...
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] Skipping Western Tigray for now since the studies are not that interesting (showing the existence of early cultures contemporary with the others described, but little research done so far), here's a [i]very[/i] intersting study on early (pre-1st millenium BC) interactions between N. Ethiopia/Eritrea and Yemen (specifically Tihama). Note that the exact nature of the relationship between the Tihama and Saba' is not yet understood. [b]EALL, Dr. Edward J.[/b] [b]Contact across the Red Sea (between Arabia and Africa) in the 2nd millennium BC: circumstantial evidence from the archaeological site of al-Midamman, Tihama coast of Yemen, and Dahlak Kabir Island, Eritrea[/b] Based on excavations along the Red Sea coast of Yemen, this paper explores the possibility that people had the ability to cross the sea in the 3rd - 2nd millennia BC. It is inconceivable that fishermen living along the Red Sea coast did not know about the seasonality of the winds. Whether others had both the will and the skill to make journeys into deep waters, is an entirely different matter. While the material record for al-Midamman is unique, [b]circumstantial evidence points to connections between Yemen and the Horn of Africa. It is hypothesised that this **did not involve the mass movement of people, with their cultural baggage complete**. But it is suggested that **people on both sides of the Red Sea may have had a common ancestry, and their cultural expressions emerge from that common background.**[/b] The earliest cultural record from al-Midamman is an ephemeral presence defined by the surface recovery of stone projectile points and scrapers belonging to a Neolithic culture, say, from before 4000 BC. The first substantial and monumental phase of the site starts in the 3rd millennium BC. [b]It involved the setting up of **giant stone markers**.[/b] Certain slender pillars were once set up with infants buried beneath them, yet without grave goods; an isolated stone marked the grave of an adult male. Hypothetically, these burials pre-date the setting up of giant stones, an act dated roughly to 2400-1800 BC by the cache of copper-alloy tools and a core of [b]obsidian[/b] found buried beneath one of the megaliths. All of the stone used had to be imported from at least 50 km away. A later phase of the activity involved recycling the stone. Yet there is no evidence that this was a destructive act. Rather, it appears to suggest reverence for the past. The most impressive use of the stone was to create monumental buildings. Two rectilinear structures were built with foundations and walls of stone, and partition walls of mudbrick. A third stone building is likely slightly more recent in date, and may be an open-air shrine enclosure. Shallowly carved decorations date earlier than the 8th century BC. Re-used stone was also employed in a cemetery. The pottery grave goods consist of whole vessels, of a kind known from the domestic settlement. This ephemeral settlement has furnished a rich record of pottery, obsidian, grind stones, and masses of fish bone. A commonality of artifact in all of the settings is, in fact, the most remarkable of the recent discoveries. Grind stones, for instance, were found in the context of the megaliths as well as in the domestic settlement, and set deliberately onto burnt stone, perhaps as field markers. Gold beads have been recovered from both the stone enclosure and the site of the standing stones. [b]The idea of different phases of the occupation has always been present in the eyes of the excavators. The idea of newcomers supplanting the old ways has always been a possibility. **The most recent work has demonstrated this to be untenable.**[/b] Finding only the same kind of pottery in both the domestic, the funerary and commemorative areas implies that the same people were involved throughout the site's life. Yet clearly their cultural habits did evolve. Despite the fact that the inhabitants appear to have been obsessed with stone, there are no inscriptions carved in stone; no sacrificial offering trays of stone; no stone incense burners; no three dimensional sculptures of either animals or humans, in stone. [b]All of these would be appropriate for a culture linked to Sabaean realm in its broad sense. But there are no statue-menhirs either, which would have made a plausible link to the people Zarins sees as reflecting a Bronze Age elite on the plateau. [/b] From al-Midamman there is one bull's head in relief from a pottery vessel; two human figurines in pottery; incense burners of pottery; and [b]an example of alphabetic letters scratched into a pottery vessel[/b]. But pottery items are very rare within the corpus of finds, representing four out of 4000 recorded (and diagnostic) fragments. [b]As for the pottery itself, it is far superior to anything from classic South Arabia.[/b] Though hand-built, it is well produced from good quality clay. [b]It is often burnished and decorated with punctate designs that call to mind Fattovich's Afro-Arabian cultural complex theories regarding the punctate incised pottery from Kassala in the Gash delta of southeastern Sudan. And upper Nile-area specialists will no doubt think of so-called wavy-line punctate pottery associated with the C-Group people. Yet, the one striking absence, which cannot be overlooked, is that Kassala does not have the same kind of obsidian record as al-Midamman where there is a clearly definable assemblage of obsidian microliths. It arrives **fully developed** as a lithic tradition, and it does not evolve out of the Arabian bi-facial tradition. Numerous *antecedents* can be found in East Africa. Our expedition has also observed obsidian of exactly the same technological tradition on the island of Dahlak Kabir, offshore from the Eritrean mainland.[/b] Other circumstantial evidence also points to possible links between the island and the coast of Yemen. In the Islamic cemetery of the 11th and 12th centuries, one tombstone is carved from a pillar of basalt that is foreign to the island and is likely recovered from a Bronze Age context. I hasten to argue that [b]we may not find a single, common template into which all of these cultures fit. We are not looking at a systematic expansion, with a socially cohesive, even politically based, organization. So different expressions may have been adopted by different groups, as they came into contact with others[/b]. At least four obstacles need to be removed before the Afro-Arabian connection becomes plausible. Our best analogy for the copper-alloy tools is drawn from Syria. I would counter here by saying that our knowledge of the copper-bronze industry from both Yemen and the Horn of Africa is so poor that the absence of parallels for our tools may not be significant. The second problem is that we find obsidian with the same technology as from al-Midamman, both in the Wadi al-Jubah, in the interior of Yemen, and in the Hadramawt, and on Dahlak Kabir island. But in the last example we have found no related pottery. From Sabir, al-Hamid, and al-Kashawba there is generically similar pottery but no obsidian. Perhaps we may explain this as a difference of time. At al-Midamman there seem to have been both obsidian and pottery in use at all times. Another difficulty is that we have scratched stone decorations that can be parallelled in the Jawf. Conveniently, Audouin has suggested that these carvings in the Jawf could easily be dated to the late 2nd millennium BC rather than the early 1st millennium BC as previously suggested. What is the connection between our two areas? None, if we look at political realities. [b]My current hypothesis is that during the late 3rd millennium BC, in response to a drying climate, people were on the move. Some settled on Dahlak island. The people who settled in al-Midamman **crossed the Red Sea and settled in the Tihama** where they found a window of opportunity for life as result of the **massive flooding that was emanating from the highlands**, from a landscape out of control.[/b] When checks and balances were put in place in the highlands, as part of the landscape stabilisation for which Yemen became synonymous, the people at the coast were forced to move on. [b]Groups may have found their way into the Jawf, and the Hadramawt. They retained some of their specific lithic technology, but generally otherwise became integrated with the rest of the South Arabian populations.[/b] Further reading Keall, E. J. (2000) >Changing Settlement along the Red Sea Coast of Yemen in the Bronze Age=, First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Rome May 18-23, 1998), Proceedings, (Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F., eds), 719-31, Rome. Giumlia-Mair, A., Keall, E. J., Shugar, A. and Stock, S. (2002) >Investigation of a Copper-based Hoard from the Megalithic Site of al-Midamman, Yemen: an Interdisciplinary Approach=, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 195-209. Very interesting stuff, though parts are difficult to interpret. [/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