...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa 2013
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] From lioness' extract above, the authors insist--even though genetic evidence is noticeably against it--that: [i]The hypothesis that west Eurasian ancestry entered eastern Africa through Arabia [b]must be reconciled[/b].[/i] This was after having invoked the south Arabian connection, and having selectively applied Stuart Munro-Hay's work. In other words, the theory must be upheld at any cost, regardless of what evidence actually points to, by making evidence fit the theory rather than the theory fit evidence. Simply put: Come up with a theory first, and then look around for evidence to fit it. If that does not smell of dogmatism, what then will. Like other ideologues, they try to placate weak genetic evidence for their theories by claiming--without concrete substantiation of wholesale population replacement--that resident populations of the "Middle East" are not representative of what would have been there, supposedly 3ky ago. From blog entry, "[i]What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals![/i]", May 15, 2013: While on the subject of suspiciously tenuous findings by the authors (Pagani et al. 2012), it's [b]worth noting that the introduction—for which the authors insinuate a single-entry—of the so-called "non-African" gene pool of Ethiopian groups is purported to have taken place some 3ky ago[/b]; this [b]interestingly coincides with the date generally attributed to the historic Sabean kingdom of southern Arabia[/b]; in fact, [b]in a thinly veiled manner, the authors even make a reference to a study (Kitchen et. al. 2009), so as to make it a point that their dates firmly match that of said study[/b]: [i]The [b]estimated time (3 kya)[/b] and the geographic origin (the Levant) of the gene flow into Ethiopia are [b]consistent[/b] with both the model of Early Bronze Age origins of Semitic languages and [b]the reported age estimate (2.8 kya) of the Ethio-Semitic language group[/b]. They are also [b]consistent with the legend of Makeda, the Queen of Sheba[/b]. According to the version recorded in the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast (a traditional Ethiopian book on the origins of the kings), this influential Ethiopian queen (who, according to Hansberry, reigned between 1005 and 955 BCE) visited [b]King Solomon[/b]—ruler, in biblical tradition, of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah—bringing back, in addition to important trading links, a son.[/i] The authors of course, [b]conveniently seize on legends of the Kebra Nagast, with little regard to what archaeology has to say, because doing so seems to fit into the narrative they want to build[/b]. There [b]is a "dark age" period in Ethiopian archaeological record[/b], between the Da'amat complex—a contemporary of the noted Sabean complex—and the Aksumite complex: [i]A kingdom called D`MT (perhaps to be read Da`mot or Di`amat) is attested in Ethiopian inscriptions at this early date, and, though the period between this and the development of Aksum around the [b]beginning of the Christian era is an Ethiopian `Dark Age' for us at present[/b], it may be [b]surmised that the D`MT monarchy and its successors, and other Ethiopian chiefdoms, continued something of the same *`Ethio-Sabaean'* civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum.[/b] "A certain linguistic and religious [b]continuity may be observed[/b] between the two periods, [b]though many features of Aksumite civilisation differ considerably from the earlier material.[/b]" [1][/i] The Dark period (from archaeological standpoint) between the demise of D'MT complex and the rise of the Aksumite complex [b]gave way to the introduction of Christianity[/b], which would become a regular feature of the Aksumite complex. It is [b]little wonder then, that legends would subsequently develop[/b], long [b]after the demise of the Aksumite complex[/b], which would [b]capitalize on Abrahamic belief, centered on the person of King Solomon and Makeda[/b], i.e. Queen of Sheba, as part of the Kebra Nagast narrative. As such, [URL=http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2009/08/Who-were-the-ancient-Israelites.html]just as observed elsewhere[/URL] (click on the link), the narrative of Kebra Nagast seems to [b]proceed from[/b] a [b]mythologized period[/b] to a [b]more realistic[/b] historic era... [i]The [b]origins of these legends hark back to some unknown time after the conversion of the kingdom to Christianity in the reign of king Ezana of Aksum in the fourth century AD[/b], or in some cases perhaps to an even earlier period when some Jewish traditions had entered the country. Such legends had their political use in providing pedigrees for national institutions. It was believed in later times that the [b]state offices from the king downwards[/b] were descended from the company which had brought the [b]Ark to Aksum from Jerusalem[/b] (Budge 1922: 61). [b]**Doubtless the Christian priests, searching for a longer pedigree for their religion to impress pagans and unbelievers, would have been interested in developing these tales which connected Ethiopia with Solomon and Sheba.**[/b] [b]The Ethiopian kings[/b] themselves, [b]**anxious to acquire the prestige of ancient**[/b] and [b]**venerable dynastic ancestors**[/b], could [b]**scarcely have hoped for a more august couple as their reputed progenitors**[/b]. Even in the official Ethiopian Constitution, up to the time of the end of the reign of [b]emperor Haile Selassie, the dynasty was held to have descended directly from Solomon and the queen of Sheba through their mythical son, the emperor Menelik I[/b]. The [b]real events[/b] in Ethiopia's [b]history before the present two millenia[/b] are [b]**lost in the mists of antiquity**[/b], but valiant [b]attempts were made by Ethiopian chroniclers to fill in the immense gap[/b] between the [b]reign of Menelik I and the time of the kings of Aksum[/b]. The [b]king lists they developed[/b] (all those now surviving are of comparatively recent date), [b]name a long line of rulers, covering the whole span from Menelik through the Aksumite period and on to the later Zagwé and `Solomonic' dynasties[/b] (Conti Rossini 1909). There is little point in reciting the majority of these names, but some of the most important of the reputed successors of Menelik I are worth noting for their importance in Ethiopian tradition.[/i] With regards to Menelik I, legend says of him... [i]Tradition says that he was the son of king Solomon of Israel and the queen of Sheba conceived during the queen's famous visit to Jerusalem. Although [b]no information survives in the legends about the ancient Aksumite rulers[/b] who[/i] [b]really [i]built the palaces[/b] and [b]erected the giant stone obelisks or stelae which still stand[/b] in several places around the town, these monuments [b]are locally attributed in many instances to Menelik or to Makeda, the queen of Sheba or queen of Azab[/b] (the South). Such legends are still a living force at Aksum today; for example, the mansion recently excavated in the district of Dungur, west of Aksum, has immediately been absorbed into local legends as the `palace of the queen of Sheba'. [1][/i] [b]This phenomenon is not uncommon on the African continent[/b]; many groups, be they Muslims, Jews or Christians, [b]tend to build legends around eponymous ancestors which take their community's lineage back to the homelands of these ancestors[/b]. [b]These legends[/b], as the notes above indicate, [b]are generally applied to give ruling circles—more than anyone else—legitimacy of power[/b], as well as [b]the ability to macro-manage their societies through prestige bestowed upon religion[/b]. The [b]authors of the present genetic study (Pagani et al.)[/b] seem to be [b]oblivious of intricacies of this nature[/b]. While there have been long contacts across the Red Sea, it is [b]mainly between 8th Century and 5th century B.C. that we begin to see visible south Arabian influence[/b] in the region, [b]in the form inscription, architecture and so forth[/b]. As Stuart Munro-Hay put it,... [i][b]some sort of contact[/b], apparently [b]quite close[/b], seems to have been [b]maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia[/b]. This developed to [b]such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious[/b] or [b]funerary[/b] installations, some of major importance, with an [b]unmistakeable South Arabian appearance[/b] in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period... [b]Inscriptions[/b] found at some of these sites include the [b]names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title[/b] of [b]mukarrib[/b], apparently indicating a ruler with something of [b]a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia[/b] (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the [b]title of king, mlkn[/b] (Schneider 1961; 1973). [b]Evidently the pre-Aksumite Sabaean-influenced cultural province did not consist merely of a few briefly-occupied staging posts, but was a wide-spread and well-established phenomenon[/b].[/i] [b]Having acknowledged the extent of Sabean influence[/b], Munro-Hay [b]cautioned[/b]: [i]Until relatively recently South Arabian artefacts found in Ethiopia were [b]interpreted as the material signs left behind by a superior colonial occupation force[/b], with political supremacy over the indigenes — an interpretation still maintained by Michels (1988).[/i] [b]But further study has now suggested that very likely, by the time the inscriptions were produced, the majority of the material in fact represented the civilisation of the Ethiopians themselves.[/b] [i]Nevertheless, a certain amount of contact with South Arabia is very apparent, and had resulted in the adoption of a number of cultural traits (Schneider 1973; 1976).[/i] The [b]picture that emerges, based on archaeology[/b], is [b]one wherein the late early-Holocene urbanization process[/b] of the African Horn [b]was accompanied by cultural interaction—such as trade—with the relatively more established complexes to the north, on the African continent itself[/b] (see: [URL=http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/08/urbanization-in-african-horn-was.html][i][b]Urbanization in the African Horn was the outcome of autochthonous social processes, or was it?[/b][/i][/URL], for example). This interaction [b]may well have aided the growth of Ethiopian urbanization[/b], to [b]extent whereupon state formation in the Ethiopian highlands was made possible[/b], and [b]with it[/b], the [b]capacity of Ethiopia's forebears to become worthy trade partners in their own right[/b], i.e. of [b]their counterparts both to their north[/b] and [b]across the Red Sea[/b]. However, the subsequent rise to regional prominence of the Sabean complex in southern Arabia [b]marked a new chapter[/b] in Ethiopian history. From [b]Fattovich, 2002[/b] [2]: [i]The late second and early first millennia BC were [b]marked by the decline of Egyptian power[/b], and the [b]rise and expansion of the kingdom of Kush[/b] in Nubia, [b]and[/b] the [b]kingdoms in southwest Arabia[/b]. [b]Trade along the Red Sea was under the control of the South Arabians[/b], but it is possible , however, that the [b]Phoenicians sporadically visited the Horn[/b] (Doe 1971; Adams 1977; Groom 1981; Liverani 1988). In the [b]mid-first millennium BC, the south Arabian commercial expansion was at its peak[/b] under the control of the kingdom of Saba. [b]At this time[/b], the [b]pre-Aksumite kingdom of Da’amat[/b] was [b]surely[/b] an [b]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 [b]need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom[/b]. Kaskase became another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara. In the late first millennium BC, [b]after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed[/b]. The plateau was probably [b]divided into petty kingdoms[/b][/i] The [b]use of Sabean language as a possible trade language[/b], for example, [b]would have a lasting impact on the evolution of Ethio-Semitic language in a certain manner[/b], which was already described briefly in earlier passages. This is [b]not to say that Ethio-Semitic itself comes from southern Arabia[/b], but [b]just that such a trade language would have had an impact on how Ethio-Semitic would evolve[/b]; for instance, [b]from Stuart Munro-Hay[/b], one also gets [b]an impression of this[/b], i.e. [b]existence of Ethio-Semitic[/b] language [b]prior to contact with the Sabean[/b] complex [b]before[/b] some [b]3ky ago[/b]: [i][b]Semiticized[/b] Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly [b]as early as 2000 BC[/b], bringing their [b]`proto-Ethiopic'[/b] language, [b]ancestor[/b] of [b]Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages[/b], with them; and these and other groups [b]**had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities** by the time any Sabaean influences arrived.[/b] [1][/i] The [b]implied message[/b] here, [b]is that the Agaw people[/b] of Ethiopia [b]were already "Semiticized"[/b] by [b]2000[/b] BC, [b]long before[/b] the [b]appearance of the south Arabian complex in history[/b]. At [b]this time[/b] however, we are informed that [b]this would have been a proto-Ethiopic ancestor of modern Ethio-Semitic languages[/b]. Note that the [b]"Semiticized" (acculturated) Agaw[/b] and [b]other Ethiopian[/b] groups "[b]had already developed[/b] specific cultural and linguistic identities [b]by the time[/b] any Sabean [b]influences arrived[/b]." Elsewhere: [i][b]The inscriptions[/b] dating from this period[/i] [Sabean-Ethiopian contact] [i]in Ethiopia are apparently written in [b]two[/b] languages, [b]pure Sabaean[/b] and [b]another language[/b] with [b]certain aspects found later in Ge`ez[/b] (Schneider 1976). [b]All the royal inscriptions are in this second[/b], presumably [b]Ethiopian, language[/b]. A number of different tribes and families seem to be mentioned by the inscriptions of this period, but there is no evidence to show whether any of these groups lasted into the Aksumite period.[1][/i] One of the two aforementioned languages was very likely serving as [b]a trade language[/b] and possibly for [b]administrative purposes[/b], which from [b]a logical standpoint, would have been the "pure Sabean"[/b] noted above; the [b]other language[/b], would have [b]been for the benefit of the locals[/b], so that the [b]message which the ruling circles wanted to get across the public, could be heard widely[/b]. This [b]latter language, would have desirably been a language that is more widely accessible to the public than the former[/b], and hence, [b]would have been a local "Ethiopian language", as indicated above[/b]. This [b]local language happened[/b] to [b]already have "aspects"[/b] that [b]would later on be a feature of Ge'ez[/b], which [b]happens to be an Ethio-Semitic language[/b]. Remember, [b]this was during the time of Ethio-Sabean contact[/b]! [i]Only the [b]word YG`DYN[/b], man of [b]Yeg`az[/b], might [b]hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan[/b] tribe was [b]established so early[/b], though the [b]particular inscription which mentions it is written in the South Arabian rather than the Ethiopian language[/b] (Schneider 1961). Some of the [b]other apparently tribal names[/b] also [b]occur in both groups[/b] of [b]inscriptions[/b]. The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions [b]is `N[/b]. of the [b]family N.[/b] of the [b]tribe N.'[/b], possibly also [b]reflected later by the Aksumite[/b] `Bisi'-title; [b]`king N.[/b] man of the tribe/clan (?) [b]N.'[/b] (Ch. 7: 5). [1][/i] ...again, [b]speaking to the already established presence of Ethiopic language with Semitic[/b] attributes, [b]prior to contact[/b] with the Sabean complex. Furthermore: [i]Indeed, [b]it may be that the Sabaeans were able to establish themselves in Ethiopia[/b] in the [b]first place[/b] because [b]both[/b] their civilisation and that of mid-1st millenium Ethiopia [b]already had something in common[/b]; it has been suggested that [b]earlier migrations or contacts[/b] might have taken place, [b]leaving a kind of cultural sympathy[/b] between the two areas [b]which allowed the later contact to flourish easily[/b].[1][/i] Ethio-Semitic language, [b]having been available prior to any contact[/b] with the Sabean complex, [b]would fit into this scenario of "something in common"[/b]. As noted earlier, [b]south Arabian impact on Ethiopian gene pool would have been limited[/b], and [b]primarily focused in administrative outposts, where Sabean migrants communities would have been more visible[/b], during the Ethio-Sabean contact. So, the [b]south Arabian footprint is nowhere near as considerable as proponents of a south Arabian origin for Ethio-Semitic would like it to be[/b], so as [b]to bolster their theory[/b]. As one observation has it, [b]the possible role south Arabian migrants would have served during this time[/b],... [i]It appears that there were undoubtedly some South Arabian immigrants in Ethiopia in the mid-first millenium BC, but there is (unless the interpretation of Michels is accepted) [b]no sure indication that they were politically dominant[/b]. The sites chosen by them may be related to their relative ease of access to the Red Sea coast. Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have [b]regarded sympathetically[/b] the suggestion that the [b]inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence[/b] in Ethiopia [b]may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar[/b] in the late fourth century BC; but the [b]dating is very uncertain[/b], as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, [b]living in some sort of symbiosis[/b] with the [b]local Ethiopian population[/b], perhaps under a species of [b]treaty-status[/b].[1][/i] With regards to the D'MT complex, it's noted: [i][b]Its rulers, kings and mukarribs[/b], by including the name Saba in their titles, [b]**appear to have expressly claimed control over the resident Sabaeans**[/b] in their country; [b]actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo[/b] according to present information (Schneider 1973: 388). The [b]Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear[/b], from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have [b]kept in contact with their own country[/b], and indeed the [b]purpose of their presence[/b] may well have been to [b]maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading[/b] network. Naturally, [b]such an arrangement would have worked[/b] also to the [b]benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers[/b], who [b]employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first[/b], and [b]nagashi (najashi) or negus[/b] later; [b]no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known[/b]. It seems that [b]these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so[/b] — or perhaps even only a few decades — [b]as a separate and identifiable people[/b]. Possibly [b]their presence was connected to a contemporary efflorescence of Saba on the other side of the Red Sea[/b]. Their [b]influence was only in a limited geographical[/b] area, [b]affecting the autochthonous population in that area to a greater or lesser degree[/b]. Such [b]influences as did remain after their departure or assimilation fused with the local cultural background[/b] , and contributed to the ensemble of traits which constituted Ethiopian civilisation in the rest of the pre-Aksumite period. [1][/i] Moving past the addictive history lessons, let's take a look at other weak moments of the Pagani et al. (2012) analysis. They [b]purportedly have been able to get solid dates[/b] on "admixture" events, by using some ROLLOFF logarithm coded "in-house". [b]Short of coming across haplogroups wherein the mutation rate is supposedly steady and non-variable[/b], available [b]dating models, from "strict-clock" inference model, "relaxed-clock" inference models to time-free inference models[/b] (like say, the Bayesian model) [b]hardly ever get 100% accuracy on dating[/b] (for example, see [3]). Whereas [b]reporting concrete dates, short of using reference fossils or remains[/b] of [b]known dates[/b] to [b]aid[/b] in phylogenetic dating, [b]imply maximum accuracy[/b] of the model being applied, [b]likely within the reach of a 100% accuracy, which as noted, is hardly ever attained[/b] through available inference models . [b]Seemingly neutral segments of the genome are not necessarily inclined to conform to uniform or strict-clock rates[/b] of mutation, [b]let alone the even more unpredictable segments of the genome that are under selection[/b]. Besides, [b]the parameters picked[/b] by the authors, [b]such as the translation of generations into years[/b], is [b]largely an arbitrary variable[/b]. So, [b]the alleged attainment of precise dates is cause for skepticism[/b]. As much as I want to get into more of what is actually posted, the material is simply too lengthy to warrant that. And so, for interested parties, the remainder of this material--to give a more complete picture of what is being said--can be attained here: [URL=http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2013/05/What-Ethiopian-Genetic-diversity-Actually-Reveals.html][b][i]What Ethiopian Genetic Diversity—Really—Reveals![/i][/b][/URL] [/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