posted                   

Apologies for early repros of the same topic. Experienced some technical problems, but it's all resolved. And now back to:

Rather than let a discussion that supposedly started out as an "Isaaq" genetic question, ramble on off-topic about Somali clan issues on one hand, while on the other hand, about the issue of whether the term "Ethiopia" [as in the contemporary nation of Ethiopia] is a recent construct or not, along with how much influence the Sabeans had on ancient African Horn, I felt it necessary to make this an issue on its own.

Thus in response to Yom, I hereby present:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

This doesn't answer the question posed.

---

Sure it does. You asked what it means, and I told you that it's simply a name. It doesn't have a meaning. Possible cognates to the h-b-š root exist, though. I don't remember what they are, however.

---

I am assuming you are a capable reader, and as such, can you keep a straight face, and insist that the non-answer above, answers this:

"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?

^It is precise and concise; it doesn't say what does "Habasha" mean? Got it.

---

Need I be so blunt (and please be more polite in your response)? Here is your answer: "no."

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Long answer: I don't remember exactly what the h-b-š root referred to, but I believed it involved trade, and in Arabic had something to do with gathering of troops, or the like. Don't quote me on the former, but I think I'm right on the latter.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Yom:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that substantial Sabaean migration (i.e. enough to change the population or found Aksum) has been discredited, which it has.

---

quote:

---

Supercar:

And who would have proposed a population replacement?

---

No one here, but many past scholars. I wasn't countering a population replacement, anyway, but a major genetic impact (i.e. that Ethiopians are highly miscegenated).

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:
It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), it would seem more likely to me that the alphabet would have been transmitted directly from Egypt to the Horn and South Arabia in the form of a South Semitic alphabet.

---

Firstly, no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt, at least not in a direct sense. Secondly, the Arabian script was found to have been in use before its use in the African Horn. Thirdly, the Sabeans had been to the region; hence, that they could have taken their script along with them, comes as no surprise.

---

What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?

---

quote:

---

Yom:

There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:
I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that doesn't mean that the D`mt civilization was founded by Sabaeans, just as the common Greek inscriptions of Aksum (coins were only in Greek, even the bronze and silver ones for more domestic use, for a long time) doesn't mean that the civilization was founded by Sabaeans. Further, since Ge'ez is now known not to be a descendent of Sabaean, the actual use of Sabaean as a primary language is unlikely.

---

If Munro-Hay's notes are anything to go by, it would appear that the DMT elites were likely native Ethiopians, as opposed to Sabean rulers.

"Ge'ez" itself is Ethiopian, NOT south Arabian, but the script with which it was subsequently communicated, show obvious south Arabian influences.

---

Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

In case you misread, if you re-read what I wrote, it said that the Tihama cultural complex was African (i.e. N. Ethiopian and Eritrean) in origin (I inserted the probably because I only cited one source claiming that).

---

That would make the two of us, who must have 'mis-read' your writing, because you said:

Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

Clearly that statement, contradicts your earlier statement that Sabean migration had been discredited!

---

As I said above, by Sabaean migration I didn't mean any migration, but the traditional hypothesis of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Sabaean colonist force takes control of N. Ethiopia and marks the beginning of civilization there.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.

---

quote:

---

Yom

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.

---

Of course you can't deny it; the evidence against such a denial is overwhelming. There has apparently been no population replacement at any point of bidirectional migration across the Red Sea, but you don't have evidence to conclude that there was no significant migration from South Arabia in the pre-Aksumite period.

---

What do you define as significant?

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

Need I be blunt? Politeness is a two way street - not one way. So, stop beating around the bush, and directly answer the question that was asked, and not an imaginery question in your head. And if your "no" answer is anything to go by, then Yonis is right, in that you cannot equate "Habasha" with "Ethiopia" since that the latter is a relatively recent political construct, as a contemporary nation state in the African Horn.

Again, wrong answer to my question...and I hope that I am not being too blunt when I say that.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Yom:

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was that substantial Sabaean migration (i.e. enough to change the population or found Aksum) has been discredited, which it has.

---

quote:

---

Supercar:

And who would have proposed a population replacement?

---

No one here, but many past scholars. I wasn't countering a population replacement, anyway, but a major genetic impact (i.e. that Ethiopians are highly miscegenated).

---

Scholars like who? And what do you define as "major genetic impact"?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:
It shows simply that the same script was used, which isn't surprising considering their proximity. In fact, given Ethiopia's proximity to Egypt and the known cultural contacts between Egypt and certain cultural complexes in Western Eritrea & N. Ethiopia (see Fattovich's work, it should be easy to google), it would seem more likely to me that the alphabet would have been transmitted directly from Egypt to the Horn and South Arabia in the form of a South Semitic alphabet.

---

Firstly, no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt, at least not in a direct sense. Secondly, the Arabian script was found to have been in use before its use in the African Horn. Thirdly, the Sabeans had been to the region; hence, that they could have taken their script along with them, comes as no surprise.

---

What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?

---

What about it?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

There have only been two scripts of such an ancient pedigree found in Egypt thus far, so you can't rule out that the Alphabet spread South concurrent to its northern spread, especially with sea contacts, since the Red sea has always been an international tradeway.

---

What direct connections does that script have with "Ge'ez" or the local Aksumite script?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

When's the earliest use in South Arabia, and when's the earliest use in Ethiopia? I'm sure that ESA is attested to 700 BC in Ethiopia (e.g. D`mt), and Ge'ez graffiti (in a South Semitic script, presumably Epigraphic South Arabian, though I'm not sure) exists around or before that time period. Again, the whole period is still very hazy.

---

What you're now in denial about the connections between the Sabean script and the predecessor of Amharic script, from which Amharic script is a further development?

---

quote:

---

The south Arabian Sabean script is approximated to have been used from around 6th century BC or so; the Sabean scripts in the African Horn have been attested to about more or less the same time, ca. 5th B.C. or so, while the Minean (also South Arabian language) counterpart has been attested to about 8th B.C. or so.

---

quote:

---

Here is one perspective on why Ethiopic script likely developed from South Arabian rather than vice versa:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:
I do believe that some of the inscriptions of the time period are also in Sabaean language, but, again, that doesn't mean that the D`mt civilization was founded by Sabaeans, just as the common Greek inscriptions of Aksum (coins were only in Greek, even the bronze and silver ones for more domestic use, for a long time) doesn't mean that the civilization was founded by Sabaeans. Further, since Ge'ez is now known not to be a descendent of Sabaean, the actual use of Sabaean as a primary language is unlikely.

---

If Munro-Hay's notes are anything to go by, it would appear that the DMT elites were likely native Ethiopians, as opposed to Sabean rulers.

"Ge'ez" itself is Ethiopian, NOT south Arabian, but the script with which it was subsequently communicated, show obvious south Arabian influences.

---

Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.

---

You have missed the main points laid out in Munro-Hay's notes, which would have been instructive. Scripts in pure Sabean language and another language, presumably Ethiopic, have been found...

From Munro Hay:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). 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."

---

quote:

---

And again...

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

What does this imply? "Pure" as used here, suggests that the other inscription, used alphabets that were likened to the Sabean alphabets, but likely had grammatical features that distinguished it from its Sabean counterpart. The aforemention citation of Munro-Hay should be instructive once again:

"...and another language with certain aspects found **later** in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976).

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.

Only the word YG`DYN, man of Yeg`az, might hint that the Ge`ez or Agazyan tribe was established so early, though the particular inscription which mentions it is written in the South Arabian rather than the Ethiopian language (Schneider 1961).

Some of the other apparently tribal names also occur in both groups of inscriptions.

The usual way of referring to someone in the inscriptions is `N. of the family N. of the tribe N.', possibly also reflected later by the Aksumite `Bisi'-title; `king N. man of the tribe/clan (?) N.' (Ch. 7: 5)." - S. Munro-Hay

The latter italicized piece may reflect some of the "certain aspects" of the aforementioned language, presumabley Ethiopic, in Ge'ez. But it is instructive that, the indicators of the early establishment of a "Ge'ez" tribe, was written in South Arabian language, rather than the local counterpart.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

In case you misread, if you re-read what I wrote, it said that the Tihama cultural complex was African (i.e. N. Ethiopian and Eritrean) in origin (I inserted the probably because I only cited one source claiming that).

---

That would make the two of us, who must have 'mis-read' your writing, because you said:

Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

Clearly that statement, contradicts your earlier statement that Sabean migration had been discredited!

---

As I said above, by Sabaean migration I didn't mean any migration, but the traditional hypothesis of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Sabaean colonist force takes control of N. Ethiopia and marks the beginning of civilization there.

---

You use the term "As I have said", as though your claims have been consistent. Far from it, it keeps changing in a manner likened to how a chameleon changes its color according to a given environment. At first you claimed that the Sabean migration was discredited, and then you claimed that it wasn't "significant", and now you are claiming that you mean that it was some "superior colonist force". You are incoherent, my friend.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I still don't see how a statement about a cultural complex existing in both Ethiopia and Yemen that is African in origin indicates the existence of a Sabaean migration (ignoring the degree to which it existed for now), though.

---

The point is not necessarily to convince a person such as yourself, in denial, to see objective material presented, but for the understanding of the perceptive. Hence, you don't see a cultural complex with "Sabean" influences, described in the aforementioned Munro-Hay notes, as evidence of Sabean presence in the region, but I do.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yom

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.

---

Of course you can't deny it; the evidence against such a denial is overwhelming. There has apparently been no population replacement at any point of bidirectional migration across the Red Sea, but you don't have evidence to conclude that there was no significant migration from South Arabia in the pre-Aksumite period.

---

What do you define as significant?

---

Good question; it would depend on what you mean by 'significant'.

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
You guys can argue this issue over in this older thread here.

---

quote:

---

Also guys, especially you Yom, do you mind just quoting what the other person said last instead of copying that plus every freaking quote said?!!

It's a waste of bandwidth space and time reading through all that!!

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

Have I been impolite? I always try to be polite in discussions, so I'm rather skeptical of this, but if I have I apologize.

---

quote:

---

Your question was this:

"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?

I.e., if "Habasha" meant the same thing as "Ethiopia" (i.e. "burnt face"). The answer to that question is no.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I'm not saying that the word "Ethiopia" was used before Ezana, I doubt it was ever used before him because his usage of the term was probably influenced by his conversion to Christianity. What I am saying is that Ethiopia has been used as the term for the people of the country (though distinct from "Aksumites " with the meaning of "capital-city dwellers," though not from "Aksumites" with the meaning of the main peoples of the Aksumite empire) since at least Ezana in the mid-4th century. I have shown evidence of its use from Amde Tsiyon (r.1314-1344) to the 16th century, and, if need be, I can add more examples form the 17th and 18th century (maybe also the 12th and 13th, though they will be harder to come by due to the lack of historical data on that era). After Ezana, inscriptions
have not yet been found (except a late Aksumite one about Hatsani Dani'el), so we can't say whether the usage continued in Aksumite times. The coins only said King of the Aksumites but that doesn't exclude the usage of Ethiopia. Post-Aksumite and Zagwe times are also hazy wrt historical records. Egyptian patriarchal writings refer to the country as Abyssinia (whatever the Arabic term might be, Ard. al-Habasha maybe?), but that term was always used by the Arabs, regardless of the Ethiopian term, so it's not very relevant.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Like Conti Rossini or modern fools like Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis. Major genetic impact would more accurately be a genetic impact substantial enough to have a visible phenomic impact, which I don't believe has happened.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:

What about the Wadi el-Hol script in Middle Egypt?

---

What about it?

---

You said no alphabet has been found to have developed in Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Proto-Sinaitic was found in the Sinai rather than Egypt proper, so I named an alphabetic (abjad actually) script found in Middle Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

No one said anything about a direct derivation into Ge'ez script from Ancient Egyptian. I'm saying that the Egyptian script could have divided into a northern version and a South Semitic one, which would be the predecessor of either Sabaean and Ge'ez or Sabaean, which later became Ge'ez.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

No. I'm simply asking whether its certain that ESA developed in South Arabia first.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

D`mt was 8th-7th c. B.C., which is contemporary with the Minaean script, then.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

What's the difference between Minaean script and Sabaean, by the way (letter by letter would be appreciated, but general is fine if you don't know letter by letter differences)?

---

quote:

---

Yom:

A picture of Minaean script is fine, as I have access to images of some of the D`mt inscriptions in Ge'ez (language) and Sabaean. Where did you get those numbers, by the way? I've heard pre-8th century dates for the Minaean civilization (nothing about the script) before.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I didn't include the quotation because Ayele Bekerie is a hack. He doesn't know anything about these types of things, and I'm not making the claim that Ge'ez script derived directly from Ancient Egyptian, just that ESA may have existed in both regions simultaneously (or perhaps even in Ethiopia first, there's not enough evidence to determine these things yet) from a previous South Semitic script (probably derived directly from Proto-Sinaitic).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
The aspects they are referring to are most likely linguistic ones.The method of naming a peron's family wouldn't be an aspect similar to Ge'ez, but rather to a type of writing.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Forgive me for not being clear, but let me be clear here: the idea of a Sabaean migration in which a superior Yemeni colonist force colonizes and establishes civilization in Ethiopia has long been discredited.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
"Significant" above is referring to the migration being the basis for Ethiopian civilization...

The traditional term was "Sabaean invasion" I believe, and had I used this, perhaps my views would have been clearer (but I've tried to avoid that term in other discussions because it wasn't an invasion).

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I'm in denial of nothing, and your comment still has nothing to do with the Tihama cultural complex, which you were first referring to.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

First of all, I don't think Sabaeans existed as a kingdom at this time.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Again, I think you are misinterpreting my beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I don't deny that there were ever Sabaeans in Ethiopia as there certainly have been.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
However, I do reject that the D`mt civilization was Sabaean in origin or rose due to Sabaean influences.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I gave a definition above regarding genetics. Are you speaking genetically, culturally, what?

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Good, because that answer discredits the idea of equating "Ethiopia" with "Habasha".

---

quote:

---

If you are trying to say there has been population continuation from whence the term "Habasha" had been used to present, then the answer is yes. Beyond that, I see no rationale for equating "Habasha" used in the past with contemporary "Ethiopia".

---

quote:

---

Do you have citations from these two examples? Of course, you do realize that the Amhara, based on genetic samples, harbor reasonable amounts of Eurasian derived paternal lineages. What do you make of that?

---

quote:

---

Please provide the said citation, where I've said any such thing.

---

quote:

---

I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.

---

quote:

---

What relevance does your mentioning of proto-Sinaitic in Egypt have to do with the fact that early Ethiopic script show strong influences from the Sabean script?

---

quote:

---

...based on available indicators, it is safe to make that assessment.

---

quote:

---

]Don't confuse "D'mt" with a script. What are you relying on, when you make a claim such as the one above? Is it on a script? If so, what script?

---

quote:

---

Not any alphabetically that I'm aware of. I gather that it has more to do with language dialect, than the script itself, i.e., alphabets, per se.

---

quote:

---

Basically something I've gathered from general internet browsing,.

---

quote:

---

This however, is besides the point; the point was to demonstrate that Sabean influenced Ethiopic script, rather than vice versa, as exemplified by the strong resemblance between early Ethiopic script and Sabean, and the associated point made by Peter Daniels.

---

quote:

---

In which case, you still have not addressed Mr. Daniels point, which was to demonstrate that Ethiopic scripts derived from Sabean. Mr. Bekerie's position has no bearings on that point.

---

quote:

---

Of course, they are referring to aspects that are "linguistic". LoL. Why wouldn't the pattern and sequence of writing names and titles of people, not be considered linguistic?

---

quote:

---

The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.

---

quote:

---

The idea of whether Sabean immigrants were colonists in the region, has neither been discredited or proven.

I agree though, that there is more going for the idea that there was already complex cultures in the African Horn, prior to inter-regional interactions with South Arabian complexes.

---

quote:

---

Do you have citations for this "traditional Arabian" invasion hypothesis, that attributes the origin of "Ethiopian" cultural complexes to Sabeans? As for the unhighlighted bit, see post above.

---

quote:

---

Cite where I made specific reference to "Tihama cultural complex"; it was you, who mentioned it. And yes, you do seem to be in denial of the extent of Sabean influence on both the people and cultural complex in the African Horn.

---

quote:

---

Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".

---

quote:

---

I already provided brief Munro-Hay notes on the said influences; where were you, mentally speaking, when all those notes were presented?

---

quote:

---

You don't think that Sabean didn't exist at what time?

---

quote:

---

Then why are you asking me to provide you evidence of their presence in the region, even though it had already been provided? LOl.

---

quote:

---

It could have been started by Sabeans, or the local Ethiopians; there are indications as per Munro-hay, that they were likely local elites.

---

quote:

---

As I responded accordingly above, the likes of Amhara carry noticeable frequencies of Eurasian derived lineages. Does that mean anythin to you, with regards to the genetic imprint that the South Arabian immigrants could have left behind?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Good, because that answer discredits the idea of equating "Ethiopia" with "Habasha".

---

quote:

---

If you are trying to say there has been population continuation from whence the term "Habasha" had been used to present, then the answer is yes. Beyond that, I see no rationale for equating "Habasha" used in the past with contemporary "Ethiopia".

---

quote:

---

Do you have citations from these two examples? Of course, you do realize that the Amhara, based on genetic samples, harbor reasonable amounts of Eurasian derived paternal lineages. What do you make of that?

---

quote:

---

Please provide the said citation, where I've said any such thing.

---

quote:

---

I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.

---

quote:

---

What relevance does your mentioning of proto-Sinaitic in Egypt have to do with the fact that early Ethiopic script show strong influences from the Sabean script?

---

quote:

---

...based on available indicators, it is safe to make that assessment.

---

quote:

---

]Don't confuse "D'mt" with a script. What are you relying on, when you make a claim such as the one above? Is it on a script? If so, what script?

---

quote:

---

Not any alphabetically that I'm aware of. I gather that it has more to do with language dialect, than the script itself, i.e., alphabets, per se.

---

quote:

---

Basically something I've gathered from general internet browsing,.

---

quote:

---

This however, is besides the point; the point was to demonstrate that Sabean influenced Ethiopic script, rather than vice versa, as exemplified by the strong resemblance between early Ethiopic script and Sabean, and the associated point made by Peter Daniels.

---

quote:

---

In which case, you still have not addressed Mr. Daniels point, which was to demonstrate that Ethiopic scripts derived from Sabean. Mr. Bekerie's position has no bearings on that point.

---

quote:

---

Of course, they are referring to aspects that are "linguistic". LoL. Why wouldn't the pattern and sequence of writing names and titles of people, not be considered linguistic?

---

quote:

---

The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.

---

quote:

---

The idea of whether Sabean immigrants were colonists in the region, has neither been discredited or proven.

I agree though, that there is more going for the idea that there was already complex cultures in the African Horn, prior to inter-regional interactions with South Arabian complexes.

---

quote:

---

Do you have citations for this "traditional Arabian" invasion hypothesis, that attributes the origin of "Ethiopian" cultural complexes to Sabeans? As for the unhighlighted bit, see post above.

---

quote:

---

Cite where I made specific reference to "Tihama cultural complex"; it was you, who mentioned it. And yes, you do seem to be in denial of the extent of Sabean influence on both the people and cultural complex in the African Horn.

---

quote:

---

Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".

---

quote:

---

I already provided brief Munro-Hay notes on the said influences; where were you, mentally speaking, when all those notes were presented?

---

quote:

---

You don't think that Sabean didn't exist at what time?

---

quote:

---

Then why are you asking me to provide you evidence of their presence in the region, even though it had already been provided? LOl.

---

quote:

---

It could have been started by Sabeans, or the local Ethiopians; there are indications as per Munro-hay, that they were likely local elites.

---

quote:

---

As I responded accordingly above, the likes of Amhara carry noticeable frequencies of Eurasian derived lineages. Does that mean anythin to you, with regards to the genetic imprint that the South Arabian immigrants could have left behind?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:

However, I would agree with you Yom that Ethiopic(Geez) developed on its own...

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Why is the Sabean influnence EMPHASIZED SO MUCH? Do we ponder to such great extent the influence of Ancient Greek upon the Latin language????? Do ya'll know what I'm saying?

---

quote:

---

Isreal:
Anyway, Ayele's book is really intriguing in terms of the philosophical and theological content. Deep stuff. Salaam

---

If you feel that Ayele makes points that would shed light on or clarify some of the issues being discussed now, please don't hesitate to share.

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
[QB] Whats happening Yom? You don't agree with Ayele Bekerie? I flipped through some of his book today. I found it quite interesting......

---

quote:

---

One thing that he quotes in the book is that in at least three seperate documents written in Geez, it was said that the language of Geez came from HAM! Now, if that is significant, I don't know what is.......

---

quote:

---

And since the Sabeans were of the lineage of Kush(Cush), as was the Ethiopians, then regardless of Sabean influence, the Geez script is ought to be recognized as being Kushitic! Yeah, it may be Semitic, but the language itself came from the lineage of Kush!

---

quote:

---

However, I would agree with you Yom that Ethiopic(Geez) developed on its own...

---

quote:

---

Why is the Sabean influnence EMPHASIZED SO MUCH? Do we ponder to such great extent the influence of Ancient Greek upon the Latin language????? Do ya'll know what I'm saying?

---

quote:

---

Anyway, Ayele's book is really intriguing in terms of the philosophical and theological content. Deep stuff. Salaam

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

I don't have any specific citations for Conti Rossini, but see here. For Megalomattis, see [url=]here[/url], with this quotation:

"It is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara – Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn were the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. The event has traces in the past of course, but was intensified and generalized over the past 50 years, under colonial academic and diplomatic guidance of the Abyssinian ruling class. "

---

Okay. That's good enough for me.

quote:

---

Yom:

Regarding the genetic studies you refer to, I'm not adequately knowledgable to comment on their veracity, but it would not surprise me if some of those lineages determined to be "Eurasian" existed in the pre-Out of Africa migration population of the Horn of Africa and that Yemeni contributions to the Ethiopian gene pool would be difficult to measure due to this closeness. Also, many of these study refer to "Caucasoid" genes, which is an artificial construct, as completely non-mixed Ethiopians can also be said to be craniofacially "Caucasoid." See here for an interesting study on the ancientness of Ethiopian genes.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

I already know about the proto-Sinaitic script found in Egypt. Remember, we had that discussion before. So, this is nothing but red herring.

---

It's not a red herring.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

You said "no such alphabet has been found to have been developed in Egypt," so I pointed to an alphabet developed in middle Egypt as opposed to the Proto-Sinaitic script, which is located closer to Canaan and the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I didn't deny the close relation of Ge'ez and Sabaean script. Ge'ez probably derived from Sabaean, but I don't rule out the possibility that it instead shares a common ancestor with it.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Proto-Sinaitic's only relevance is that it (or the Wadi el-Hol script) could have been transmitted through trade southward instead of first north and then south.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
If the first inscriptions of the Minaean script are in the 8th c. B.C., contemporary with the D`mt civilization which used a type of ESA in Ethiopia, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be made either way.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I'm not saying D`mt was a script, just noting that it used a type of ESA at the same time period as the Minaean script. Looking at the inscriptions in the 8th edition of Annales d'Ethiopie, it seems to be the standard ESA (some versions have a "B" that looks like an M, e.g. or an "R" that isn't just one curve or an "M" that doesn't consist of distinct triangles).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I'd love a source, still. I don't doubt your claims, but what I know about SA chronology is limited since it is still so little known.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

The existence of contemporary inscriptions does not show that the origin is Sabaean (actually Minaean, I guess) rather than a shared cultural trait.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Peter Daniel's point would indicate that the script was originally for Sabaean due to the loss of interdentals and ghayin in Ge'ez, but these phonetic changes were in the process of happening during the time of D`mt. Earlier texts use "ṯ," "ḏ," while later texts use "s/š" and "z."

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I have addressed the questions of interdentals (which is what I believe what you're referring to) above.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
It's more stylistic, though grammar could play a part. Grammatical features and to a lesser degree vocabulary are more likely what they're referring to.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I don't understand what you're talking about here. I thought you were referring to the non-royal "pure" Sabaean language inscriptions. If you're talking about the alphabet, then it's without a doubt ESA.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I'm glad you realize that the indigenous origin possibility is the more likely of the two,

---

quote:

---

Yom:
but given what you just cited (complex cultures) and the use of a sort of Proto-Ge'ez in all of the Royal inscriptions of D`mt, it seems to me that the idea of "colonists" is unfounded.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
The whole idea comes from Conti Rossini's ideas, which, according to Pankhurst in a link above "were largely based on conjecture."

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Whatever. I was the one who made a reference to the Tihama cultural complex, but you were the one who cited that section of my post to put your response saying "I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right?" as if the existence of the Tihama cultural complex had anything to do with a Sabaean migration.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Explain what you mean by a cultural complex "originating from Ethiopia" that is "extant on both sides of the Red Sea".

---

I'm talking about the Tihama cultural complex.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I read them. Again, do not be rude in discussions, it only stalls them.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
The Munro-Hay notes have nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however. He doesn't refer to the Tihama cultural complex except in passing.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
During the time of the Tihama cultural complex, which began mid-second millenium BC (but ended 1st millenium, when Sabaeans would have existed).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I never asked you to provide evidence of their presence in the region. What I dispute is the nature and extent of their presence.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
The language of the inscriptions indicates this. The only evidence that it could have been begun by Sabaeans is the use of the same script, whose origins are still not well-known.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I have addressed this above.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hikuptah:

If u guys really want to get to the facts of the Ethiopian script just think of it like this it developed in ethiopia was used in Arabia

---

quote:

---

Hikuptah:
but extending from Hejaz to Oman for they have found a few writings in Western Oman. The Ethiopian Script is still used only till this day by the Ethiopians because they are the sole controlers and developers of this script there is no history after Abraha of the Script ever being used in Southern Arabia.

---

quote:

---

Hikuptah:
There is enough information to come to the conclusion that the Sabeans of Ethiopia were in control of there sabean brotherns of Southern Arabia for there have been many poets in ancient Yemen who talked about Ethiopian Sabeians ruling Arabia for about 1000 years up to the birth of Muhammed.

---

quote:

---

Hikuptah:

There is even evidence showing that there was two groups of Sabeans in Yemen & Ethiopia for there is a saying in Ancient Arabia it goes as divided as the Sabeans because of them being in Southern Arabia & Ethiopia Africa.

---

quote:

---

Hikuptah:
There was no Migration

---

quote:

---

Hikuptah:
there was no difference in Sabeans of Yemen or Ethiopia.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xross Breed:
This here is BS if Munro-Hay was indeed quoting and referencing Schneider's work:

""Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). 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." - S. Munro Hay.

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Xross Breed:
This here is BS if Munro-Hay was indeed quoting and referencing Schneider's work:

""Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). 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." - S. Munro Hay.

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

---

Your assessment is the BS, because Munro-Hay did not state that the above highlighted piece is Schneider's assessment. He in fact, quoted two other scholars, in additioned to several other things he mentioned earlier, to make the assessment [highlighted] above.

---

Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

That bolded part is BS, because it is no longer accepted and that was *NOT* Schneider's position, though Munro-Hay references him to prove an opposite point.

Bottom line, influences went both ways.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by a nobody troll:

Well evidently Supertroll, that conclusion has been challenged and discredited by a number of scholars, especially Matthew Curtis.


Recent Regional Archaeological Research in Eritrea: Investigating the Origins and Development of Early Complex Society in the Greater Asmara Area, presented at the International Conference, Independent Eritrea: Lessons and Prospects, Asmara, Eritrea, July 22, 2001.

By Matthew Curtis

"All available evidence suggests endogenous origins for the Ona and Kidane Mehret pre-Aksumite communities and a continuity of occupation, material culture, and subsistence for at least five hundred years. These permanent urban-like agropastoral communities appeared contemporaneously to the rise of the complex South Arabian polity of Saba. There is no evidence that a Sabean tradition of urbanism or technological traditions diffused to the northern Horn in the 9th century BCE simultaneous to their own development. The Pre-Aksumite settlements and contemporaneous Sabean settlements are best viewed as co-evolving."

Stop wasting my time by spamming Munro-Hay. He makes some good points but the point I highlighted was clearly BS and he did use Schneider's info to come to that conclusion.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by x-tremely retarded breed:

Bottom line, the Sabaean presence was restricted to a few outposts and wasn't widespread and Sabaean and Ethiopic scripts appear almost simultaneously, so there's no evidence that the Ethiopic script evovled from the Sabaean one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by X-tremely retarded Breed:

Supertroll still doesn't understand, did you forget that piece from Curtis I posted?

---

quote:

---

x-tremely retarded breed says:

There is no denying that Sabaeans were in Ethiopia and or that their wreiting appears in Ethiopia, the question is whether the Ethiopic script developed from the sabaean script and you have posted no evidence for this so stop trolling, moron.

---

quote:

---

x-tremely retarded breed:

Munro-Hay is talking about two separate migrations of sabaeans into Ethiopia, not one, learn to read.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Forget "causasoid"; Do you consider "J" lineages, for instance, Eurasian or not?

---

quote:

---

It is a red-herring, because you know that we've already talked about the "proto-Sinaitic" type alphabets in Wadi el-Hol script. So pretending that I wasn't aware of this, is a distractive antic that will lead you to a dead end.

---

quote:

---

When I said "no such alphabet was found to have been developed in Egypt", it was followed by several other words. What were those words? At least have the honesty, to quote the citation in its full context. But for clarification purposes, I was referring to the notion that any alphabets that can be directly linked to Ethiopic or Sabean.

---

quote:

---

To come to that conclusion, you'd have to point out that "common" ancestor in both South Arabia, and the Ethiopian region.

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that Ethiopic developed directly from "proto-Sinaitic", without intermediary developments?

---

quote:

---

You don't have script in the pre-Aksumite complex which dates to ca. 8th B.C, if the Minean script in South Arabia can indeed be attested to about 8th century BC or earlier. As such, there is no reason to claim that a conclusion cannot be deduced in one direction or another.

---

quote:

---

You haven't shown that any Sabean/Ethiopic inscription in the pre-Askumite complex dates back to 800 B.C.

---

quote:

---

It's already been provided.

---

quote:

---

This is not so; not according to Peter Daniels' notes.

This is what Daniels' rationale is:


Ayele Bekerie (AB) makes a number of assertions about the history of the Ethiopic script that are less than accurate. In his zeal to deny any South Arabian influence on the beginnings of Ethiopian (Aksumite) civilization, he makes the claim that the monumental South Arabian script is a development from (an early form of?) the Ethiopic. At the same time, he claims that one of the "issues" of Ethiopic studies "for future scholarly investigation" is, "What is the significance of having more than one syllograph for some of the phonemes in the Ethiopic writing system?" (p. 148). This is not at all an issue requiring investigation; it is a simple fact that the script underlying the Ethiopic was devised for a language richer in consonants than Ge`ez; when some of the consonantal phonemes (laryngeals, sibilants) merged in Ge`ez, the letters for them were retained in the script even though the scribes could not know from the sound of a word which letter to write it with. Only the investigation of Semitic etymologies makes it possible for lexicographers to catalogue words with the historically appropriate spellings. If, conversely, the South Arabian script derived from the Ethiopic, there is no way the homophonous letters could have been consistently assigned to the etymologically appropriate sounds. - P. T. Daniels

I don't see the resemblance between what is stated therein, and that of yours, much less that you've addressed it, to the extent of disproving the argument put forth: Ge'ez/Ethiopic script developed from Sabean script, rather than the other way around.

---

quote:

---

The point is, certain features of the early language, presumably Ethiopic, and Sabean script made their way into the latter scripts used in the Aksumite era.

---

quote:

---

I talking about this:

"The inscriptions dating from this period in Ethiopia are apparently written in two languages, pure Sabaean and another language with certain aspects found later in Ge`ez (Schneider 1976). All the royal inscriptions are in this second, presumably Ethiopian, language." - Stuart Munro-Hay

Do you understand the above?

---

quote:

---

Then you must not have been paying attention, because I have been consistent in my stance on that issue all along.

---

quote:

---

What is unfounded, is claims made in this comment of yours. Where has anyone mentioned "proto-Ge'ez"?

I do however, recall posting this:

Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). 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." - S. Munro-Hay

Wherein the above, is "proto-Ge'ez" mentioned? And what about the said inscriptions is unfounded, and how so?

---

quote:

---

By this, you are not referring to the Munro-Hay citation, are you?

---

quote:

---

And even after showing you twice, you still couldn't figure out, why I said you were contradicting yourself, when you wrote:


Either way, connections between Ethiopia and Yemen need not be from a migration from either coast to the other, as cultural connections are known from much earlier, such as the Tihama cultural complex dating to the mid-2nd-1st millenium BC (which may have been primarily Africna in origin - see Martin Richards, et al 2003).

How many times must I quote you on this same citation, before it gets through to you, what I've been saying?

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that the South Arabian complex has Ethiopian origins?

---

quote:

---

Not from what I can tell; if you did, you would be refuting the said revelations of Sabean influences, instead of simply denying them. On that note, first do as you preach, i.e. not being rude, before suggesting it for others, and then you‘ll be treated accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Well, that is what I'm talking about, the Munro-Hay citations I provided, which are enough to convince anyone of the Sabean presence in the region, in the pre-Aksumite period. So I am not sure why you think clinging onto "Tihama cultural complex" has any bearings on that point.

---

quote:

---

By this, I presume you are talking about the Sabean polity, not Sabeans as people per se - right?

---

quote:

---

Well, now that you've cleared it, my response to you, had to do with this:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia extant on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

As far as, the extent and nature of their presence is concerned, you haven't refuted anything that the Munro-Hay citations provided. But maybe you'll do better, as we go on.

---

quote:

---

Wrong, and so, again:

"Inscriptions found at some of these sites include the names of persons bearing the traditional South Arabian title of mukarrib, apparently indicating a ruler with something of a priest-king status, not otherwise known in Ethiopia (Caquot and Drewes 1955). Others have the title of king, mlkn (Schneider 1961; 1973). 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." - S. Munro Hay

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

As I said above, I don't know enough about this type of stuff to really discuss it with a level you'll be satisfied with.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

We talked about proto-Sinaitic, but I don't remember talking about Wadi el-Hol.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Even if we did, though, mentioning something already discussed doesn't mean that it's a red herring because it's still a script developed in Southern Egypt that could have been tramistted southwards. Either way, discussing whether or not it's a red herring isn't going to get us anywhere.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I don't make the claim that they can. I do think that they can be connected through one or two southern intermediaries which have not yet been found. Given the lack of evidence, however, we don't know their origin (aside from coming from Proto-Sinaitic).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I'm not basing this on evidence of a common ancestor found but rather on ancient Ge'ez (I presume alphabet) graffiti that has been found. See below by Xross breed.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
No, I'm suggesting it developed through a South Semitic intermediary, or perhaps that and then ESA.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
What is your basis for saying there's no script dated to 8th c. B.C. in Ethiopia if Minaean is attested to 8th c. BC?

---

quote:

---

Yom:
All modern publications regarding the time that D`mt existed are clear on this point: 8th-7th c. BC. Here is the first sentence on the entry in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica by Alexander Sima:

D`mt (Da`əmat or Da`amat, vocalization unknown) is mentioned ten times in six Sabaic [refferring to the script] pre-Aksumite royal inscriptions, to be dated approximately to the 8th-7th cent. B.C.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Sorry. I didn't see that "browsing" was linked. Looking through it, it doesn't address South Arabian chronology, though.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I'm not saying that Ge'ez didn't derive from Sabaean.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
As I said earlier, it probably did derive from a type of ESA (the only way it wouldn't have is if they shared a common ancestor but for some reason Sabaean was used instead of Ge'ez or if Ge'ez previously had interdental consonants that were later lost, which probably didn't happen).

---

quote:

---

Yom:

What Daniels is saying, however, is that Ge'ez never had these interdentals. If you define Ge'ez specifically as the Ethiopian language spoken prior to 1000 AD and without interdentals, then that's a fact, but you have to consider that in the early D`mt inscriptions, interdentals are used consistently. Later inscriptions, however, do not correctly distinguish between sounds...

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Yes, that some inscriptions are in Sabaean language. What you said was this:

"The type of writing used, as I have demonstrated via Munro-Hay's notes and Mr. Daniels comments, is likened to the Sabean script, and hence the usage of the term "pure" Sabean.
(emphasis yours)

He's above speaking about the language. The script is a type of ESA.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
You've been stressing Sabaean influences, so that wasn't apparent. No need to discuss this issue any further, then.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
No one said the inscriptions are unfounded. I said that the idea of colonists and colonised is unfounded.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

The above doesn't specifically mention proto-Ge'ez, but other authors identify it as an early form of Ge'ez.

See again here, by Richard Pankhrust: " It revealed the existence in Ethiopia of Ge‘ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia."

---

quote:

---

Yom:

As I told you, the Tihama cultural complex was African in origin, not South Arabian. Either way, the existence of the cultural complex has nothing to do with the existence of Sabaeans in Ethiopia. I was merely pointing out that shared cultural affinities need not be due simply to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Which South Arabian complex? I'm suggesting that the Tihama cultural complex has Ethiopian origins.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

The Munro-Hay citations in fact form part of the basis for my argument. That "actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo" (but so far nowhere else), and that "these `inscriptional' Sabaeans did not remain more than a century or so — or perhaps even only a few decades — as a separate and identifiable people" (Munro-Hay).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
See above wrt Pankhurst.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
This isn't good enough, in light of your claim about Sabeans not having a "genetic impact" on the locals.

---

quote:

---

Where did you suppose the "proto-Sinaitic" alphabets were found, that I posted, concerning the most recent find in Upper Egypt?

---

quote:

---

It was a red-herring when you brought it up, after I had told you that your claim of "direct" link, as per my understanding then of your claim, of those alphabets to early Ethiopic/Sabean script. I 'remain' in agreement, about its irrelevancy, unless you can indicate how so.

---

quote:

---

Well, apparently they are ultimately connected, since it is from an off-shoot of "proto-Sinaitic" [which referred to as "proto-Canaanite" in the Levant], that the south Semitic script diverged.

---

quote:

---

Have already seen it, and responded according. What you are referring to as "Ge'ez" graffiti, is what S. Munro-Hay pointed out as:

An inscription from Abba Pantelewon near Aksum, written in the Epigraphic South Arabian script and mentioning the kingdom of D`MT; it is dedicated to the deity Dhat-Ba`adan. It has been photographed upside down
Photo BIEA. - S. Munro-Hay

---

quote:

---

Then why talk of the "proto-Sinaitic" characters found in upper Egypt, suggesting a common origin but independent development for Ethiopic and Sabean script, without pointing the intermediary scripts in the said ancient complexes.

---

quote:

---

Apparently not all; just as an example:

The monuments are dated from the 5th century BC by study of the letter-forms used on them (palaeography), and seem to appear in Ethiopia at about the same time as they do in South Arabia (nb. the reservations about the dating expressed by Fattovich 1989). - Munro Hay

...and I can just as easily quote a number of "encyclopedic" sources, that'll attribute the earliest "inscriptions', NOT the polity "D'MT", found in the said pre-Aksumite complex date back to about 5th-6th century B.C. So, the question remains, from what archeological source, are you assessing the timeframe for "D'MT"?

---

quote:

---

Why should I address this, when I posted a link, pertaining to your question of where I heard the notion of Minean script dating to about 8th century B.C. What has that claim to do with "South Arabian Chronology"?

---

quote:

---

Then, why do you keep trying to make excuses that it could have developed independently from some "south Semitic script"? Case in point...unless I am reading wrong, what you are terming ESA [spell the word in full, for my understanding]:

---

quote:

---

The point that Daniels is trying to make, is that Ethiopic script was influenced, if not derived, from Sabean. Do you agree with this or not? Period.

---

quote:

---

Again, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the abbreviation "ESA", but yes, Munro-Hay was referring to two languages, one in "pure" Sabean, and another, in some nameless, presumably local Ethiopian language. What I was trying to get you to see, although futilely, is that the term "pure" implicates the script [the medium of the inscriptions]; meaning two languages have been discerned, but both appear to have been written in Sabean alphabets/scripts.

---

quote:

---

Like I said, you were not paying attention, and chose to hear, only what you wanted to hear, which is why we are even having this discussion. And yes, in order for you to take home what is being said, I have to refer to "Sabean influences", which is what you've been basically trying to deny.

---

quote:

---

How so? My stance remains that, the idea of Sabean colonialists has neither been proven nor disproven.

---

quote:

---

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) no sure indication that they were politically dominant.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 regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above.

They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - S. Munro-Hay

From what I gather from the above, you have to be specific when you use the term "colonialists", because it would appear, it is not ruled out [above] that these potential "colonialists" could have been "traders" or "military" personnel [perhaps with their families] stationed there for some mutual benefit with the locals, with perhaps the ruling elites being of local background. Again, highly speculative, in any case; there are certainly no indicators that earlier potential immigrants from south Arabia, back in the "mid-first millenium BC," were politically dominant - as mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Well, for the second time, my question was based on your claim:

Explain to me exactly how a cultural complex originating from Ethiopia

**extant** on both sides of the Red Sea is evidence of a Sabaean presence in Ethiopia.

Tell its bad writing on your part, or is the above suggesting an Ethiopian origin for the Sabean complex?

---

quote:

---

Okay. I in fact posted this, and...?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
Supercar, for future reference, ESA is Epigraphic South Arabian (also known as MSA, Monumental South Arabian).

---

Glad we cleared that up.

quote:

---

Yom:
Well, I don't know about J haplotypes, so I can't answer that question.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

From just the name of the script, it was first found in the Sinai, but I don't remember you posting any recent finds from Upper Egypt. This is tangential to the discussion, however.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Yes, it is irrelevant; the discussion came about because of a request for an intermediary but which I interpreted as a request for an example of a more southerly script in Egypt. I don't maintain that Sabaean or Ge'ez came directly from Proto-Sinaitic or a related script.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Agreed (not the equivalence of proto-Canaanite and proto-Sinaitic, but that's a different argument [and a futile semantic one at that] for a different thread)

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Where does it say that this is the graffiti found by A.J. Drewes and published in Inscriptions de l’Ethiopie antique (1962)?

---

I haven't read the said literature, and if you have, then please share with us the matter in question. I however, came to the conclusion that he was referring to "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, because that is the script with which the name "D'MT" was located, unless you know of the said Ge'ez script different from "ESA", that mentions "D'MT". This from Munro-Hay, assisted me in coming to that conclusion:

"The inscriptions of mukarribs of D`MT and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and **Drewes**1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93).

I would imagine that since, by the time Stuart Munro-Hay wrote this piece, he was fully aware of the 1962 Drewes publication, and hence, would have taken it into consideration. There you have it; that is how I made the extrapolation - I don't just blindly read things, I try to understand them - wrongly or rightly so.

quote:

---

Yom:
Apparently the reference of proto-Sinaitic is from a misunderstanding as noted above. Either way, there aren't even known intermediaries between ESA and proto-Sinaitic, so we can't make any determinations.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
If the inscriptions found by A.J. Drewes are indeed in ESA script but Ge'ez language rather than both Ge'ez script and language(i.e. if the earliest forms of Ge'ez aren't contemporary or nearly comtemporary with SA), then Ge'ez almost certainly derived from Sabaean (as I believe it probably did right now), but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Unfortunately, Alexander Sima (as well as Stuart Munro-Hay) has passed away recently, so I can't email him as to his sources, but the Literature he cites at the end of the article is as follows:

Francis Anfray, Les anciens Éthiopiens. Siècles d'histoire, Paris 1990, 60f.;
Gianfrancesco Lusini "A proposito delle iscrizioni sudarabiche d'Etiopia," Studi epigrafici e linguistici 17, 200, 95-113, here 99f.;
David W. Phillopson, Ancient Ethiopia. Aksum: its antecdents and Successors, London 1998, 45-8.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

You don't have to address it, but it's critical to the debate.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

As stated by Munro-Hay, "the precise nature of the contacts between the two areas, their range in commercial, linguistic or cultural terms, and their chronology, is still a major question." So, a discussion of the chronology (as you have asked of me of D`mt, which I wish I could provide more info for) would be helpful.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Epigraphic South Arabian = ESA. Its independent development is a possibility until it's cleared up what exactly is meant by "Ge'ez graffiti."

---

quote:

---

Yom:

As I said above, it probably was, but the date of the first inscription using the Ge'ez alphabet needs to be determined to say so definitively. As you can see by the citations I gave regarding interdentals above, however, the existence of these interdentals during the early period of D`mt means that ESA need not have been a South Arabian creation based on language but could have been a shared alphabet inherited from an even earlier, yet not found, South Semitic successor, as ESA certainly didn't derive directly from Proto-Sinaitic.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Obviously both were written in ESA. I have never denied that. The "pure" Sabaean (it's Sabaean by the way, from the root shin-bet-alif; Sabeans or Sabians are a different people from the Qur'an spelled with a Tsadey) referred to by Stuart Munro-Hay is clearly referring to the language, not inscriptions, though. The D`mt inscriptions were all written in a form of Epigraphic South Arabian as far as I can tell, though. Note that the name of the script is properly ESA as it was used also by the Himyarites, Qatabans, and Minaeans, all of whom probably had their own variations (I'm aware of a few for some of the letters, though I don't know to which civilization the variant belongs).

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I'm not denying that there were any Sabaean influences, but they have always been overemphasized and exaggerated by past (and still some contemporary) historians. Moreover, these influences are not even necessarily Sabaean in origin. Connections and cultural exchanges between Ethiopia and Yemen have existed long before the Sabaeans. Some of the so-called influences (e.g. stone-working, agriculture, the plough) were certainly extant in Ethiopia before Sabaean influences, and other influences, like certain god-cults (e.g. Dhat Ba`adan or Dhat Himyam) weren't very long-lasting.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Until evidence is shown to the contrary, should not a civilization be assumed to be the result of indigenous peoples?

---

quote:

---

Yom:
"Colonialists" as in founders of a new civilization. The above quotation does not support the idea of colonists (though he notes it is still supported by Michels).

---

quote:

---

Yom:

The Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. It is not the same as the Sabaean complex as far as I know, though I'm sure there was exchange between the two complexes due to their geographic proximity (the Tihama is right next to the kingdom of Saba')

---

quote:

---

Yom:
The affirm that Sabaean presence was short-lived and limited to certain localities, though the D`mt civilization was widespread.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] The origin of the Semitic speakers is very important. The archaeological and textual evidence make it clear that Mesopotamia was the not homeland of the Semitic speakers. This evidence make it clear that the first settlers of this area spoke Sumerian and Ubadian, not Semitic.

---

quote:

---

The first Semites to leave textual evidence are the Akkadians. The Akkadians and the Ethio-Semitic languages have shared archaism. This feature indicates the ancient morphology and grammar of a Semitic language. We can infer that if this was the norm for the most ancient form of Semitic, other Semitic languages possessing this character probably are closely related to the original spoken/written Semitic language. We can further infer that since Ethio-Semitic, possesses these linguistic characteristics, and other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Arabic do not, the later languages must be relatively young in age.

---

quote:

---

In your post you claim that Ethio-Semitic is a young language. This is false, as indicated by archaic linguistic features Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic share.

---

quote:

---

The historical evidence support an old presence of Ethio-Semitic in Africa. For example, the Axumite Empire was founded by the Habashan. the habashan are mentioned in a 3rd or 4th century Himyarite inscription from South Arabia, which refers to an alliance between Gadarat King of the Habashan or Habashat.

---

quote:

---

Some of the people of Punt were probably Tigrinya speakers, who call their language habesha, i.e., Abyssinian par excellence. The term Habesh, seems to represent an old name for Abyssinia and may be connected with the Amharic word washa 'cave or cavern', and may refer to the" cave dwellers" who once served as the principal traders along the Ethiopian coast. The ability of the Ethiopians as sailors, is supported by the title bahr nagash, "ruler of the maritime province" or Eritrea.

---

quote:

---

In addition, some of the earliest Sabean/Thamudic inscriptions have been found in Ethiopia, and not South Arabia. For example, Dr. Doresse has found Sabean cursive writing on a sceptre that indicates that the Habashat/Axumite empire had writing.

---

quote:

---

These Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions of the 18th Dynasty (1709-1320) in connection to the land of Punt. ]Given the Egyptian association of the Habashan with Punt, I call the speakers of the Ethio-Semitic languages: Puntites.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I've heard of this before. Walter W. Muller disagrees, with reason, I believe.

quote:

---

Since the time of Eduard Glaser, it has been repeatedly claimed that the hieroglyphic egyptian ḫbstjw, indicating a foreign people from incense-producing regions, is connected with the Ḥabašāt. The name ḫbstjw is first recorded in the Punt inscriptions of Queen Hatshepsut, ca. 1460 B.C. With regard to the enormous temporal difference of a millenium or more, it is hardly acceptable that the Ḥabašāt have anything in common with this mythical people from a southern region.

---

Note that the first letter of the Egyptian name is "ḫ" (transliterated sometimes as "kh" or "ch" like in "Channukah"), while the first letter in the Ethiopian one is "ḥ" (i.e. a pharyngeal h like that in Ahmad and Muhammad). Plus, the first known use of Ḥabašāt is ca. 200 AD, much later than Hatshepsut. An inscription with something similar to Ge`ez or Ag`azi might be relevant however, as it's attested to 700 B.C. Whose first use was the form YGʿḎYN in the royal inscriptions of Dʿmt (in the form, "{{KINGNAME}}, the victorious king, he of [the tribe] YGʿḎ," etc.

Note that ḏ is pronounced like "th" in "the" (but not like "th" in "thing") and merged into "z" in Ge'ez (incidentally, the letter for "Z" in Ge'ez is the same as the letter for ḏ in Sabaean, but distinct from the Sabaean letter for "z").

---

quote:

---

We have Egyptian evidence of trade missions to Punt as early as PepiII in 2400 BC and Mentuholep IV and IV. The vizier Amenemhat, of Mentuholep IV is said to have established a port near Safaga. the most famous mission to Punt was sent by Queen Hatshepsut, and is recorded at deir el Bahri. Since the Habashan are mentioned in Egyptian documents they were in existence long before the Arabic speakers.

---

quote:

---

The evidence of shared archaism for Akkadian and Ethio-Semitic indicate that the speakers of these languages probably shared many linguistic features when they separated. It also suggest that thespeakers of these languages probably separated in Africa, since the Ethio-Semitic speakers have long been established in their present home, as supported by the Egyptian inscriptions. The Ethio-Semitic speakers have maintained these features due to the relative stability of these languages. You can find out more about the stability of African languages in my article "Linguistic Continuity and African and Dravidian languages", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), (1996) 34-52. We must conclude that the Semitic languages originated in Africa.

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Then, not knowing this, how can you claim that the Sabeans could not have left a 'genetic impact' on the locals?

---

quote:

---

The misunderstanding was apparently on your end, since I was fully aware that "proto-Sinaitic" could not have been the "intermediary" script.

---

quote:

---

I haven't read the said literature, and if you have, then please share with us the matter in question. I however, came to the conclusion that he was referring to "Epigraphic South Arabian" script, because that is the script with which the name "D'MT" was located, unless you know of the said Ge'ez script different from "ESA", that mentions "D'MT". This from Munro-Hay, assisted me in coming to that conclusion:

"The inscriptions of mukarribs of D`MT and Saba are known from Addi Galamo (Caquot and **Drewes**1955: 26-32), Enda Cherqos (Schneider 1961: 61ff), possibly Matara, if the name LMN attested there is the same as the .MN from the other sites, (Schneider 1965: 90; Drewes and Schneider 1967: 91), Melazo (Schneider 1978: 130-2), and Abuna Garima (Schneider 1973; Schneider 1976iii: 86ff). Of four rulers known to date, the earliest appears to be a certain W`RN HYWT, who only had the title mlkn, king, and evidence of whom has been found at Yeha, Kaskase, Addi Seglamen; he was succeeded by three mukarribs, RD'M, RBH, and LMN (Schneider 1976iii: 89-93).

I would imagine that since, by the time Stuart Munro-Hay wrote this piece, he was fully aware of the 1962 Drewes publication, and hence, would have taken it into consideration. There you have it; that is how I made the extrapolation - I don't just blindly read things, I try to understand them - wrongly or rightly so.

---

quote:

---

What about potential connections between Sabean and earlier Arabian scripts? I have come across claims about earlier Arabian scripts, from which old north Arabian and south Arabian scripts derived from. I'll see if I can get a hold of good links from the web.

---

quote:

---

And...?

---

quote:

---

You bet ya I don't; it has no relevance to what I had posted. You questioned where I had got my information from, and I gave it to you. Request fulfilled.

---

quote:

---

The only chronology relevant to me, is one that compares the seemingly 'common' cultural traits, so as to discern their origins; whether in situ in the African Horn, or South Arabia.

---

quote:

---

I retain the stance on the idea that "Ethiopic" had been strongly influenced, if not derived, from South Arabian script, pending substantiation to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

What you haven't shown, is anything that contradicts Daniel's point about early Ethiopic script, having derived from "South Arabian", regardless of whether these "south Arabians" called themselves "Sabeans" or not, at the time of the introduction of the script in the African Horn.

---

quote:

---

If you weren't denying that both were in "south Arabian" [Since Sabean script was basically "south Arabian"], then what is the whole point of repeating everything I had just pointed out to you time and again; for instance, about the "two" languages that were written in "Sabean"/"South Arabian" alphabets, hence the use of the term "pure"?

---

quote:

---

Then why are we having this conversation, if you are not indeed denying "Sabean influences". Nobody here, has "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influence. Hence, unless you indicate otherwise, I would say that your argument has been a red herring all this time.

---

quote:

---

What has Sabean "Colonialists" have anything to do with "origins" of a cultural complex? The Romans invaded Egypt; does this mean that there were no cultural complexes in Egypt prior to the Roman's doing so? So I'm not sure why you are equating "colonialists" with "originators".

---

quote:

---

The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists":

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed.

---

quote:

---

To save myself from needless repetitions, let me put it simply: Do you believe the said complex, extended into South Arabia? If so, then are you not claiming that the South Arabian complex is "Ethiopian" in origin, by claiming that "Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin"? I hope that question is straightforward enough.

---

quote:

---

We knew this; it has be posted by myself countless times now. Now what about it?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
Supercar, the proto-Canaanite vs. proto-Sinaitic discussion is for the other thread. And, for what it's worth, I don't even think that discussion really matters as it's simply a semantic argument, whether someone chooses to separate the two or consider the latter just a form of the earlier.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Based on a few genetic studies I've read and the shortness of their historical presence, according to Munro-Hay.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I admitted the misunderstanding was mine. It never involved saying that proto-Sinaitic was an intermediary script, however.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I have not read the publication, or else I would know whether the inscriptions found were in Ge'ez script or Sabaean sript. All of the inscriptions mentioning D`mt (10 in all) are in ESA, but not all of the inscriptions from that period mention D`mt. Note that the Pankhurst article doesn't make a reference to D`mt or the inscriptions found by AJ Drewes mentioning D`mt. Also notice that Munro-Hay cites AJ Drewes 1955 work, not 1962. He probably would have been aware of it, but as his work on pre-aksumite times is "not of major concern" to the whole book, we can't assume that he explained all facets of the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Links would be good. I'm pretty certain that ESA is a separate development from proto-Sinaitic, unlike the Arabian scripts which are derived from North Semitic scripts like Canaanite. Nabatean, for instance, is from Aramaic, and north Arabian Thamudic is derived from South Arabian.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

You asked for sources for the chronology. I assume Sima's chronology is somehow supported by those sources.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
You fullfilled the request,

---

quote:

---

Yom:
but the issue of dating is central to this argument, and the dating of South Arabian civilizations and D`mt are both linked to a degree, I believe. Sabaean chronology is also linked to Assyrian references to a Karibal Watar, I believe.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
All of the chronologies are linked and therefore all of importance in the discussion and origins of certain traits and influences.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

That's probably the case, but depends on the dating of the earliest Ge'ez scripts. They are obviously closely related, though.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

My point with interdentals wasn't to show that Ge'ez pre-dated ESA, but that the loss of linguistic features cannot be used to say that South Semitic scripts are South Arabian in origin.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I don't understand what relevance this has,

---

quote:

---

Yom:
as the D`mt script was obviously in ESA. I have never denied this or proposed otherwise. I was quoting because of a discussion over linguistic features at first, and then because you somehow thought "pure" referred to the script.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I didn't begin this conversation unilaterally. It requires by definition two participants.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Don't call my argument a red herring without substantiating your claims. What have I said irrelevant to this discussion (and not recognized by me as a misunderstanding) to further a point?

---

If you can answer the question I just posed above, maybe you'll see why I said your argument could boil down to a red herring.

quote:

---

Yom:
The traditional argument has included the meaning of "originators" within the term "colonist."

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

The quote does not "support" or "deny" the notion of "colonialists":

Arthur Irvine (1977) and others have regarded sympathetically the suggestion that the inscriptions which testify to Sabaean presence in Ethiopia may have been set up by colonists around the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibil Watar in the late fourth century BC; but the dating is very uncertain, as noted above. They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of symbiosis with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of treaty-status. - Stuart Munro-Hay

The question is whether you understand the context in which the highlighted piece is being placed.

---

Of course I understand the context, don't belittle others. "Trading colonists" is not the same thing as a generic "colonist" or "colonizer," which is what I'm arguing against.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Yes, the Tihama complex extended into South Arabia, and yes the South Arabian Tihama complex is Ethiopian in origin. Its relations to Sabaeans is not yet known, as far as I can tell.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Yom:
It indicates that Sabaean presence is not as large as previously hypothesized.

---

...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The earliest Sabaic inscriptions appear some time in the 8th cent. B.C., while the first (longer) written documents in Sabaic that can be dated reliably on the basis of **synchrony** with *Assyrian sources** go back to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C.

---

quote:

---

The first Minaic inscriptions appear, even though in smaller numbers, of **the same time as the first Sabaic texts.

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great debate . Supercar can you give me the exact citation for Fattovich, 2002.

Thanks.

.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Which "few" genetic studies? Did these studies not mention lineages like "J", for instance? If so, what does the presence of "J" lineages mean to you?

---

quote:

---

I am not concerned about what "Punkhurst" article doesn't make reference to, but what you can prove, by showing that the said "Ge'ez" was not "ESA" that so many scholars on the Pre-Aksumite complex have mentioned. Where is it? I mean we are talking about a finding that was published in a 1962 publication.

Secondly, the latter highlighted statement is nonsensical; how can Munro-Hay NOT mentioned this "significant" piece of information in the a section where he, himself, talks about the need to see more archeological findings, to learn more about this period?

Plus, I know he was aware of the publication, because he even mentioned it:


Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; **Drewes 1962**: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. - Munro-Hay

I thought you might question his awareness of the 1962 publication, which frankly, I see as an insult to Mr. Munro-Hays work on this subject.

So, if you are claiming that what Drewes found, was not Epigraphic South Arabian, then the burden is on you to show such. Surely, a finding that dates back to 1962, and particularly significant to learning about Pre-Aksumite, should be easily accessible among the scholars who have focused on Pre-Askumite study.

---

quote:

---

"ESA" is Arabian script! So, I am not sure where you are going with that claim, as highlighted above. And again, Arabian scripts diverged from Proto-Canaanite, which is basically the same thing, from what I can tell, as "proto-Sinaitic".
http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/alpha-map.gif

---

quote:

---

That doesn't answer my question, which was:

On what "evidence" do you base your dating of "D'MT" on, since the inscriptions that do mention the term, have been dated to about 5th century B.C.? How does a brief bibliography answer that question?

---

quote:

---

Like a broken record, I'll say this again: only relevant if it can shed light on the origins of seemingly "common" traits of Pre-Aksumite and South Arabian complexes. Beyond that, feel free to show the said "chronology" at your own discretion. It isn't my obligation.

---

quote:

---

Well, Daniels point was to show that early Ethiopic script derived from South Arabian script [and not vice versa]; do you disagree with this? If so, you haven't yet refuted that position.

---

quote:

---

Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes.

Hence, letters have been retained in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been?

---

quote:

---

[29]`ṯtr : l'orthographe avec ṯ indique que le texte appartient au groupe I. [the orthography with ṯ indicates that the text belongs to group I.]

[32]La graphie a été rangée à la fin de la période A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....
Pour la transcription 'i`gz avec z au lieu de ḏ, voir déjà Littmann, D.A.E., 27, commentaire, ainsi que les deux textes suivants, numéros 32 et 33. L'absence des interdentales dans le dialecte de l'inscription est confirmé par la graphie `str pour `ṯtr dans le texte II.[The writing was arranged into the end of period A, cf. Pirenne, Paléograhpie, p.111....For the transcription 'i`gz with z instead of ḏ, see again Littman, D.A.E., 27, comentary, along with the two following texts, numbers 32 and 33. The absence of interdentals in the dialect of the inscription is confirmed by the graph `str instead of `ṯtr in text II.]

La transcription w`ztm avec z au lieu de ḏ est fondée sur le témoignage du texte parallèle suivant, no. 33, où apparaît la graphie hḥdsw, avec s au lieu de ṯ. Il est tout à fait improbable qu'une interdentale ait disparu et que l'autre se soit maintenue; voir déjà Littmann, commentaire de D.A.E. 27.[The transcription w`ztm with z instead of ḏ is founded on seeing the following parallel text, no. 33, where the graph hḥdsw appears, with s (i.e. Shin, which is either s or Sh) instead of ṯ. It's altogether improbable that one interdental disappeared while the other was kept. See again Littman, comentary of D.A.E. (Deutsch Aksum-Expedition) 27.

hḥdsw avec s au lieu de ṯ permet de ranger le texte dans les inscriptions du groupe II, de même que le texte parallèle 32. [hḥdsw with s instead of ṯ allows us to arrange the text with the inscriptions of group II, the same as the parallel text 32.]

---

quote:

---

Can't help you with language barrier problems on your end, since that is the only way for you not to understand something that has been repeatedly relayed to you.

---

quote:

---

I don't know what that has to do with the point I made, which was that, if you are in fact not denying "Sabean" influences, then what are you arguing about, since nobody here "exaggerated" or "overemphasized" Sabean influences?

---

quote:

---

Okay. What bearings does that have on the notion of Sabean "colonists" in Pre-Aksum?

---

quote:

---

You belittled yourself, when you inadequately interpreted the citation, when I first posted it, as you have done again. You chose to see "Trading" and ignore "Military" colonists in the above citation. Again, even at this point, I'm not sure you fully understood the earlier highlighted piece.

---

quote:

---

Hmmm. I'll have to look into the said "complex" in South Arabia, originating in "Ethiopia". What set of parameters are you basing this claim on? It would seem that you are quick to attribute an Arabian complex to African origins, but not vice versa.

---

quote:

---

Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millenium BC (the 'Tihama Cultural Complex', c. 1500-1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea,Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq' in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and 'C-Group' of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the 'Gash Group' at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980).

---

quote:

---

...having any bearing on the fact of "sabean" influences, how?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
Again, I don't know enough about specific lineages and the like to comment. Bring it up in the Ethiopian population history thread.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

What's your reason for insulting Dr. Pankhurst by calling him "Punkhurst?" He's a foremost scholar on Ethiopian history.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Just because it's been out for 40 years does not mean that it's easily accessible.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

You obviously don't have access to it, so why would you assume I do? Dr. Munro-Hay's work is certainly pretty comprehensive, but it is not the end-all of pre-Aksumite studies. He is, after all, only human.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Given that he has cited the paper, however, then Drewes findings are probably in the ESA alphabet, rather than Ge'ez.

---

quote:

---

Arabian in the sense that it has been found in the Arabian Peninsula. By "Arabian" scripts, however, I meant north Arabian, which are derived from Aramaic and Phoenician, as ESA is more specifically defined as a South Semitic script. For proto-Sinaitic vs. proto-Canaanite, take it to the other thread.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

That your map defines the predecessor of ESA as "proto-Arabic" (which is wrong anyway, since they spoke South Semitic languages, not Arabic or one of its predecessors) is an error and weird naming on their part.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

It is relevant because it can shed some light on the whole issue. See my next post.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
That the situation is not vice versa is certain. It's not certain that Ge'ez and ESA don't share a common ancestor from which Ge'ez lost some letters, but that this did not happen does seem to be the case.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

Ps - ...Then, it would seem that the so-called Ethiopic spoken language must have changed, because the writing was designed for a language that could be likened to the ones spoken in South Arabia, in terms of consonant phonemes.

Hence, letters have been retained in the Ge'ez script, that were not necessarily designed for the sounds in Ge'ez. Thus, the early "Ethiopic" script, to put it in Daniel's terms, was designed around a language type, that was richer in "consonants", which would mean that, if that language was "Ethiopic", it must not have been "Ge'ez". The question is, what language would that have been?

---

(deleted long quotation) Of course the language has changed to lose interdentals. As I pointed out earlier, the existence or lack of interdentals is one of the methods used for dating and classifying pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I quote again A.J. Drewes and Roger Schneider's "Documents Épigraphiques de l'Éthiopie - 2" in Annales d'Éthiopie, Tome Huitième, 1970, pps.59-61...

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Again, be civil in discussion. Simply explain what it is that you are trying to point out. It's not that difficult.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Explain exactly what you think Sabaean (again note the "a" after "Sab" before "-ean") influences are and we can determine whether or not this discussion is necessary.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

The traditional argument supports the idea of Sabaean colonists founding and originating Ethiopian civilization, which is what is therefore repeated by some scholars, which is obviously not the case if you look at the evidence.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Oh no, I read the word "military," however it's clearly explained just a little later in the sentence that it's significantly different from the traditional interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
If you read further in the same sentence ("[i]They may have been military or trading colonists, living in some sort of **symbiosis** with the local Ethiopian population, perhaps under a species of **treaty-status**."), you'll see that his idea of "military colonists" is significantly different from that of Michels and the traditional interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Unfortunately, Munro-Hay doesn't explain more what exactly he means by the term.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

My attribution is simply based on the sources given to me. I've only seen two: one is this pub-med genetic analysis on maternal gene flow into Yemen that's been seen on this board before, citing Fattovich (1997). The other is Fattovich's most recent publication on the Eritreo-Sudanese borderlands, which may be from 1997, I'm not sure. Here's the passage from his most recent one (if there's a 1997 one, I don't have access to it).

quote:

---

Peoples with similar pottery were living along the Eritrean and south Arabian coast of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in the mid-second millenium BC (the 'Tihama Cultural Complex', c. 1500-1200 BC). Evidence for this has been recorded at Adulis near the Gulf of Zula in Eritrea,Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq' in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden. The pottery from these sites shows some similarities to that from the Kerma and 'C-Group' of the middle Nile valley. The lithic industry is similar to that of the 'Gash Group' at Kassala, pointing to a possible early influence from the African hinterland (Fig. 5; Paribeni 1907; Doe 1963, Doe 1971; Zarins Al-Jawarad Murad & Al-Yish 1981; Zarins & Al-Badr 1986; Tosi 1986; Tosi 1987). Comparable pottery occurs in the lower strata at Matara on the eastern Tigrean plateau, suggesting that this region too was included in the area of cultural influence of the Tihama complex (see Anfray 1966; Fattovich 1980).

---

---

quote:

---

Yom:
That they're not as large as previously assumed.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great debate . Supercar can you give me the exact citation for Fattovich, 2002.

Thanks.

.

Sure...

Fattovich, The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, 2002.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

It belongs in this thread as much as it belongs in the said topic, since you brought it up in the exchanges leading to this thread. Could it be, that you are admitting that your claim that Sabeans didn't have a "genetic" impact, was empty rhetoric?

---

quote:

---

Rather than rely on cowardly strawmen as a distraction, by relying on "typos" or spelling mistakes and making them out to be something that they are evidently not, how about actually answering the mounting questions you continue to evade?

---

quote:

---

...to you perhaps, but the scholars we've quoted, have apparently had access to the said publication, and hence, would take note of anything considered "significant" therein. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, such a "significant" material would have made its way into future publications.

---

quote:

---

I obviously don't, which is why the burden is on you to provide evidence on the idea that the so-called "Ge'ez" graffiti, is not the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script that every other publication has been talking about, including the most up-to-date ones. Your drivel about Munro-hay, is just a red-herring.

---

quote:

---

By George, I think he is slowly but surely getting it.

---

quote:

---

This north Arabian vs south Arabian thing, is nothing but a futile distractive antic, that will surely not get you anywhere.

---

quote:

---

What is "weird" to you is of no concern to me, but what you can substantiate to the contrary. What do you call the predecessor of South Arabian script then? and Why so? How does that make your 'term' anymore valid than what was given in the link?

---

quote:

---

Well, if it is relevant to YOU, then hey, knock yourself out in producing the said info; just know that, it ain't my obligation.

---

quote:

---

The burden is on you, to show that "common ancestor", which would NOT be "Ge'ez", and hence, making your aforementioned claim of a "Ge'ez" graffiti bankrupt.

---

quote:

---

You keep equating Daniels words about "consonant phonemes" with "interdentals". If the language has changed, then pray tell, what language would that have been, which would have been similar to south Arabian language? It certainly could not have been "Ge'ez" [as Daniels was pointing out], Amharic or any of the Semitic languages written in Amharic. The burden of evidence again, lies squarely on you.

---

quote:

---

Civility is a two way street; I am not sure when you'll understand that. I stand by my earlier point, that you didn't understand my post, and hence, "repetitively" misinterpreted it. I am not going to waste my time constantly reiterating the same point in multiple ways. It is clear and concise for the perceptive.

---

quote:

---

It has been briefly noted in my citations on Munro-Hay and Fattovich. Did you miss those?

---

quote:

---

Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?

---

quote:

---

Apparently I've read the said piece, since I posted it. So asking me to read it, is just another distraction.

---

quote:

---

One of the points of my posting the piece in the first place, was to make you see just how silly your fuss is about the term "colonists", and the other point was to make you see that, the notion of "colonialists", whether as "traders" or "military" personnel, has not been proven, nor disproven.

---

quote:

---

He doesn't have to explain further. It is clear and concise for those who understood the statement.

---

quote:

---

Nothing therein justifies your claim about the Arabian "Tihama" complex being Ethiopian in origin. They talk about "influences", just as Sabean "influences" are talked about, with regards to the Pre-Aksumite complex. How does this equate to Ethiopian "origins"?

---

quote:

---

What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The earliest Sabaic inscriptions appear some time in the 8th cent. B.C., while the first (longer) written documents in Sabaic that can be dated reliably on the basis of **synchrony** with *Assyrian sources** go back to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C. The first Minaic inscriptions appear, even though in smaller numbers, of **the same time as the first Sabaic texts.

---

Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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:

---

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 here 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:

---

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:

---

Yom:

You can't blame me for thinking that you were insulting Dr. Pankhurst, as "u" is nowhere near "a" on the keyboard.

---

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:

---

Yom:

Again with the insults. I'm getting tired of your tirades and attempts to distract the issues with these.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
I answered your question,

---

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 same paragraph as if I was neglecting the point?

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Did your mother never teach you manners?

---

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.

---

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 cannot be proto-Arabic. Proto-Arabic would be the predecessors of the Arabic script, like Nabatean and Syriac (or perhaps another Aramaic derived alphabet).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Forget the semantics, though.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

You said that you have come across claims of Arabian predecessors to both the north and the south scripts.

---

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, I'm going to post the info, my computer crashed as I was posting it, however).

---

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 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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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 all derivatives of Ge'ez or one of its dialects or sister languages.

---

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:

---

Yom:

I have been civil up to now, but your arrogance and incivility is incorrigible, it seems.

---

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:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Aside from your taste in semantics, what bearings does that have on the idea of Sabean "colonists"?

---

I just answered that question.

---

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:

---

Yom:

Not at all. There are multiple possibilities that he could be proposing. Granted, similar in nature, but different nonetheless.

---

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:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

What or how do you deem or gauge "large" here?

---

It's relative, hence the "as large as previously assumed."

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Yom:
Forget the semantics, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
He makes it clear that the Tihama pottery was related to the C-Group and Kerma people. This supports the movement of some of the groups into the Horn from this region.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Daniels has a fine book and Fattowich provides great evidence on the rise of civilization in Ethiopia, but if we are to use these two sources to gage the origin of literacy on the Horn, it would appear that Sabaean originated in Ethiopia and not Yemen.

---

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

I'll relay the same question to you as I have done earlier: What set of parameters do you use to attribute origin of "cultural complex" to a specific group of people?

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The parameter(s) I use is that where ever a cultural tradition first occurs,temporally , it is that place where the cultural complex originated.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
3) oldest evidence of writing existing in Ethiopia (Drewes 1962), not Yemen.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Put these elements together we have to acknowledge that the Sabaeans and their writing probably originated in Ethiopia not Yemen.

---

Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged |