian history with gratitude and reverence as the "restorer of the Solomonic line of rule," with its capital moving out of Aksum to Shoa, in the central part of present day Ethiopia. It is important to note here that Ethiopians as sovereign and free people had cultural and economic relations with various peoples and states of the ancient as well as medieval world, including the Israelites, Romans, Syrians, Egyptians, Nubians, and Yemenites. These relations partly involved significant cultural exchanges and adoptions. The mythology of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon should be seen in the context of cultural exchanges. In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Zerbe wrote: "Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, GOJJAME, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin." (Emphasis added.) First of all, as it is stated at the outset, Ethiopic refers to the Ge'ez writing system. The book is not about Fidel or the Amharic writing system. Fidel and Amharic language are now widely used by choice among the peoples of southern Ethiopia, whose indigenous languages include "Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic groupings!!" The Oromos have opted to use Latin script for Orominya and the script is widely used in the Oromo region. As I stated in the book, the Oromo language could have found a sounder script in the Ethiopic system for the system has already addressed the question of explosive and implosive sounds that are found in most Ethiopian languages, including Orominya and Amarinya (pp.94-96). As to the Gojjames, I am not sure if Mr. Zerbe has the information right. Gojjam is one of the most important centers of Ge'ez and Amharic literary traditions and scholarship. Gojjam is also home to the Agaus, one of the most ancient peoples of Ethiopia. The Agau language is believed to be older than Ge'ez and yet it contributed quite significantly to the development of both Ge'ez and Amharic languages. A quick glance of Table 21 (Major Centers of Quine [Poetry]) would have prevented the hasty and wrongful generalization. To conclude: The Ethiopic writing system's elaborate and complex knowledge properties, such as philosophy, linguistics, and aesthetics, which are indigenous only in Ethiopia, and the arduous processes associated with the creation and perfection of a writing system, make the external hypothesis very difficult to accept. Moreover, the system is truly self-sustaining and autonomous production. All the components of the knowledge were produced within the country -from goat skins to inks to ideas. Finally, Ethiopic is of African origin. Professor Ayele Bekerie is in the African Studies Program at Cornell University http://www.ccsu.edu/Afstudy/upd6-1.html [/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