...
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 Zorn: [QB] Thanks for getting back to me... "Hopefully this thread already has the answer to your first question (how much influence). As to religion, most of the Gods attested in D'mt inscriptions are also found in Sabaean inscriptions and can probably be safely attributed to Sabaean influence, although it is possible that earlier contact between the two groups resulted in the shared gods. Some of the D'mt gods are not attested in South Arabia, however, and were likely local gods." I meant "cultural cohesion" in reference to the east africans who migrated to South Arabia thousands of years ago and gave birth to the semetic language- but I really can't say. I'm just saying that, despite how you quote those researchers who say "thousands of sites" with no sabaen influence beyond the elite level... well, having so many sabaen deities in the place of something as important as religion would seem to suggest large influence, wouldn't it? What are the theories as to where so many of these deities came from? And exactly how much cultural heritage would Dm't owe to Saba, in the case with so much religious influence? How much would these religious similarities have influenced Dm't culture? And are they sure these didn't arise somehow from the Ethiopian migrations, thousands of years back? "Well the elite level is the most evident in all civilizations and is influence nonetheless. What parts of D'mt that Munro-Hay said were influenced do you not think were influenced based on the fact that it's limited to the elite level? Munro-Hay is a specialist on Axum more so than the D'mt period, which is why he's brief in describing it in Aksum, but I wouldn't say that he's not qualified to comment." As someone else mentioned in the previous thread- Munro mentions Sabaean influence [i]constantly,[/i] to the point where he might as well say Dm't was a wholly Sabaean intervention. And what you said on the Wikipedia discussion page of Axum: "He's referring here to the D'mt kingdom, not to Aksum. Other authors (e.g. Fattovich) have dealt more specifically with the relations between D'mt and Saba', but that's beyond the scope of this article. As to Askum itself, however, Munro Hay is unambiguous in his assessment, at least in his article on Aksum and its development in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (A-C, 2003). I don't have it on hand, but I'll replace that citation from Aksum, since I can't find (in the online version) what the citation might be referring to. " What did you mean here? "That citation is in fact from Munro-Hay. Actual Sabaean presence is postulated to only have existed at a few sites and they are thought to have left or been absorbed after a few decades. There are architectural connections, but I'm not very knowledgeable on this issue. Can you enumerate the "other pieces [that] Munro[-Hay] mentions" for me?" Wait.... Now Munro is the one who put off the idea that Sabaean influence only lasted a few decades? Although someone mentioned that Munro didn't believe Axum to be the product of Sabaeans, he bespeaks as if the Sabaeans influenced Dm't in virtually every aspect of their culture. Just go back and read the thread, Sundiata cites the "sabaean cultural influences" excerpts all the time. This is just obnoxiouslly confusing, I'm sorry. Let me reiterate- If Munro was the one who pushed off the idea of the "few decades immigration", attested to by only a few sites.... why does he mention heavy Sabaean influence SO MUCH? Likewise you cited some people who said there's been thousands of excavations, with no influence extending beyond the elite level- and someone else mentioned other academics who truly proved Axum was "indigenous"- so where does Munro even fit into this?!? What I'm getting at is that, although I keep hearing Axum is an indigenous development, there's constant mention of Munro's work who always mentions "heavy sabaean influence", yet then you say he was the one who came up with the short-term immigration hypothesis, and then you go off and mention researchers- although a decade after Munro's magnum opous- who find no Sabaean influence beyond religious and elite levels. Do you see where I'm getting at? None of this makes any sense, I'm sorry to say. "Well, the non-elite levels are the houses and culture of the majority of the population, such as the pottery, which shows no Sabaean influence." That's what I thought, but was Munro reffering to the WHOLE of Dm't in his assessment? And have there been later researchers that have proved Munro's assertions wrong? What was the biggest piece of evidence for an indigenous origin of Axum anyway? "You're mixing up language and alphabet. The language is indigenous and not descended from any Old South Arabian language, and perhaps descended from the language of the D'mt inscriptions (all but 15, which are in Sabaic), which have features found in Ge'ez. The alphabet is descended from Epigraphic South Arabian, but this alphabet is found around the same time in Yemen and Eritrea/Ethiopia starting around the 9th c. BC. " I see- I always thought that, in reference to the Ge'ez script, the Ethiopians developed their entire language on their own. Still, when did this alphabet come over to Ethiopia, and how? Was it a baseline alphabet like the Bronze Age one? [/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