This is topic OT: Settling the issues on "Ethio-Sabean" connections, "Habashat", and the related in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000050

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
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?

---

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'.

---

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

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
You guys can argue this issue over in this older thread here.

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!!
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

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!!

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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...?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

Thanks.

.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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."

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

During the first millennium BC, a state with Sabean characteristics appeared on the plateau in Tigray and Eritrea. It is archaeologically identified by the so-called pre-Aksumite culture (c. 1000/900 BC–100 BC/AD 100). This state is recorded in the inscriptions with the name of ‘Kingdom of Da’amat’. It most likely relied on the ‘plough and cereal complex’. The ruins of a stone dam, possibly going back to this period, at Safra in the Kohaito region (central Eritrea) suggest that artificial irrigation also was practiced (Anfray 1967; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1977a; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; de Contenson 1981; Fattovich 1988; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c).

On linguistic, epigraphic and monumental evidence, the origins of this state have been
usually ascribed to a south Arabian – more specifically Sabean – colonization of the plateau in the first half of the first millennium BC (see Conti Rossini 1928; von Wissmann 1975; Ricci 1984). At present, it seems that the kingdom originated from the contacts between an indigenous chiefdom and the southern Arabians, who deeply affected the local cultural pattern (Drewes 1962; Anfray 1968; Schneider 1976; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). So far, the pre-Aksumite culture has been divided into three main phases of development (Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c): 1 The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 1000–800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existed (Schneider 1976), but no safe archaeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the southern Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5). 2 The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600–300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphical evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia. Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world.

---

quote:

---

An edited version of the above, since that function amongst others cease to exist:


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.

Would this be a single tradition or multiple? If multiple, please lay out the "full range" of the criterea used; If single, how can you claim that a "complex" culture is of so and so origin based on a single "tradition", while ignoring other traditions that may or may not have been imported?

Moreover:

In other for you to claim that a cultural complex at a certain location is not of in situ origin, you'd have to prove that there was no cultural complex there to begin? Can you show us how your claim about the "Tihama" complex fits into this criterea.

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

What was this "script" called and what date has specifically been attributed to this script, in the exact words of the cited author; not to mention why he said so? Present the 'specifics' contained in this 'evidence' in the words of the author you attribute it to.

I have cited several others, who talk about the "Epigraphic South Arabian" script in both south Arabia and in the African horn, spanning more or less the same time era. Although, I don't have the specifics, Munro-Hay mentioned "new" discoveries in Yemen, involving "paleography", that may push date-approximations of the Ethio-Sabean contact in pre-Aksume complex back to ca. 800th cen. or so. I suspect this includes the south Arabian scripts that one website attributed to Minean dialect. Now, Epigraphic "South Arabian" is not something that implies "Ethiopic" script; similarily "Sabean" script as you keep referring to it, does not imply "Ethiopic". You also ignore the fact that the "Epigraphic South Arabian" scripts found in Ethiopia, are written both in pure Sabean, and some unidentified, presumably local Ethiopic language. Why is that? Have you identified some Ethiopic language in "Sabean/ESA" script in South Arabia? If not, Why? It would also be interesting how you address Daniels' notes on those early scripts found.

quote:Clyde:

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

Nobody but you, claims that Sabeans are local Pre-Aksumites, rather than South Arabians, who had contact with the locals of the Pre-Aksumite complex in early first Millenium B.C. Next, you'll tell us that Saba was in Ethiopia, right?

---

quote:

---

I'll respond in full later (i.e. tomorrow), but here's a note on chronology again. The 8th c. date for Ma'in (Minaeans) and D`mt seem to be the first inscriptions in ESA known to date. Not sure if the first in Saba' (Sabaeans) were 8th c. or 7th, but the dating seems to be becoming more and more certain.

Walter W. Muller identifies Karab'il Watar as being from the early 7th century and having an inscription noting a Hadramite (from Hadramawt - first non-Hadramawt mention) king named Yada`'il (that's ayin and alif, not a typo) as his ally, so the earlier date seems to be certain based on more than regular dating, but instead synchronies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It is very important to note that the state building in Ethiopia had its roots in Africa, not Yemen...

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
Researchers claim a Yemeni origin for the Ethiopian civilizations without any support what so ever for example Fattovich noted that:

quote:

---

During the first millennium BC, a state with Sabean characteristics appeared on the plateau in Tigray and Eritrea. It is archaeologically identified by the so-called pre-Aksumite culture (c. 1000/900 BC–100 BC/AD 100). This state is recorded in the inscriptions with the name of ‘Kingdom of Da’amat’. It most likely relied on the ‘plough and cereal complex’. The ruins of a stone dam, possibly going back to this period, at Safra in the Kohaito region (central Eritrea) suggest that artificial irrigation also was practiced (Anfray 1967; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1977a; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; de Contenson 1981; Fattovich 1988; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c).

On linguistic, epigraphic and monumental evidence, the origins of this state have been
usually ascribed to a south Arabian – more specifically Sabean – colonization of the plateau in the first half of the first millennium BC (see Conti Rossini 1928; von Wissmann 1975; Ricci 1984). At present, it seems that the kingdom originated from the contacts between an indigenous chiefdom and the southern Arabians, who deeply affected the local cultural pattern (Drewes 1962; Anfray 1968; Schneider 1976; Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). So far, the pre-Aksumite culture has been divided into three main phases of development (Fattovich 1977b; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c): 1 The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 1000–800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existed (Schneider 1976), but no safe archaeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the southern Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5). 2 The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600–300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphical evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia. Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world.

---

This statement is contradictory. On the one hand Fattovich makes it clear that Sabaean inscriptions dating back to the Di'amat Kingdom were first found in Ethiopia as well as the earliest dam.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Yet, in the next breath the author claims these elements came from Yemen, yet Fattovich does not provide any archaeological sites from Yemen dating back to this period which supports his bold claim. Lets not remember that the Yemeni dam and inscriptions date to the 4th century BC, 600 years after similar monuments appeared in Ethiopia.

Given the evidence, I am making only one claim: archaeological evidence indicate that the Oldest Sabaean inscriptions are found in Ethiopia, along with monumental architecture. This means only one thing: Sabaean writing was invented by the Ethiopians who took the writing to Yemen, no matter what some experts claim.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yom

quote:

---

I'll respond in full later (i.e. tomorrow), but here's a note on chronology again. The 8th c. date for Ma'in (Minaeans) and D`mt seem to be the first inscriptions in ESA known to date. Not sure if the first in Saba' (Sabaeans) were 8th c. or 7th, but the dating seems to be becoming more and more certain.

Walter W. Muller identifies Karab'il Watar as being from the early 7th century and having an inscription noting a Hadramite (from Hadramawt - first non-Hadramawt mention) king named Yada`'il (that's ayin and alif, not a typo) as his ally, so the earlier date seems to be certain based on more than regular dating, but instead synchronies.

---

What is the reference for the W.W. Muller article.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
^^^Supercar

Saba' certainly wasn't wholly within the 1st Millenium BC

---

quote:

---

Yom:
, it was allied with and later at war with Aksum in the South Arabian wars in the 3rd century and wasn't subjugated by Himyar until the latter part of the century.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Regarding the Sabaean language inscriptions, the inscriptions were written by Sabaeans, not Ethiopians using it for prestige or anything like that (and of course, as we already know, they weren't royal). For example, a text found in 1970 by Roger Schneider and AJ Drewes specifically says in the text that the man is "ḏmryb," i.e. ḏu maryib, meaning "of Marib," the capital of Saba' (the text is one sentence and is about him giving the fruits of his labor to Almaqah/Ilmuqah).

---

quote:

---

The rulers of D. bear the title mlkn ('the king' and mkrb (here meaning uncertain), there names, LMN, RBḤ, and RD'M appear to be of Semitic origin.

---

quote:

---

However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
^^^Wholly as in didn't exist in AD times.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Regarding the inscriptions, none of the Sabaean ones seem to be public in nature (e.g. the worshipping one I referenced), so I don't know where you get that idea from.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
As I noted earlier, the title "mukarrib," does not necessarily mean priest-king. That was the earlier view of the terms meaning, but the terms meaning is actually uncertain.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

quote:

---

Supercar:

However, I have not heard of Sabean inscriptions in some "Ethiopic" language, alongside "pure" Sabean in south Arabia itself.

---

What does this have to do with anything?

---

quote:

---

Yom:
There obviously weren't Ethiopians in Saba' back then (this reply should be addressed to Clyde, not me). Besides, Sabaean was still used by Abraha in his inscription on the Marib Dam, even though he was an Aksumite and it was an Aksumite province.

---

quote:

---

Fattovich doesn't attribute the origins of the Pre-Aksumite complex to South Arabians, at least not to my knowledge; what he does appear to be suggesting though, is that the natives of the local complex interacted with Sabeans, to evolve an existing complex into the kind of Sabean "influenced" complex that the ruins found in the plateau today hint on.

---

quote:

---

PRE-ISLAMIC ERA

Historical facts and epigraphic evidence suggest that the Saba kingdom ruled Yemen in its entirety in the first millenium BC. The state of Saba' is mentioned in both the Holy Koran and in the Old Testament. Yemeni anthropologists, moreover, consider Saba' as a symbol of their country's ancestral entity and of the origin of its being undivided; a characteristic which is idiosyncratic of virtually Yemen alone. In volume II of his book "ON THE ERYTHRAEANSEA", Agatharchiodes, the Greek historian in the second millennium BC describes the Sabeans as "the most populous among the Arabs. They occupy and inhabit the territory called Eudainon Arabia (fortunate Arabia) which is rich in valuables ... a land that produces everything nice we need ...and the people are of nicely-built figures. Saba' which represents the entire nation is situated on a hill and it is one of the nicest cities in the Arab land. Its ruler is mandated by the people to govern the whole territory".

According to ancient inscriptions unearthed and are at present on display in Sarwah, Sabean Mukerribs (high priest-princes who combined religious and temporal power in the state) were authorized by Mokha and Saba' Gods to rule the land of Yemen in the seventh century B.C.


The inscription show the name of the territory under the rule of the Mukerribs, namely Saba' and the central highlands (from Taiz to Sa'ada), Najran, Ma'afer (Taiz province) Shabwah, Datheena to the sea, Yafi'a, Ebyan, Lahji, Mayfa'a and the rest of Hadramawt. Early Himyaritic inscriptions in the first half of the first millennium AD give the names of kings who ruled the land of Yemen the lest of whom is Abrahah the Abyssinian (542 AD). Each king carries a title, which in reality represents the name of a Mikhlaf (administrative unit). {On the names of kings and their relevance to Yemeni Mikhlafs and the political unity of Yemen in the first millennium BC, one can refer to: SABEAN INSCRIPTIONS FROM MAHRAM BALQIS by Albert Janne, publication of the American Foundation for the study of Man-volume III, Baltimore, 1962, L'Unification du Yemen Antique, M.A.K.Bafaqih, Geunthuer, Paris 1990; and Die Geschichte von Saba, H.Von Wissmann, Wien 1982} .

Source: http://www.yemeninfo.gov.ye/ENGLISH/POLITICS/UNIFIEDYEMEN.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
I guess you earlier statement talking about 1st millennium BC must have been a typo, unless I'm missing something here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

This is what I mean by double talk by Fattovich. He claims that South Arabia (SA) influenced civilization in Ethiopia,...

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

...but the earliest evidence of what later became known as the Sabaean "cultural complex" has its antecedents in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Moreover the dates for the Sabaean architectural and epigraphic evidence in SA is much later than similar events in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Why is it so hard to believe that the Sabaeans originated in Ethiopia and then settled in SA, given the fluidity of population movements on the Horn of Africa and Yemen.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

If this was the case the Sabaeans of Ethiopia would have used terms for chiefs and etc., first in Ethiopia, and later SA.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

Since the Sabaeans may have originated in Ethiopia, where the earliest inscriptions in this language have been found, it is only natural that they would have written in Sabaean, which may have been a lingua franca, since it was used in both countries for centuries and even used by Abraha to write inscriptions in SA.

---

quote:

---

Concerning the first point, its relevancy to your comment has been state in the post above; please reference it. Pertaining to the second highlighted piece, I say,...exactly! This fellow of "Abyssinian/Ethiopian" origin used "Sabean" language in the South Arabian script, even though the region would have been under the Aksumite control. No "Ethiopic" language has been identified side by side with "pure" Sabean in South Arabia itself; none that has been brought to my attention, that could date to about the same era as the Pre-Aksumite period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yom what point are you trying to make? Are you claiming that the Sabaeans originated in Yemen and influenced Ethiopia? Are you saying that the Sabaeans came from Ethiopia and influenced South Arabia? Are you claiming that pre-Sabaean Ethiopian inscriptions will one day be found in South Arabia?

---

quote:

---

The fact that Sabaean was used in both areas make it clear that this language may have been a lingua franca used by trading groups both in South Arabia and Ethiopia. This would explain the presence of the earliest examples of the script on the Horn of Africa, and not Yemen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

Oops. I read the "entirely" as referring to Saba' existing in its entirety in the 1st millenium BC (as in it didn't exist after or before), rather than controlling Yemen in its entirety. Nevermind all this. I'm doubtul of the claim of controlling all of Yemen (I don't think Hadramawt was ever conquered before 225 AD), but that's not really pertinent to the discussion. I was just trying to point out what I thought was incorrect for the benefit of all reading.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Er...no, I'm saying that they seem to be for the benefit of the inscriber rather than anyone else; I haven't seen all of the Sabaean ones, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily the case for all of them.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
Only because you highlighted the meaning of the term as well as the mentioning in your quote.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

No, I read what Clyde said, so I realize its relevance with regard to Clyde's claims, but in general, the finding of texts outside of the area where they are spoken doesn't mean dominance of the language (e.g. Greek in the Orient in some areas where its control has never reached). Nor does the dominance of one state over the other necessarily mean that the dominating state's language will be used. For historical examples, see Abraha in Yemen and the status of Aramaic throughout the middle east, despite always being a conquered people (their language was adopted by all conquerers even though they never had a dominating state of their own). Personally, I believe that a shared heritage for the complex is most likely, but there hasn't been enough research done in this field to make any conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Yom:
...considering the ancientness of the trade network, it probably is. Perhaps its better to say that we don't have evidence of substantial number of Ethiopians living in Saba, and given the closeness of the cultures at the two time, it would be difficult to differentiate the two in the first place unless an Ethiopian language was used. Regarding "Ethiopic" being used in South Arabia, further excavations will probably reveal that there are such inscriptions, as there was an Ethiopian presence (in the early stages control) in the Tihama, West coast and al-Ma'afir (southwest around Aden).

---

quote:

---

Sabaeans certainly originated in Yemen and Ethiopians in Ethiopia, however there has obviously been mutual cultural influence since time immemorial. Regarding the nature of the early complex, it is not really known, so we can't make any conclusions or assumptions. It is my belief that facets of the culture were not imports by either Ethiopia or Saba' (at that time period), but shared inherited culture from an earlier era, based on the antiquity of contacts (e.g. Tihama cultural complex). Even if this is true, however, it still might be possible to ascribe an African or Asian origin on certain cultural traits through examining any predecessor cultural complexes. There's much archaeological work to be done (Aksum, the most excavated site in Ethiopia is only 3% so; Yemen isn't very well-excavated either), however, so much that making conclusions are difficult and very tentative.

Regarding inscriptions, who knows as to pre-Aksumite inscriptions. I was mainly referring to inscriptions between 200 AD and 525 AD, but I wouldn't be surprised if earlier inscriptions are found due to the proximity of the countries and because of trade.

---

quote:

---

I don't make conclusions based on what is "better to say" [or sugar-coating to make discussants happy], but what can be said based on available and existing evidence. Reasonable numbers of Sabeans living in the Pre-Aksumite complex works well with the notion of South Arabians having considerable monopoly over the Red Sea trade route in the early 1st millennium. Under such conditions, it is understandable that with reasonable numbers of south Arabian residents in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in addition to the interactions between the Pre-Aksumite complex and the Saba complex, that potential local elites would adopt traditionally South Arabian-used titles of ruling elites, e.g. "mukarrib," strategically to forge closer political ties. There were likely cultural similarities in the region prior to development of either cultural complex; this however, doesn’t negate the fact that experts have been able to identify some elements which were specifically attributed to Sabeans, in the pre-Aksumite complex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

Oops. I read the "entirely" as referring to Saba' existing in its entirety in the 1st millenium BC (as in it didn't exist after or before), rather than controlling Yemen in its entirety. Nevermind all this. I'm doubtul of the claim of controlling all of Yemen (I don't think Hadramawt was ever conquered before 225 AD), but that's not really pertinent to the discussion. I was just trying to point out what I thought was incorrect for the benefit of all reading.

---

I am doubtful of your claim that Saba must have only existed in the 1st millennium BC, when it was about this time, they actually had reached their peak, and controlling Red Sea trade routes by the mid-1st millennium as the Fattovich notes point out.

---

quote:

---

We can talk about 'individual' scribers all day, but it has no bearings on the point made about the "pure" Sabean inscriptions being there likely for the benefit of resident Sabeans in the pre-Aksumite complex.

---

quote:

---

Certainly a dominating force that is apparently a minority in the region, would use the local languages to get its message across to the locals. However, why would the dominating force not use its own language within its administration, comprising people of the same background? For instance, the American military in Iraq, would naturally have to use Arabic, if they wanted to get their message to the wider Iraqi community. However, it would be impractical for the Americans to speak Arabic amongst fellow minority Americans within the American military and administrative concerns in that region. "Pure" Sabean was used apparently for the benefit of Sabeans in the Pre-Aksumite complex, who at the time, maintained a separate identity from locals. It goes without saying, there must have been Sabeans in enough numbers, such that archeology would easily recover this. A main point to be drawn here, is that the notion of ESA inscriptions in both complexes dating to more or less the same era, or as Clyde keeps repeating all day, that ESA in Ehiopia supposedly predate those in Arabia, isn't something that one can dwell on, to say that it couldn't have been South Arabian in origin, in the face of ESA inscriptions written in both Sabean and another unidentified language, presumably of a local Pre-Aksumite.

---

quote:

---

I don't make conclusions based on what is "better to say" [or sugar-coating to make discussants happy], but what can be said based on available and existing evidence. Reasonable numbers of Sabeans living in the Pre-Aksumite complex works well with the notion of South Arabians having considerable monopoly over the Red Sea trade route in the early 1st millennium. Under such conditions, it is understandable that with reasonable numbers of south Arabian residents in the Pre-Aksumite complex, in addition to the interactions between the Pre-Aksumite complex and the Saba complex, that potential local elites would adopt traditionally South Arabian-used titles of ruling elites, e.g. "mukarrib," strategically to forge closer political ties. There were likely cultural similarities in the region prior to development of either cultural complex; this however, doesn’t negate the fact that experts have been able to identify some elements which were specifically attributed to Sabeans, in the pre-Aksumite complex.

---

"Better to say" simply means "more accurate" in this instance (i.e. not mak[ing] discussants happy"), so you shouldn't have any problem with the phraseology.

As to the rest of your comments, I don't find any fault with them, though I would like a citation on the reason to adopt mukarrib, as I've never heard this proposed before (though there's nothing unexpected or re???? in your description). As a note, however, given the different meaning of mukarrib in Ethiopia and the historical vacuum (regarding royal inscriptions) between D`mt and the 2nd-3rd century AD, however, archaeology may find that the term was used after D`mt, though this has no bearing on the origin of the term.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
^^^Change "local" in the "So are you now proposing that D`mt was founded and ruled by Sabaeans who used the presumably Ethiopian language for administration, while the inscriptions in Sabaean were local?" sentence to "for internal administrative matters" (no idea why I wrote local ).
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

It is also clear that Yom is talking about events separated in time by 1000 years and therefore does not correlate to what Supercar is discussing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

To claim that the South Arabians domenated the trade is pure speculation at this point given the lack of archaeological and epigraphic evidence from South Arabia, dating to a period earlier than the evidence discovered in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
Granted we assume that culture elements such as the politico-religious term such as "mukarrib," is a traditional South Arabian term, yet this can not be proven by the South Arabia evidence which dates to a much later period.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

The fact that it comes from a later period suggest that the original Sabaeans may have originally lived in Ethiopia and later formed colonies in South Arabia.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
This suggest to me that Sabaean was a lingua franca in Ethiopia and South Arabia, until the Ethiopians decided to write their inscriptions in Ge'ez.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:

They may have made this switch to differiate themselves from the South Arabias, when they began to worship a different religion.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:
No matter, I must concede to Supercar that his propositions are supported by most experts so I will leave this debate .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
(purposely kept my text) You misunderstood my second comment. I was saying that I misunderstood the quotation as saying that Saba only existed in the 1st millenium BC, so I provided evidence to the contrary. The part you bolded is me explaining what I misunderstood the article as saying. Saba existed from the 8th c. BC to the late 3rd century AD.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

I don't see what relevance any of this has. This argument seems to be about whether the Sabaean inscriptions were for the inscriber himself, or for the local Sabaeans (whose presence I acknowledge). There are no changes in the inscriptions' implications on the central debate whatever the case may be, so let's just drop the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

Hold on a second. So are you now proposing that D`mt was founded and ruled by Sabaeans who used the presumably Ethiopian language for administration, while the inscriptions in Sabaean were local?

---

quote:

---

Yom:

"Better to say" simply means "more accurate" in this instance (i.e. not mak[ing] discussants happy"), so you shouldn't have any problem with the phraseology.

---

quote:

---

Yom:

As to the rest of your comments, I don't find any fault with them, though I would like a citation on the reason to adopt mukarrib, as I've never heard this proposed before (though there's nothing unexpected or re???? in your description).

---

quote:

---

Yom:
As a note, however, given the different meaning of mukarrib in Ethiopia and the historical vacuum (regarding royal inscriptions) between D`mt and the 2nd-3rd century AD, however, archaeology may find that the term was used after D`mt, though this has no bearing on the origin of the term.

---

There is certainly no evidence of these titles making their way into the Aksumite complex, as Munro-Hay notes.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
So does the presence of Sabaeans explain the frequency of haplotype J in Ethiopia?



Also, if mtDNA haplotype N1a as an African marker which is found in Ethiopians is also found in Yemenis, what is the male y-chromosomal haplotype to correspond with it?? Since E3b in small frequencies and in a very derived form.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
I ran across some very interesting information in an article on Akkele Guzay in the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica (I modified the transliteration a little bit for simplicity):

Rock inscriptions dating from the 9th cent. B.C. have been recorded at `Ungulle, Tokonda, Kilitte `Afa, La`lay `Addi, Ruba Kodo, Ziban Mororo, Gobo Fintsih, Deqanamo, Saro, Mt. Awalo, Da`ru, `Addi Alawti, Met'era, Edit, Dibdib, Fiqya and Berekit. They are mostly Epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions, but also include inscriptions in unvocalized and vocalized Ge'ez[Gi'iz using my above simplifications]. These inscriptions in particular show the progressive development of the Ethiopic script from the South Arabian prototype.

From the wording its clear that by "Ge'ez," the alphabet and not language is meant, and it seems certain that Ge'ez is a descendent from the earlier ESA script. The date is very interesting however, as it precedes any other date I've seen for Epigraphic South Arabian anywhere (Minaic inscriptions are first attested from some time in the 8th c. B.C. and Sabaic from the turn of the century to the 7th c. B.C.).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
So does the presence of Sabaeans explain the frequency of haplotype J in Ethiopia?

---

Doesn't seem to. Almost all J lineages in Ethiopia are J-M267 (without the identified Middle Eastern motif) from the Neolithic and not historic times.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^So exactly what's the difference between the form of J Ethiopians have and those carried by Arabians??

I thought J haplotypes in Ethiopia are attributed to migrations from Arabia.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
From the E3b thread (Semino et al. 2004), the J haplotypes are J-M267 (in Ethiopia ~33%) and arrived in the Neolithic, while Middle Eastern Haplotypes tend to be J-M172 (in Ethiopia ~2%). Moreover, most of the Middle Eastern J-M267 haplotypes (>70%) are characterized by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22, which is found "sporadically" in Europe and "much less frequent[ly]" in Ethiopia. Unfortunately he doesn't give percentages.

J arrived ultimately from the Middle East of course, but during the Neolithic and tied to the spread of Agriculture, not Sabaeans.

According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 to Ethiopia and Europe, whereas a second, more-recent migration diffused the clade harboring the microsatellite motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the southern part of the Middle East and in North Africa.
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
Reiterating:

The TD of the two sister clades J-M267 and J-M172 was estimated, with V0 = 0, and turned out to be 31.7 ky (see phylogeny in fig. 2). This estimate, however, is not easily interpretable, because such old haplogroups are differently represented in different regions where they probably underwent multiple bottlenecks. The lower internal variance of J-M267 in the Middle East and North Africa, relative to Europe and Ethiopia, is suggestive of two different migrations. In the absence of additional binary polymorphisms allowing further informative subdivision of J-M267, the YCAII microsatellite system provides important insights. The majority of J-M267 Y chromosomes harbor the single-banded motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 in the Middle East (>70%) and in North Africa (>90%), whereas this association is **much less frequent** in Ethiopia and only sporadically found in southern Europe...


Given this little piece of info, the possibility of some of these J-M267 chromosomes bearing the said motif, i.e. YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 alleles, arriving in varying time frames during the historic period - perhaps coinciding with Arabian (from Arabian peninsula) migrations, cannot be ruled out. Now of course, one can always provide the specifics for these J-M267 lineages found in the African Horn, so as to be able to gauge the extent of variation between the YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22 bearing J-M267 chromosomes in the African Horn and those in southwest Asian groups. For a general idea about the J distribution, courtesy of Semino et al., we have:




……

Other J-M267 not bearing the said single-banded motif, along with J-M172 lineages in Ethiopian samples, may reflect relatively more ancient arrivals than the chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif. The chromosomes bearing the said single-banded motif, may well include dispersions brought about by migrating southwest Asians into the region spanning the historic period.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003834;p=2
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Supercar,

Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....

2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.

I mentioned on one of these threads before that according to Bekerie, according to three Ethiopian historical documents, i.e. 1)the "Kibra Negast", 2)"The Mystery of Heaven and Earth", and 3)____(I forgot the third), the language of Geez is a language of the house of Ham...............This is important cause these are primary documents that attest to the origin of the language. It is important that the writers of the language spoke about it origin coming from "Ham".

On the other hand, I don't really care IF(notice that I said "IF", cause if the oldest Sabean inscriptions are from Ethiopia, then Ethiopia would be the origination of the language we now dub "Sabean") Geez came from Sabean cause the Sabean civilization came from Kush(who was a son of Ham, of course). I posted some of this info. on another thread. It is about the Bibilcal sons of Kush, and how most of Kush's sons acutually founded Arabian civilization, including Sabean. Here it is:


According to Genesis 10:7,8, it says, "The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush became the father of Nimrod.........."


So, according to the Hebrew Bible, Kush(or Cush......whatever) had six sons. Most of these sons(and grand sons) are link, or identified with, parts of Arabia. This includes:

1)Havilah. Havilah is a place located somewhere in Arabia, but there are no specifics.........However, some Bibilical scholars say that Havilah may be used in regard to the entire land of Arabia........

2)Sabtah. The people of Sabtah were located in Arabia. Sabtah has been identified with Sabota, the cheif city of the land of Hadramaut(the Hazarmaveth of Gen. 10:26) on the south coast of Arabia. It is well established that Cushite people did extend their presence across the Red Sea from Nubia northeastward over the Arabian Peninsula.

3) Raamah. The placement of Raamah in Arabia is beyond dispute. But where exactly in Arabia is the question. Raamah has been identified both with Rhegma located in east Arabia and with Ragmat, a central town in northern Yemen; the latter being mentioned in Miaean and Sabean inscriptions. On the other hand, based on its association with Sheba and Dedan, Raamah could have been located in Northern Arabia. A strong position states that Raamah appears to reference a location in Southwestern Arabia near Maan. If this identification is correct the list of tribes in Genesis 10:7 PROCEEDS FROM THE AFRICAN TO THE ASIATIC SIDE OF THE RED SEA............

3a)Sheba. Sheba appears not only in Ham's genealogical line, but also in Shem's as a descendent of Joktan(Gen. 10:28). Hence, Sheba apparently represents an interconnection between Hamitic and Semitic peoples. In Cush's genealogical line, "Sheba", descended from Raamah, is a reference to Saba and are the SABEANS IN YEMEN.......

3b)Dedan. Dedan, the other descendant of Raamah, was located in northwestern Arabia along the Red Sea. The name oocus in South Arabic inscriptions. Dedan was an important tribe controlling caravan routes between South and North Arabia.

4)Sabteca. Sabteca was the fifth son of Cush. His name is thought to have passed on to a southeastern Arabian locality. It has not been certainly identified......


If you guys are wondering where I got this info from, I got it from, "The Black Biblical Presence in the Bible and the Table of Nations" by Rev. Walter McCray. Get the book and check the sources. He seems very accurate to me......

Real quick, he quoted a book by Rea called, "The Nations" on pg. 377. The quote is, ".........the Al Amran tribe of Arabia calls the region of Zebid in the Yemen by the name of Kush."


What is the significance of this you may ask? Well, including the linguistic evidence given by many of the scholars on this forum, even the Bible itself speaks about the Cushite foundation of Arabian civilization! The Biblical evidence suggests that the descendents of Kush branched out, leaving Africa and crossing over the Red Sea into Arabia. The Sabeans came from Cush(hence me not worrying about the Sabean language influencing Ethiopia because Sabeans came from the lineage of Ham through Cush. In other words, Sabean civilization was Kushite). If you don't believe, do the research. There are plently of commentaries on the Bible, not to mention lots of research done through Biblical archealogy that will back up these facts.


Well Supercar, what is your reponse to my questions and to the information that I posted? I am curious to see what you will say.....
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Supercar,

Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....

---

quote:

---

2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.

---

quote:

---

I mentioned on one of these threads before that according to Bekerie, according to three Ethiopian historical documents, i.e. 1)the "Kibra Negast", 2)"The Mystery of Heaven and Earth", and 3)____(I forgot the third), the language of Geez is a language of the house of Ham...............This is important cause these are primary documents that attest to the origin of the language. It is important that the writers of the language spoke about it origin coming from "Ham".

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, I don't really care IF(notice that I said "IF", cause if the oldest Sabean inscriptions are from Ethiopia, then Ethiopia would be the origination of the language we now dub "Sabean") Geez came from Sabean cause the Sabean civilization came from Kush(who was a son of Ham, of course).

---

quote:

---

Real quick, he quoted a book by Rea called, "The Nations" on pg. 377. The quote is, ".........the Al Amran tribe of Arabia calls the region of Zebid in the Yemen by the name of Kush."

---

Doesn't suprise me. Tihama inhabitants tend to be pretty dark. Here's a couple of examples:






 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Geez isn't an offshoot of Sabean.......cool .

Concerning my use of terminologies, well, it is what it is. The fact that linguists from the past and present use Biblical terminology to describe all of these various languages is sufficient enough to prove that usage of the term "Ham" or "Kush" isn't out of place.......Again, I am not saying that the primary sources(Kibra Negast and others) are evidence concerning the origin of the language, but I am saying that you have to take into account the fact that the ancient scholars of the language proclaimed that Geez came from "Ham". Yom, my friend, you cannot tell me that that isn't significant on some type of level. I could seriously write a book concerning its importance........

Concerning Fattovich,
I hope he is right. If there is more detail to his discovery, that would smash a serious hole into the "Sebean theory". Too bad he didn't provide more detail. Again, hopefully in the future more things will be unveiled and revealed.

Concerning Bekerie, well Yom, you and Supercar need to acutually go to the local library and read the book! That is my opinion. I haven't read the whole entire book in terms of every word, but I flipped through it beginning to end, and I can truly say that I grasp alot more of it than either one of you guys. So to say that he is misinformed when you haven't even really read most of what he wrote is not good scholarship in my opinion. I feel that before you smash this guy's stuff and label it as inaccurate, you should go and read it. I think the book is quite interesting in that it gives a different angle concerning the language called Geez. Even if you don't agree with it, it is still interesting. His quotes from Martin Delany were intriguing.......see what I'm saying? Martin Delany, contemporary of Frederick Douglass(and very Afrocentric.......back in the 1860s!), wrote a book concerning the Egyptian and Ethiopian languages. I don't remember the exact quotes that Bekerie uses, but it is interesting. My single point is: READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE IT!


Here is a critique of Bekerie's book, and Bekerie's RESPONSE to the critique. Here it is:


Editorial: African Writing Systems

By Gloria Emeagwali - Chief Editor

Vai, Bamum, Nsibi, Mande and Ajimi are significant West African writing systems of indigenous origin. In Northeast Africa, the now extinct ancient Egyptian writing systems coexisted with the Nubian Meroitic and Ethiopic writing systems.

In this issue of Africa Update, Dr. Ayele Bekerie of Cornell University reflects on the latter writing system. He argues that there are fundamental connections between the spiritual beliefs, language and writing system of precolonial ancient Egypt

This issue also contains a review of Ayele Bekerie's Ethiopic: An African System (Red Sea Press, 1997). The reviewer, David Zerbe, examines some of Bekerie's basic propositions in a provocative analysis. We asked Dr. bekerie to respond to Zerbe's critique and received a lucid and scholarly clarification on issues such as the syllabic nature of Ethiopic; distortions and misceptions in Ethiopian historiography; connections between the Puntites, ancient Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians; and the interconnections between the Agau language, Ge'ez, and Ethiopian writing systems in general.

Bekerie's comments about the Puntites provide insights into the ethnic composition of ancient Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. He points out that the Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origins as themselves. Pharaoh Hatshepsut's diplomatic overturesto punt are cited.there is the consideration that the land of Punt should not be restricted to the domain of the Isaak clan of Somaliland, but includes also sections of the Ethiopian highlands. Bekerie identifies this region as lying between Suwakin in the North and the Cape of Guardafui.in the Southeast.

There is also,a clarification of the Kebra Nagast and its significance in Ethiopian history as well as its relevance to the Solomonic dynasty. Recent excavations by Boston University archeologists in conjunction with their Ethiopian counterparts illuminate various dimensions of ancient Ethiopia. Bekerie's research into the cultural and literary dimensions of Ethiopia's scripts are significant for ancient Africa in general and more specifically the history of writing and written documents in Northeast Africa.

We have included in this issue another installment of Haines Brown's series on wireless digital communications in Africa.

We have taken note of forthcoming conferences on Africa in Japan, Moscow, and Latvia, and included as well Shauna Brown's comments on Hollywood's African-Americans. We thank all the contributors to this issue.



Return to Table of Contents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


African Writing Systems

By Ayele Bekerie, Cornell University

Cultural Background of Writing Systems

Writing could be simply defined as a representation of speech and thoughts through various forms of sound images or graphs. A writing system, then, is a conventional and principled way of actualizing activity and thoughts, such as languages, natural science, theology, commerce, and aesthetics.

It is our contention that writing systems are more than a technological tool to languages. Most of our understandings of writing systems are generally confined to linguistics and languages. Close and careful examination of writing systems, from Ethiopic to Vai, from Cretan to Meroitic, from Han'gul to Latin, reveals layers of knowledge beyond language and linguistics. It could be argued that the study of writing systems may provide a new approach to knowledge creations, organizations, and disseminations. Writing Systems are, indeed, rich sources of human intellectual activities, such as history, philosophy, social order, psychology, and aesthetics.

The Quipus of the Incas of South America, for instance, show parallel features with some of the thought patterns, organizations, and utilizations of the ancient Egyptian writing system. Further, the Dravidian writing system of southern India also appears to share parallelism in shapes or sign structures with the Easter Island Rongo- Rongo writing system, perhaps suggesting historical continuity between South Asia and the Americas much earlier than the Columbus era.

The Meroitic writing system of the Kushites of the Sudan uses two or three dots as word separators, just like the extant Ethiopic writing system, thereby suggesting a link between the two writing systems in the Abbay-Atbara river complex. The Institute for the Study of African Writing Systems was established in order to systematically compile, categorize, analyze, and interpret the various forms of writing in Africa. Writing systems are not only facilitators of speech and communication, they are also tools in the creation and utilization of knowledge systems, such as philosophy, astronomy, and numbers.

There were many different writing systems in Africa. The writing systems were and still are, a reflection of various philosophies [thought processes] found in African cultures and civilizations. Language, to an African mind is part of your spirituality. Spirituality is a way of life based on a society's belief systems and moral values as they relate to a higher being. Your spirituality cannot be separated from your being. Egyptians believed that God is everything and everything is God as did many other Africans, not the idea that God is just in everything. Spirituality is also the relationship between you and your ancestors. When a person dies, the "spirit" returns to a higher being. Your ancestors then become your link with that higher being. Symbolism is a way of expressing that spirituality through individual aspects of your culture. Therefore spiritual symbolism implies your relationship with a higher being and your ancestors who are parts of the higher being through the individual aspects of your culture in everyday life. Much of the texts written by Egyptian scribes were attached to an Egyptian spiritual belief system.



The Egyptian Language

The language consisted of approximately 121 bi-literals, 75 tri-literals, and various determinants and phonetic complements. The bi-literals were individual symbols which expressed two sounds and the tri-literals were individual symbols which expressed three sounds. Phonetic complements were monoliterals found in front of and/or behind multi-consonantal signs in order to provide clarity and also to complete the meaning of the word. They normally repeated sounds already found in the word, but had no separate sound value.

Special attention was given to the aesthetics of the language. The sentences were not written with one individual symbol after another. All words took a quadrangular form which some scholars call the square principle; the symbols were placed in an imaginary square and the upper ones took precedence over the lower. The language was generally written from right to left except for occasional specific purposes. The determinants were symbols which had no sound value and were used at the end of the word to decipher the meaning between two words with the same symbols. The determinant normally came at the end of the word and demonstrated the meaning of the entire word. Many of the determinants which were added to the words (sometimes more than one per word) did not seem to be relevant to the word's meaning to most European scholars, but I will show that there is a connection between the language and the spiritual beliefs of the people who spoke the language.

These symbols, "Medu Netcher" [Mdw Ntr], cannot be understood without understanding African spirituality and African spirituality cannot be understood without understanding Medu Netcher. The language had to be deciphered in two ways; first it had to be transliterated from symbols to orthographic text and then translated into English.

Ethiopic Writing System

Ethiopic is an African Writing System designed as a meaningful and graphic representation of knowledge. It is a component of the African Knowledge Systems and one of the signal contributions made by Africans to world history and cultures. It is created to holistically symbolize and locate the cultural and historical parameters of the Ethiopian people. The System, in its classic state, has a total of 182 syllographs, which are arranged in seven columns, each column containing 26 syllographs. Ethiopic is a knowledge system because it is brilliantly organized to represent philosophical features, such as ideography, mnemonics, syllography, astronomy, and grammatology. To view the Ethiopic numeric system visit the following site: http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems/Geez.html

Return to Table of Contents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ayele Bekerie, Ethiopic, An African Writing System

(Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, 1997. Pp. 176, $18.95 paperback)

Reviewed by David S. Zerbe

As the title of the book suggests, this study examines the origins and history of the system of writing called Ethiopic, from which the first language in Ethiopia formed was Ge'ez , today the liturgical writing system of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. This fact, however, is never articulated in the text. Nor is there a discussion as to how other offshoots of the Ethiopic system of writing were established, such as Tigre, Tittering, or Amharic, and these are but two of the deficiencies in this text. The introduction establishes the conceptual framework of the study.

The conceptual framework is based on "locational theory." Ayele Bekerie postulates that the roots of the writing system of Ethiopic, as a system of knowledge, is an endogenous creation. What is theorized by Bekerie is that there is an endogenous flavor regarding causality between the Ethiopic writing system and Ethiopian civilization itself, i.e. that both are indigenous to Africa, and that the Ethiopic writing system is an effect of the establishment of an indigenous Ethiopian civilization, indigenous to Africa and not from South Arabia. Ayele Bekerie in fact refutes the South Arabia historiographic paradigm, which hypothesizes that the roots of Ethiopic as a writing system are contained in the Sabaean civilization's writing system, which emanated in South Arabia from the area of what today comprises the state of Yemen, and according to some historians was transplanted through commercial activity across the Red Sea to what is today the Eritrean coast and Ethiopian hiqhlands.

From this theoretical model, Ayele Bekerie commences with the first of a four chapter text. He attempts to examine Ethiopian historiography in the context of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Bekerie argues that the genesis of Ethiopian civilization itself is not of Semitic origin, that this is in fact a synthesis of 19th century Eurocentric historiography, which still remains in place today. The argument continues that Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa.

Besides secondary source information which shows commercial relations to have existed between Egypt and the "land of Punt" from 2743 BCE, there is no primary-source data, no linkage to the claim of Puntites establishing themselves in what is today Ethiopia, and no mention that Puntite and Sabaean civilizations could have coexisted in the highlands of what is today Ethiopia. Further, he does not establish that the Puntite peoples are the original inhabitants of Ethiopia and, if assumed the Puntites are the original inhabitants of the Ethiopian highlands, Bekerie does not effectively argue that Ethiopic as a writing system had its origins with the Puntites. It is commonly held to be the case in the historiography of the Horn of Africa that the Puntites today are the ancestors of peoples from the Isaak clan in what is now the de facto state of Somaliland.

Regarding Egypt, Bekerie also attempts to link the writing systems of Ethiopic and ancient Egypt, but cannot explain why there is a system of hieroglyphics in Egypt and not in Ethiopia, and consequently he fails to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and ancient Egyptian writing systems. There is only cursory mention of the relationship between Coptic and Ge'ez scriptures. Even without any evidence or with scant evidence, Ayele Bekerie is bent on arguing that Ethiopic is not of Semitic origin, but of African origin, but does come to the conclusion in the second chapter that the origins of Ethiopic and of Ethiopian civilization itself are to date still indeterminable.

Ayele Bekerie moves forward and discusses in some detail the principles of Ethiopic as a writing system. He establishes this discussion on the premise that the writing system of Ethiopic is actually a philosophy, because the ideographical iconography of the Ethiopic alphabet is conducive in generating knowledge, such as beliefs and concepts. Though he does not address the relationship between linguistics and the philosophical knowledge directly, he establishes that The Ethiopic Book of Henok, written in the BC era in Ge'ez, is not only a religious text but a philosophical one as well.

Throughout chapters three and four, Ayele Bekerie demonstrates the significance of Ethiopic as a writing system through Abyssinian literature, such as the Book of Enoch, and the legendary epic tale Kebra Nagast. This book was written in the time of Amda-Tsion in the 14th century, but this pertinent information is not included in the text. This tale of Solomon and Sheba helped lead to the consolidation of the Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia until 1974 by claiming that Menelik I was the son of the two, thereby directly relating Ethiopia to King Solomon. The literary and historiographic magnitude of this on the system of personal rule in Ethiopia is neglected. It does show, however, that the Ethiopic writing system in the form of Ge'ez has produced a number of culturally significant works.

Ayele Bekerie concludes the text with the convincing argument that Ethiopic, whether the roots are indigenous to the Puntites and spread to the Ethiopian highlands, or whether Ethiopic as a writing system originated from South Arabia in the BC era and became extinct there, is an African writing system by virtue of the fact that Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya, and Tigre directly correlate with the Ethiopic writing system. To end the tome, the author poses questions for his next work, many of which are not addressed here, such as the relationship between a writing system and a philosophical system of knowledge, why and how 19th century archaeologists discovered evidence linking Ethiopic to Semitic origins in South Arabia, or the process of extinction and resurrection of writing systems.

The text entitled Ethiopic decisively demonstrates that there is a great literary tradition in Ethiopia, and as such the third and fourth chapters carry the strongest arguments of the study. Paradoxically perhaps, the greatest strength of Ayele Bekerie's argument is also its greatest weakness, other than clinging to the notion that Ethiopic is not Semitic in origin. Though thoroughly demonstrating that through Ethiopic there has been a rich cultural, literary, and religious tradition among the languages associated with Ge'ez, such as Tigre, Tigrinya, and Amharic, this is only true among the Christian highlanders of Tigrinyan, Tigrean, and Amhara ethnicities.

Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, Gojjame, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin. They are of Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic origin, respectively. As such, they do not conform to this linguistic and cultural model, for the aforementioned ethnic groups combined comprise over 50% of present-day Ethiopia's population. As such, the Ethiopic writing system, a system imposed on the predominantly Muslim Somali and Oromo peoples through the system of imperialist Amhara personal rule from the 19th century, has ended with the EPRDF government in Ethiopia, from 1991 to the present. Ethiopic, even if not Semitic in origin, certainly is not of Cushitic, Omotic, or Nilo-Saharan origin.

Prof. David Zerbe is a graduate of Central Connecticut State University and the American University at Cairo.

Return to Table of Contents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rejoinder

From: Ayele Bekerie, Cornell University

Thank you for inviting me to send you a rejoinder to the review of my book by David S. Zerbe.

First of all, I commend Mr. Zerbe for taking his time to review the book. The review seems to concentrate on paradigmatic issues that are addressed from the perspective of the old school. According to this school, the origin of the Ethiopian civilization, its writing system, its classical language are presumed to have external origin. True to the old school, the reviewer continued to divide the Ethiopian people by identifying the Ethiopic writing system with the "Semitic" people of the northern part of Ethiopia, thereby continuing to pursue a racist divisive theory, between the so-called Semitic and Hamitic peoples of the Horn of Africa.

Contrary to the claim that "imperial Amhara's imposition" of their language and FIDEL writing system (a modified and expanded Ethiopic writing system developed for Amharic) on non-Amharas, the people of the south, just to cite one example, chose Amharic after 1991, as their official language together with FIDEL. In other words, Amharic is no longer the imperial language; it is a language the majority of the Ethiopian people opted to have as their official language. Besides the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in Ethiopia, they do have constitutional rights to use their languages as major modes of communication and commerce in their geo-cultural regions.

It seems to me that apart from presenting a general description of the format of the text as well as some critical and valuable comments, the review does not thoroughly interrogate the "history and principles" of the Ethiopic writing system, which is the central defining theme of the book. This point became apparent to me when Mr. Zerbe referred to the Ethiopic writing system as an "alphabet." The Ethiopic is not an alphabet; it is a syllabic writing system. As a matter of fact, I suggested a term "syllography" in order to reflect the syllabic feature of the system. I wonder how such a critical distinction ended up being overlooked by the reviewer.

In Chapter 1 on "The Arabian Peninsula in Ethiopian Historiography," I clearly stated my positions:

"The most critical question that must be raised is: What is the logic of beginning a history of a people from a source other than their own? Are Ethiopians incapable of making their own history? A history of a people that begins with an external source is quite problematic. It would not be the history of the Ethiopian people, but the history of South Arabians in Ethiopia. A history of a people cannot begin from outside or by outsiders. History records the material and spiritual cultures of all peoples. All people make history. All people are of history." (p.38)

This is the principle that I followed throughout the text. The purpose of my study was to investigate the historical data regarding the Ethiopic writing system, primarily from within and to present an interpretation of the history, fully cognizant of the languages, the cultures, and experiences of the people of Ethiopia.

In one of his critical comments, Mr. Zerbe wrote: ". . . Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa." The "migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt" was not my idea. I see migration, in the African context, with its varying and vast ecological zones as multidirectional and the initial migration was probably from the south to Upper and Lower Egypt.

Punt is a term the Ancient Egyptians reportedly used for the people of the south. The coastal region of northeast Africa, roughly between today's Red Sea port of Suwakin in the north, and the Cape of Guardafui in the southeast, was known to the ancient Egyptians as the land of the Punt, the land of spices, incense, and deities. "The Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origin as the Egyptian themselves. The physical characteristics of the Punts from the wall-picture of Deir el-Bahri, based on studies made, differ little from the Egyptians' physical attributes. Zayed (1990) attempted to limit the geographical locale of Punts to Somaliland; he cited the similarity of the term BARCHI or headdress both in Somali and ancient Egyptian language. Zayed perhaps did not know that round seats with three legs are also called BARCHUMA in the Amharic and Oromo languages of Ethiopia." (p. 53)

At least from the time of the V Dynasty, there was a reference to the Land of the Punt. "In the XVIII Dynasty, Pharaoh Hatshepsut sent Nehasi to Punt with five ships. He was accepted by the Punt king Perehu. All Godly fragrant woods of God's land was presented by the Queen to Amon." (p.53) The Godly fragrant woods, such as incense woods are found on the highlands of Ethiopia. In other words, the land of Punt cannot be restricted to the "Isaak clan" in Somaliland.

Regarding the question of pictographic writing systems, Mr. Zerbe was quick to point out my "failure to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and Ancient Egyptian writing systems." While it is true that comparable pictographic writing system to Egyptian hieroglyphics are not yet found in Ethiopia, the Ethiopic writing system definitely displays pictographic and ideographic properties. (Please see the part on the "Description and Analysis of the Major Properties of the System, pp. 82-96, particularly Table 13 on p. 85.)

According to Mr. Zerbe, the epic tale of KEBRA NAGAST (THE GLORY OF KINGS) "was written in the time of Amda-Tsion [1312- 1342A.D.] in the 14th century." King Amde-Tsion was not the "restorer' of the Solomonic line of rule. Saint Takla Haymanot in the reign of Yekuno Amlak (1268-1283) is recognized in Ethiopian history with gratitude and reverence as the "restorer of the Solomonic line of rule," with its capital moving out of Aksum to Shoa, in the central part of present day Ethiopia.

It is important to note here that Ethiopians as sovereign and free people had cultural and economic relations with various peoples and states of the ancient as well as medieval world, including the Israelites, Romans, Syrians, Egyptians, Nubians, and Yemenites. These relations partly involved significant cultural exchanges and adoptions. The mythology of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon should be seen in the context of cultural exchanges.

In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Zerbe wrote: "Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, GOJJAME, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin." (Emphasis added.) First of all, as it is stated at the outset, Ethiopic refers to the Ge'ez writing system. The book is not about Fidel or the Amharic writing system. Fidel and Amharic language are now widely used by choice among the peoples of southern Ethiopia, whose indigenous languages include "Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic groupings!!"

The Oromos have opted to use Latin script for Orominya and the script is widely used in the Oromo region. As I stated in the book, the Oromo language could have found a sounder script in the Ethiopic system for the system has already addressed the question of explosive and implosive sounds that are found in most Ethiopian languages, including Orominya and Amarinya (pp.94-96).

As to the Gojjames, I am not sure if Mr. Zerbe has the information right. Gojjam is one of the most important centers of Ge'ez and Amharic literary traditions and scholarship. Gojjam is also home to the Agaus, one of the most ancient peoples of Ethiopia. The Agau language is believed to be older than Ge'ez and yet it contributed quite significantly to the development of both Ge'ez and Amharic languages. A quick glance of Table 21 (Major Centers of Quine [Poetry]) would have prevented the hasty and wrongful generalization.

To conclude: The Ethiopic writing system's elaborate and complex knowledge properties, such as philosophy, linguistics, and aesthetics, which are indigenous only in Ethiopia, and the arduous processes associated with the creation and perfection of a writing system, make the external hypothesis very difficult to accept. Moreover, the system is truly self-sustaining and autonomous production. All the components of the knowledge were produced within the country -from goat skins to inks to ideas. Finally, Ethiopic is of African origin.

Professor Ayele Bekerie is in the African Studies Program at Cornell University


http://www.ccsu.edu/Afstudy/upd6-1.html


Salaam

P.S.- I liked the pics.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Israel

quote:

---

2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why? Is there something wrong with that possibility? Remember that Sabeans were also from the lineage of Kush, so indeed the influence might have come from the horn of Africa.

---

quote:

---

Concerning my use of terminologies, well, it is what it is. The fact that linguists from the past and present use Biblical terminology to describe all of these various languages is sufficient enough to prove that usage of the term "Ham" or "Kush" isn't out of place.......Again, I am not saying that the primary sources(Kibra Negast and others) are evidence concerning the origin of the language, but I am saying that you have to take into account the fact that the ancient scholars of the language proclaimed that Geez came from "Ham". Yom, my friend, you cannot tell me that that isn't significant on some type of level. I could seriously write a book concerning its importance........

---

quote:

---

Concerning Fattovich,
I hope he is right. If there is more detail to his discovery, that would smash a serious hole into the "Sebean theory". Too bad he didn't provide more detail. Again, hopefully in the future more things will be unveiled and revealed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Supercar,

Two questions for you. 1) Have you acutually read Ayele Bekerie? I ask cause you are quoting a guy(I think it was Daniels) who critiqued Bekerie's book. Now I am not saying that you yourself agree with P.T.Daniels, I am just saying that perhaps you should first read what Bekerie wrote instead of reading someone who critiqued him. THat is purely second hand information. And I am more than sure that Bekerie has his own rebuttal for Mr. Daniels.....

---

The question should rather be, whether you have objective linguistic rebuttals to Mr. Daniels' assessments. I think it's safe to say that, you don't.

quote:

---

Isreal:

2) If it is indeed true that the earliest inscription for Sabean was found in Ethiopia, then why isn't it possible for the Ethiopians to have invented the Sabean script? Tell me, why is that impossible? Why?

---

quote:

---

Isreal:

Concerning Bekerie, well Yom, you and Supercar need to acutually go to the local library and read the book! That is my opinion. I haven't read the whole entire book in terms of every word, but I flipped through it beginning to end, and I can truly say that I grasp alot more of it than either one of you guys.

---

I suggest that before you recommend anything to others, you ought to first practice as you preach.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^ LOL

Super is right, Israel. Stop grasping in the dark and replacing FACTS with wishful thinking.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Supercar,

I must say that I once WAS almost impressed by your knowledge. Now I see that you can be silly for no reason at all. All I am saying is that if you are going to use authoritatively the words of Mr. Daniels concerning the work of Bekerie, perhaps you should acutually READ Bekerie's work. Isn't that logical? Isn't that just simply "Basic science/schlarship"? Since your such the big "scholar", perhaps you should read the book to expand your knowledge base and have a TRUE basis upon which to attack Bekerie's credibility, i.e. you ought to use PRIMARY RESOURCES instead of SECONDARY sources. Again, this is what is taught in undergraduate studies.......you did go to school, right??????

Also, concerning my reading of the book, no, I didn't read every single page, but I read MOST OF IT! So please don't be a fool.... Your are rejecting what Bekerie thesis on account of what you have learned through Daniel's critique, and you haven't read what he had to say himself. As you probably know, Daniels is biased. He is so biased I personally am disgusted by it. So how the hell are you supposed to have an even handed understanding of Bekerie when the SECONDARY SOURCE(already illegitimate cause it isn't the primary source) is full of bias?.

And in case you can't get a hold of his book at this moment, above(my previous post) I provided you with a link of a critique of his book, and HIS REBUTTAL. Do yourself a favor and don't mention Daniels or Bekerie again in this instance unless you have gone to the library and read Bekerie's book.


Concerning the Sabean inscriptions, see your blinding yourself to the possibilites. Again, if the EARLIEST Sabean script is found in Ethiopia, why couldn't Ethiopians be the inventers of the script? And if they were the inventors, maybe scholars today ought to CHANGE the name of the script(maybe perhaps Ethiopic-Sabean........lol)! See, you are so caught up on "South Arabian" when that very language could be Ethiopian in origin. See, this in my opinion may have less to do with linguistics and more to do with PERCEPTION!

Anyway, I am done. Let's see if you reply with substance this time rather than foolishness. If again you REACT foolishly(cause that is what you did), I don't got time for it. Salaam
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:

Supercar,

I must say that I once WAS almost impressed by your knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Now I see that you can be silly for no reason at all.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

All I am saying is that if you are going to use authoritatively the words of Mr. Daniels concerning the work of Bekerie, perhaps you should acutually READ Bekerie's work. Isn't that logical? Isn't that just simply "Basic science/schlarship"?

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Since your such the big "scholar", perhaps you should read the book to expand your knowledge base and have a TRUE basis upon which to attack Bekerie's credibility, i.e. you ought to use PRIMARY RESOURCES instead of SECONDARY sources. Again, this is what is taught in undergraduate studies.......you did go to school, right??????

---

quote:

---

Israel:

...And in case you can't get a hold of his book at this moment, above(my previous post) I provided you with a link of a critique of his book, and HIS REBUTTAL.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Anyway, I am done. Let's see if you reply with substance this time rather than foolishness. If again you REACT foolishly(cause that is what you did), I don't got time for it. Salaam

---

I am glad to hear that you are done with accomplishing essentially nothing of value. And no, I don't intend to act "foolishly"; we've seen enough foolishness from you already.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Yeah whatever Supercar.

You THINK yourself such an expert on South Arabian linguistics that you can't read English........lol


If you go back and LOOK at my previous posts, you will find the rebuttal.......

It is funny how you accuse me for not reading every little detail of ya'lls postings, yet the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book I have provided and yet you can't find it. Hence, you haven't taken the time to read all of my postings either........

FYI, I was not involved heavily in you and Yom's debate. I asked you a few simple questions that was parallel to your debate, but nonetheless different from your debate. So no, I didn't read all your stuff. Is that something you want to make fun of? If it sounds funny to you, just remember that English language readers can read the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book if they would only look through my previous posts......... .

Concerning my questions to you about the Sabeans: that is right. You didn't answer my question cause you couldn't! The fact is that if the Sabean inscription in Ethiopia is indeed the oldest on record, then it is entirely POSSIBLE that Ethiopia was the originator of the Sabean script................this mystery will be unveiled in due time I'm sure.........

Also, I noticed that besides your slick remarks, you really didn't challenge my point about PRIMARY SOURCES. Thats right homeboy, read the primary sources. MY point is that you ought to try to see both sides of the issue. Daniels is VERY biased, therefore, since your only knowledge of Bekerie's work is from a biased book review, you have a slanted view of Bekerie.

Really, I am only doing what an open-minded, probing person is supposed to do: interrogate information. You are quoting Daniel's review about Bekerie, so the logical question to ask is: HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?! Like I said, this is stuff you ought to have learned in undergrad(assuming that you went to college......... ).


Also, you never commented on my post concerning the sons of Kush...........Why didn't you comment on it? Lets see if you go back and look, and then speak your opinion concerning the Biblical tradition concerning the Kushite influence in ancient Arabia.......

So anyway Supercar,

This little spat came about because I asked you a question. Instead of just saying, "No Israel, I didn't read the book", you tried to challenge my knowledge of linguistics. The fact is that I know some Hebrew and Arabic, so be careful.........but see you didn't answer my question, you tried to throw some B.S. in my face. That is how this little spat came about. Next time, humble yourself. I didn't throw no slick remarks at you, but you threw them at me! Go back and read my "question-post". The only challenge, perhaps, was when I asked you about the possibility of an Ethiopian origin of the Sabean language. And that challenge wasn't beyond just my earnest passion for truth. So because I interrogated you and challenged you, you gave snide remarks. Well, like I said, you lost alot of cool points. I can see that you dislike being challenged.

Anyway, I think I have established my case.....Salaam
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Yeah whatever Supercar.

You THINK yourself such an expert on South Arabian linguistics that you can't read English........lol

---

Whatever happened to your earlier claim that you won't continue to make a fool of yourself?

quote:

---

Israel:

If you go back and LOOK at my previous posts, you will find the rebuttal.......

It is funny how you accuse me for not reading every little detail of ya'lls postings, yet the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book I have provided and yet you can't find it. Hence, you haven't taken the time to read all of my postings either........

---

quote:

---

Israel:

FYI, I was not involved heavily in you and Yom's debate.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

I asked you a few simple questions that was parallel to your debate, but nonetheless different from your debate.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

So no, I didn't read all your stuff. Is that something you want to make fun of? If it sounds funny to you, just remember that English language readers can read the critique and rebuttal of Bekerie's book if they would only look through my previous posts.........

---

I don't need to make fun of you; you are doing that to yourself just fine. "English language" readers are still waiting for you to deliver what was asked of you. Why bother; you won't allow us to interrupt you in waisting folks' time.

quote:

---

Israel:

Concerning my questions to you about the Sabeans: that is right. You didn't answer my question cause you couldn't!

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Also, I noticed that besides your slick remarks, you really didn't challenge my point about PRIMARY SOURCES.

---

There is nothing therein [i.e. of coherent thought] to challenge. On the other hand, you are still challenged to do what's been asked of you.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Supercar,

you are silly for real. Waste of time. Again, the only thing I asked you is "HAVE YOU READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? It really is a simple question. I didn't state anything concerning Daniels. At best, I implied that he was biased. But that only came about because you made an issue about Daniels. My original question had nothing to do with Daniels! So again, the question that you have not answered still stands, "HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?"

Beyond that, you are a waste. Again, why haven't you commented on the Biblical tradition of the sons of Kush? See, you hate to be challenged. You don't respond to things that you don't have knowledge of(which perhaps is good for you....... ).

Anyway, question still stands. If you refuse to give a yes or no to this question, everything else you say is nothing but clanging gongs(meaning empty sounds).
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
btw,

It is funny how you try to justify yourself. I notice that while you rambled about nonsense, you didn't respond to my claim that the rebuttal is in the posting above........

See, you got issues of pride. The nonsense you spit about not seeing the rebuttal, well I responded to that saying that you haven't acutually LOOKED for the rebuttal. Then, you AVOID the mistake that you made by making an issue about other stuff. Your flaws are truly opened. Could name three or four if I wanted to. But whatever man. Please Supercar, by all means, carry on......... . Salaam
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Supercar,

you are silly for real.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Israel:
Again, the only thing I asked you is "HAVE YOU READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? It really is a simple question.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

I didn't state anything concerning Daniels.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

At best, I implied that he was biased.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

But that only came about because you made an issue about Daniels. My original question had nothing to do with Daniels! So again, the question that you have not answered still stands, "HAVE YOU ACUTUALLY READ BEKERIE'S BOOK?"

---

quote:

---

Isreal:

Beyond that, you are a waste.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Again, why haven't you commented on the Biblical tradition of the sons of Kush? See, you hate to be challenged. You don't respond to things that you don't have knowledge of(which perhaps is good for you...

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Anyway, question still stands. If you refuse to give a yes or no to this question, everything else you say is nothing but clanging gongs(meaning empty sounds).

---

It is not a matter of my refusing to answer your weak question, but a matter of you understanding the response to it,

So long.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Israel, let me give you an example of how Ayele Bekerie often doesn't know what he's talking about. He correctly connects Ge'ez ሀ (pre-vocalization "h," modern "ha") to ESA , in turn correctly connecting it to the Egyptian heiroglyph .

He makes the amateurish mistake, however, of connecting this Egyptian letter form with an ox's head to show what he believes to be a connection between "hoy" (Ge'ez name for ሀ) amd the horns of long-horned cattle. The truth of the matter is, however, that an Ox's head is the form for Ge'ez አ ("Alf") and Latin "A."
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Super,

Just to let you know, I didn't even waste my time reading your response. Why should I? Are you saying anything of substance? Nope. But if you feel the need to vent, then by all means carry on.........
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Well Yom,

To be honest, I am new to this field of study(which I do on my own during the present). Like I said, when I first came on here I was impressed by how much knowledge ya'll cats have. Now, concerning Bekerie's thought, well, ........I guess that makes sense. I remember studying the ancient Hebrew, and we briefly ckecked out how the Alif was originally an Ox's head.......so since Geez is Semitic, I guess you have a point..............

Further study is required. If that premise is so elementary, why would Bekerie say that? I mean, IF(notice I said "If") this conception concerning the Ox head is set in stone, then why would Bekerie do that? Man, I wish I had the book in front of me! Assuming that he could be wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT(his thesis could still be correct, he could just be wrong on this point), then please Yom tell me why he tried to make this point. See, I'm bout the truth! Now, if something ain't true, it ain't true. But if it is true, Imma smash and tear down the lies that are being perpetrated! Anyway, do you think that it is Bekerie's zeal that PERHAPS made him wrong on this point?
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Also,

check out the critique of his work and Bekerie rebuttal. I have it in one of the posts above. Check it out and tell me what you think. Salaam
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^LOL Supercar is not venting so much as mocking you, Israel.

You still have failed to produce anything to refute what he has said, and you obviously don't comprehend what his answers were either.

Just to help you out: You admitted that you haven't read Bekerie's book in it's entirety, so how are you even able to argue using that book as a source.

We are waiting for valid answers.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
[QB] Well Yom,

To be honest, I am new to this field of study(which I do on my own during the present). Like I said, when I first came on here I was impressed by how much knowledge ya'll cats have. Now, concerning Bekerie's thought, well, ........I guess that makes sense. I remember studying the ancient Hebrew, and we briefly ckecked out how the Alif was originally an Ox's head.......so since Geez is Semitic, I guess you have a point..............

---

quote:

---

Further study is required. If that premise is so elementary, why would Bekerie say that? I mean, IF(notice I said "If") this conception concerning the Ox head is set in stone, then why would Bekerie do that? Man, I wish I had the book in front of me! Assuming that he could be wrong on THIS PARTICULAR POINT(his thesis could still be correct, he could just be wrong on this point), then please Yom tell me why he tried to make this point. See, I'm bout the truth! Now, if something ain't true, it ain't true. But if it is true, Imma smash and tear down the lies that are being perpetrated! Anyway, do you think that it is Bekerie's zeal that PERHAPS made him wrong on this point?

---

I'm pretty certain he's wrong on this point. The connection between the oxhead glyph and Latin "A" (as well as Ge'ez "Alf") is clear and its evolution evident. While the connection of Ge'ez "h" with Egyptian probably isn't as certain, it's relatively secure, and more clear through ESA "h."

Ayele (Bekerie is his father's name) unsuccessfully tries to connect Egyptian to an earlier ox-head, which is where he makes his mistake. He was trying to show the pictographic properties of the Ge'ez alphabet and prove the importance of cattle through it.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Jehuti,

who the hell is talking to you??????? But if you insist on being just as foolish as Supercar, then by all means, carry on......... .
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Jehuti,

who the hell is talking to you??????? But if you insist on being just as foolish as Supercar, then by all means, carry on.........

---

Djehuti is right on, you are a clown; you are here to presumably entertain us, not to be taken seriously. But be wary, even clown antics start to get old at some point.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Whatever,

ya'll fools, i.e. Super anc Jehuti, since foolishness is your modus operandi, then by all means, carry on...... .
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Whatever,

ya'll fools, i.e. Super anc Jehuti, since foolishness is your modus operandi, then by all means, carry on...... .

---

You have done nothing here, short of simply barking at folks like an ire infant, as an avenue to distract from your obvious intellectual shortcomings.

You are now officially a troll. Congratulations.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Why am I trying to argue with guys who don't want to reason????????????? I don't know, but here is one last try......


Again Super, this spat started when I asked you a simple and direct question: HAVE YOU EVER READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? That was the question. What does my opinion about Daniel's matter in regards to this question? I simply asked if you ever read Bekerie's book. You never answered that question. Assuming that you haven't, all I was saying is that you ought to read Bekerie.........


Now, now: was that so hard? Again, for the upteenth time, I have provided a critique of Bekerie and his rebuttal: why don't you take some time and read it. I am speaking to Supercar, but I am also responding to the person that had nothing at all to do with this conversation who is adding his "two cents that equal nothing"(like that, two cents that equal nothing....i.e Jehuti).

Yeah Jehuti, I gave you a jab about your "2 cents equalling nothing".......lol. And you are free to throw back a slick comment at me. Honestly, it is fun. I can verbally jab at whoever all day. But that is not what I am about. I am here to learn. So, take some time, and go back through my posts on this thread, and you will see the rebuttal concerning Bekerie's book. Go and check it out and "add to your minus two cent subtraction" Jehuti..........lol.

Again, I am here to learn. Super, you responded with pride and arrogance at my question. Question people is what I do. The greatest philosophers questioned EVERYTHING! So I questioned your sources. Yet you responded with arrogance. I wasn't saying you ain't sharp, cause you are on your knowledge with some of this stuff. But I questioned you, and you responded in a way that made me respond the same way. So Super, I am willing to be cool and drop this, not cause I can't stand my ground, cause I can, most definitely. I can go toe to toe in verbal sparring, but I am not here for that. So I'll tell you what: go and read the rebuttal, and tell me what you think Super, cause that is all I wanted to know. Just know for time to time I may challenge your opinion. Instead of taking it somewhat personal, or with arrogance, feel where I am coming from.........

You are free to explain your side of the story Super...........Let me just say that I just came from a forum that was chaotic because people couldn't get along, so I am humbling myself for the sake of peace. I like the fact that this forum has more order and hardly no chaos(compared to other forums anyway). So this is my invitation to a truce. I hope you take it, for all of our sakes.......Salaam
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Why am I trying to argue with guys who don't want to reason????????????? I don't know, but here is one last try......

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Again Super, this spat started when I asked you a simple and direct question: HAVE YOU EVER READ BEKERIE'S BOOK? That was the question.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

What does my opinion about Daniel's matter in regards to this question? I simply asked if you ever read Bekerie's book. You never answered that question. Assuming that you haven't, all I was saying is that you ought to read Bekerie.........

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Now, now: was that so hard? Again, for the upteenth time, I have provided a critique of Bekerie and his rebuttal: why don't you take some time and read it.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

And you are free to throw back a slick comment at me. Honestly, it is fun.

---

quote:

---

Israel:
I can verbally jab at whoever all day. But that is not what I am about.

---

quote:

---

Israel:
I am here to learn.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

So, take some time, and go back through my posts on this thread, and you will see the rebuttal concerning Bekerie's book.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Again, I am here to learn. Super, you responded with pride and arrogance at my question. Question people is what I do.

---

Now what you must do, is get into the habit of providing answers.

quote:

---

Israel:

The greatest philosophers questioned EVERYTHING! So I questioned your sources.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Yet you responded with arrogance. I wasn't saying you ain't sharp, cause you are on your knowledge with some of this stuff. But I questioned you, and you responded in a way that made me respond the same way.

---

Arrogance begets arrogance; I hope you know what I mean.

quote:

---

Israel:

So Super, I am willing to be cool and drop this, not cause I can't stand my ground, cause I can, most definitely. I can go toe to toe in verbal sparring, but I am not here for that.

---

quote:

---

Israel:
So I'll tell you what: go and read the rebuttal, and tell me what you think Super, cause that is all I wanted to know.

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Just know for time to time I may challenge your opinion. Instead of taking it somewhat personal, or with arrogance, feel where I am coming from.........

---

Just to not hurt your feelings any more than it already is, would it help you, if I said you "challenged" me, in any meaningful way?

quote:

---

Israel:

You are free to explain your side of the story Super...........

---

quote:

---

Israel:

Let me just say that I just came from a forum that was chaotic because people couldn't get along, so I am humbling myself for the sake of peace. I like the fact that this forum has more order and hardly no chaos(compared to other forums anyway).

---

quote:

---

Israel:
So this is my invitation to a truce. I hope you take it, for all of our sakes.......Salaam

---

I agree, your conduct will be the judge of how you'll be treated from here out. It's all on you; if it is "peace" you want, then enforce it, don't discourge it.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
You are accusing me of being a troll: whatever man. My whole point is that I personally feel that Daniels is biased. I read much of Bekerie, and THE WAY IN WHICH DANIELS spoke concerning Bekerie's book(cause I also read his Daniel's critique), as though he had NO RESPECT FOR BEKERIE, is what makes me say he is biased.

Anyway Super,

Your a waste man. Honesly, you truly have more in common with trolls than I ever would. Trolls are the type of people that post pages and pages of comments, scrutinizing every single comment that people make. That is exactly what you do. So to me, you truly have troll characteristics............ .


Like I said, I TRIED to reason with you, but whatever. You said, "your conduct will be the judge of how you'll be treated from here out. It's all on you".

You ever heard of the saying, "It takes two to tangle"? You need to realize that just as I need to make a change, so do you. If you don't realize that, then hey, forget the peace. I really don't care. Like I said, if you want peace, we can have it. But if you want to act foolish, then by all means, carry on....... .

See, trolls are people who don't like to compromise. That sir is yourself. I tried to compromise, and you give snide remarks. So fine, carry on with your foolishness. Just stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours.


You said, "Israel:

You are free to explain your side of the story Super...........

You better believe it; I don't ask anyone for my freedom; it is already mine to exploit.


So you "exploit" your freedom? Whatever Super. By my statment I was saying that you can express yourself and I would respect it. But you haven't, you just spew venom. Who the heck would say, "I exploit my freedom"? Yes, everyone takes "advantage(i.e. exploits)" of their freedom, but the WAY(GET IT: THE WAY!) in which you said it is venomous. Not worth my time.

So anyway, I'm done. You win troll.....opps I mean Super.......... . Anyway, stay out of my way, and I'll stay outta yours. Say your last piece cause I won't respond, much less read it. If it was worth reading, I would. But since your snide comments are worthless, then they are not worth respecting in terms of reading.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Yom, Ausar, and the others,

I am sorry this happened. I didn't know that people could be so sensitive for me asking a question.


I already stated that I am new to this field of study. If Super or anybody want to debate about the exegesis of Koine Greek writings, all types of religious histories, etc., that stuff is my area. This field of Ethiopian studies is important becaue in studying Christianity, it is often taught from the Western point of view. Trust me, I know. Buy Justo Gonzalez's book called, "The History of Christinity". It is a good book, but it doesn't speak on the Christianity much about non-Western Christianity, esecially not Ethiopian. Hence, I have decided on my own to study this subject.

Hence, I am not claiming to be an expert. However, it is obvious that Bekerie's book was gonna create controversy, even if he was 100% correct in his thesis. My thing is that I start with the Afrocentric books cause I dont' want these Eurocentric books to contaminate my mind concerning the truth. I am not sayihg Afrocentric stuff is the whole truth, but it certainly exposes the biases among prejudiced and/or biased Eurocentric scholars. Concerning the depths of the Geez or Sabean, I don't know those languages......YET! Trust me, I will! Arabic and Hebrew, which I have already studied, are good introductions to these other languages.

Based on the little bit I studied, I just wanted to challenge Super to acutually read Bekerie's book SINCE HE READ DANIEL'S critique of Bekerie. Tell me, what is wrong with that? Bekerie had alot in his book that was valid(in my opinion). All I was saying is that Super shouldn't promote to authoratative status someone's critique of another's book. That was ALL I was trying to say. Salaam
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
You are accusing me of being a troll...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Jehuti,

who the hell is talking to you??????? But if you insist on being just as foolish as Supercar, then by all means, carry on......... .

---

LMAO Foolish is as foolish does and that's YOU, not me.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Can we please return to the original purpose of the thread instead of bickering and fighting over nothing?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^Sure thing, since NOTHING was exactly what Israel had in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:
Can we please return to the original purpose of the thread instead of bickering and fighting over nothing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Jehuti,

who the hell is talking to you??????? But if you insist on being just as foolish as Supercar, then by all means, carry on......... .

---

LMAO Foolish is as foolish does and that's YOU, not me.

---

Still being foolish Jehuti? Oh well, by all means, please carry on........ .
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Again, the only one being foolish is YOU.

We still wait for you to validate your claims about a book you haven't even read entirely, and answer Supercar's questions.

I doubt we'd see any of that soon, but if you want to continue your ad hominem attacks on me, if that makes you feel better then so be it.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 



I apologize to the rest of the forum about this. This ain't my style. So I'll be cool with everybody else. Hopefully, in the future, me and these guys here(i.e. Super and Jehuti) will get along. Salaam
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
This is for those who seek to understand a critique of Bekerie's book, and his REBUTTAL to the argument. I personally think that the critique was excellent. Zerbe makes it clear that Bekerie doesn't necessarily have direct proof concerning the connection between AE and Ethiopia. Nonetheless, in my opinion, Bekerie's suggestion of a connection is significant. Also significant is that David Zerbe mentioned that the South Arabian "genesis" of Ethiopia is an HYPOTHESIS! Check it out.....


Ayele Bekerie, Ethiopic, An African Writing System

(Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, 1997. Pp. 176, $18.95 paperback)

Reviewed by David S. Zerbe

As the title of the book suggests, this study examines the origins and history of the system of writing called Ethiopic, from which the first language in Ethiopia formed was Ge'ez , today the liturgical writing system of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. This fact, however, is never articulated in the text. Nor is there a discussion as to how other offshoots of the Ethiopic system of writing were established, such as Tigre, Tittering, or Amharic, and these are but two of the deficiencies in this text. The introduction establishes the conceptual framework of the study.

The conceptual framework is based on "locational theory." Ayele Bekerie postulates that the roots of the writing system of Ethiopic, as a system of knowledge, is an endogenous creation. What is theorized by Bekerie is that there is an endogenous flavor regarding causality between the Ethiopic writing system and Ethiopian civilization itself, i.e. that both are indigenous to Africa, and that the Ethiopic writing system is an effect of the establishment of an indigenous Ethiopian civilization, indigenous to Africa and not from South Arabia. Ayele Bekerie in fact refutes the South Arabia historiographic paradigm, which hypothesizes that the roots of Ethiopic as a writing system are contained in the Sabaean civilization's writing system, which emanated in South Arabia from the area of what today comprises the state of Yemen, and according to some historians was transplanted through commercial activity across the Red Sea to what is today the Eritrean coast and Ethiopian hiqhlands.

From this theoretical model, Ayele Bekerie commences with the first of a four chapter text. He attempts to examine Ethiopian historiography in the context of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Bekerie argues that the genesis of Ethiopian civilization itself is not of Semitic origin, that this is in fact a synthesis of 19th century Eurocentric historiography, which still remains in place today. The argument continues that Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa.

Besides secondary source information which shows commercial relations to have existed between Egypt and the "land of Punt" from 2743 BCE, there is no primary-source data, no linkage to the claim of Puntites establishing themselves in what is today Ethiopia, and no mention that Puntite and Sabaean civilizations could have coexisted in the highlands of what is today Ethiopia. Further, he does not establish that the Puntite peoples are the original inhabitants of Ethiopia and, if assumed the Puntites are the original inhabitants of the Ethiopian highlands, Bekerie does not effectively argue that Ethiopic as a writing system had its origins with the Puntites. It is commonly held to be the case in the historiography of the Horn of Africa that the Puntites today are the ancestors of peoples from the Isaak clan in what is now the de facto state of Somaliland.

Regarding Egypt, Bekerie also attempts to link the writing systems of Ethiopic and ancient Egypt, but cannot explain why there is a system of hieroglyphics in Egypt and not in Ethiopia, and consequently he fails to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and ancient Egyptian writing systems. There is only cursory mention of the relationship between Coptic and Ge'ez scriptures. Even without any evidence or with scant evidence, Ayele Bekerie is bent on arguing that Ethiopic is not of Semitic origin, but of African origin, but does come to the conclusion in the second chapter that the origins of Ethiopic and of Ethiopian civilization itself are to date still indeterminable.

Ayele Bekerie moves forward and discusses in some detail the principles of Ethiopic as a writing system. He establishes this discussion on the premise that the writing system of Ethiopic is actually a philosophy, because the ideographical iconography of the Ethiopic alphabet is conducive in generating knowledge, such as beliefs and concepts. Though he does not address the relationship between linguistics and the philosophical knowledge directly, he establishes that The Ethiopic Book of Henok, written in the BC era in Ge'ez, is not only a religious text but a philosophical one as well.

Throughout chapters three and four, Ayele Bekerie demonstrates the significance of Ethiopic as a writing system through Abyssinian literature, such as the Book of Enoch, and the legendary epic tale Kebra Nagast. This book was written in the time of Amda-Tsion in the 14th century, but this pertinent information is not included in the text. This tale of Solomon and Sheba helped lead to the consolidation of the Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia until 1974 by claiming that Menelik I was the son of the two, thereby directly relating Ethiopia to King Solomon. The literary and historiographic magnitude of this on the system of personal rule in Ethiopia is neglected. It does show, however, that the Ethiopic writing system in the form of Ge'ez has produced a number of culturally significant works.

Ayele Bekerie concludes the text with the convincing argument that Ethiopic, whether the roots are indigenous to the Puntites and spread to the Ethiopian highlands, or whether Ethiopic as a writing system originated from South Arabia in the BC era and became extinct there, is an African writing system by virtue of the fact that Ge'ez, Amharic, Tigrinya, and Tigre directly correlate with the Ethiopic writing system. To end the tome, the author poses questions for his next work, many of which are not addressed here, such as the relationship between a writing system and a philosophical system of knowledge, why and how 19th century archaeologists discovered evidence linking Ethiopic to Semitic origins in South Arabia, or the process of extinction and resurrection of writing systems.

The text entitled Ethiopic decisively demonstrates that there is a great literary tradition in Ethiopia, and as such the third and fourth chapters carry the strongest arguments of the study. Paradoxically perhaps, the greatest strength of Ayele Bekerie's argument is also its greatest weakness, other than clinging to the notion that Ethiopic is not Semitic in origin. Though thoroughly demonstrating that through Ethiopic there has been a rich cultural, literary, and religious tradition among the languages associated with Ge'ez, such as Tigre, Tigrinya, and Amharic, this is only true among the Christian highlanders of Tigrinyan, Tigrean, and Amhara ethnicities.

Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, Gojjame, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin. They are of Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic origin, respectively. As such, they do not conform to this linguistic and cultural model, for the aforementioned ethnic groups combined comprise over 50% of present-day Ethiopia's population. As such, the Ethiopic writing system, a system imposed on the predominantly Muslim Somali and Oromo peoples through the system of imperialist Amhara personal rule from the 19th century, has ended with the EPRDF government in Ethiopia, from 1991 to the present. Ethiopic, even if not Semitic in origin, certainly is not of Cushitic, Omotic, or Nilo-Saharan origin.

Prof. David Zerbe is a graduate of Central Connecticut State University and the American University at Cairo.

Return to Table of Contents


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rejoinder

From: Ayele Bekerie, Cornell University

Thank you for inviting me to send you a rejoinder to the review of my book by David S. Zerbe.

First of all, I commend Mr. Zerbe for taking his time to review the book. The review seems to concentrate on paradigmatic issues that are addressed from the perspective of the old school. According to this school, the origin of the Ethiopian civilization, its writing system, its classical language are presumed to have external origin. True to the old school, the reviewer continued to divide the Ethiopian people by identifying the Ethiopic writing system with the "Semitic" people of the northern part of Ethiopia, thereby continuing to pursue a racist divisive theory, between the so-called Semitic and Hamitic peoples of the Horn of Africa.

Contrary to the claim that "imperial Amhara's imposition" of their language and FIDEL writing system (a modified and expanded Ethiopic writing system developed for Amharic) on non-Amharas, the people of the south, just to cite one example, chose Amharic after 1991, as their official language together with FIDEL. In other words, Amharic is no longer the imperial language; it is a language the majority of the Ethiopian people opted to have as their official language. Besides the diverse ethnolinguistic groups in Ethiopia, they do have constitutional rights to use their languages as major modes of communication and commerce in their geo-cultural regions.

It seems to me that apart from presenting a general description of the format of the text as well as some critical and valuable comments, the review does not thoroughly interrogate the "history and principles" of the Ethiopic writing system, which is the central defining theme of the book. This point became apparent to me when Mr. Zerbe referred to the Ethiopic writing system as an "alphabet." The Ethiopic is not an alphabet; it is a syllabic writing system. As a matter of fact, I suggested a term "syllography" in order to reflect the syllabic feature of the system. I wonder how such a critical distinction ended up being overlooked by the reviewer.

In Chapter 1 on "The Arabian Peninsula in Ethiopian Historiography," I clearly stated my positions:

"The most critical question that must be raised is: What is the logic of beginning a history of a people from a source other than their own? Are Ethiopians incapable of making their own history? A history of a people that begins with an external source is quite problematic. It would not be the history of the Ethiopian people, but the history of South Arabians in Ethiopia. A history of a people cannot begin from outside or by outsiders. History records the material and spiritual cultures of all peoples. All people make history. All people are of history." (p.38)

This is the principle that I followed throughout the text. The purpose of my study was to investigate the historical data regarding the Ethiopic writing system, primarily from within and to present an interpretation of the history, fully cognizant of the languages, the cultures, and experiences of the people of Ethiopia.

In one of his critical comments, Mr. Zerbe wrote: ". . . Ethiopian civilization is a result of the migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt southward, and is therefore indigenous to Africa." The "migration of the Puntite peoples of Upper Egypt" was not my idea. I see migration, in the African context, with its varying and vast ecological zones as multidirectional and the initial migration was probably from the south to Upper and Lower Egypt.

Punt is a term the Ancient Egyptians reportedly used for the people of the south. The coastal region of northeast Africa, roughly between today's Red Sea port of Suwakin in the north, and the Cape of Guardafui in the southeast, was known to the ancient Egyptians as the land of the Punt, the land of spices, incense, and deities. "The Puntites were regarded by the Egyptians as having the same origin as the Egyptian themselves. The physical characteristics of the Punts from the wall-picture of Deir el-Bahri, based on studies made, differ little from the Egyptians' physical attributes. Zayed (1990) attempted to limit the geographical locale of Punts to Somaliland; he cited the similarity of the term BARCHI or headdress both in Somali and ancient Egyptian language. Zayed perhaps did not know that round seats with three legs are also called BARCHUMA in the Amharic and Oromo languages of Ethiopia." (p. 53)

At least from the time of the V Dynasty, there was a reference to the Land of the Punt. "In the XVIII Dynasty, Pharaoh Hatshepsut sent Nehasi to Punt with five ships. He was accepted by the Punt king Perehu. All Godly fragrant woods of God's land was presented by the Queen to Amon." (p.53) The Godly fragrant woods, such as incense woods are found on the highlands of Ethiopia. In other words, the land of Punt cannot be restricted to the "Isaak clan" in Somaliland.

Regarding the question of pictographic writing systems, Mr. Zerbe was quick to point out my "failure to establish a solid link between the Ethiopic and Ancient Egyptian writing systems." While it is true that comparable pictographic writing system to Egyptian hieroglyphics are not yet found in Ethiopia, the Ethiopic writing system definitely displays pictographic and ideographic properties. (Please see the part on the "Description and Analysis of the Major Properties of the System, pp. 82-96, particularly Table 13 on p. 85.)

According to Mr. Zerbe, the epic tale of KEBRA NAGAST (THE GLORY OF KINGS) "was written in the time of Amda-Tsion [1312- 1342A.D.] in the 14th century." King Amde-Tsion was not the "restorer' of the Solomonic line of rule. Saint Takla Haymanot in the reign of Yekuno Amlak (1268-1283) is recognized in Ethiopian history with gratitude and reverence as the "restorer of the Solomonic line of rule," with its capital moving out of Aksum to Shoa, in the central part of present day Ethiopia.

It is important to note here that Ethiopians as sovereign and free people had cultural and economic relations with various peoples and states of the ancient as well as medieval world, including the Israelites, Romans, Syrians, Egyptians, Nubians, and Yemenites. These relations partly involved significant cultural exchanges and adoptions. The mythology of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon should be seen in the context of cultural exchanges.

In his concluding paragraph, Mr. Zerbe wrote: "Implicit in Ayele Bekerie's study of Ethiopic is the historiographic misconception that the Ethiopic writing system itself is representative of all Ethiopians, which is a fundamental weakness in the argument, for the Oromo, Somali, Afar, GOJJAME, and even the Maji linguistics are not of Ethiopic origin." (Emphasis added.) First of all, as it is stated at the outset, Ethiopic refers to the Ge'ez writing system. The book is not about Fidel or the Amharic writing system. Fidel and Amharic language are now widely used by choice among the peoples of southern Ethiopia, whose indigenous languages include "Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, and Omotic linguistic groupings!!"

The Oromos have opted to use Latin script for Orominya and the script is widely used in the Oromo region. As I stated in the book, the Oromo language could have found a sounder script in the Ethiopic system for the system has already addressed the question of explosive and implosive sounds that are found in most Ethiopian languages, including Orominya and Amarinya (pp.94-96).

As to the Gojjames, I am not sure if Mr. Zerbe has the information right. Gojjam is one of the most important centers of Ge'ez and Amharic literary traditions and scholarship. Gojjam is also home to the Agaus, one of the most ancient peoples of Ethiopia. The Agau language is believed to be older than Ge'ez and yet it contributed quite significantly to the development of both Ge'ez and Amharic languages. A quick glance of Table 21 (Major Centers of Quine [Poetry]) would have prevented the hasty and wrongful generalization.

To conclude: The Ethiopic writing system's elaborate and complex knowledge properties, such as philosophy, linguistics, and aesthetics, which are indigenous only in Ethiopia, and the arduous processes associated with the creation and perfection of a writing system, make the external hypothesis very difficult to accept. Moreover, the system is truly self-sustaining and autonomous production. All the components of the knowledge were produced within the country -from goat skins to inks to ideas. Finally, Ethiopic is of African origin.

Professor Ayele Bekerie is in the African Studies Program at Cornell University


http://www.ccsu.edu/Afstudy/upd6-1.html
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Here's some new interesting information.

From here (PDF).

Some exceprts. First, Rodolfo Fattovich, who believes that D`mt was ruled by an Ethio-Sabaean mixed upper class ala the Swahili (which doesn't actually seem to be the case for the Swahili, see here (Nile Valley)).


FATTOVICH, Prof. Rodolfo

The Pre-Aksumite Period in Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea Reconsidered

The culture history of Tigray (northern Ethiopia) and Eritrea during the 1st millennium BC was characterized by a strong South Arabian (mainly Sabaean) influence, due to intense contacts between the opposite shores of the southern Red Sea. The result was the emergence of an early state modeled on the Sabaean one in the region. In this paper some new considerations about the dynamics of these contacts, the origins and development of the >Ethio-Sabaean= state, and the relationship of this state with the later Kingdom of Aksum (late 1st millennium BC-1st millennium AD) will be presented in the light of recent fieldwork in Yemen, Eritrea and Tigray.

At present, we can distinguish three phases of development of these contacts: 1) progressive inclusion of the Eritrea plateau in the South Arabian area of influence in the late 3rd-early 1st millennia BC; 2) rise of a pre-Aksumite state in Eritrea, and progressive inclusion of Tigray into this state in the mid-1st millennium BC; 3) collapse of the pre-Aksumite state and rise of the Kingdom of Aksum in Tigray in the late 1st millennium BC.


The emergence of the Afro-Arabian interchange circuit (2nd-early 1st millennia BC)


The northern Horn of Africa was included into a network of exchanges and contacts with Southern Arabia since the 3rd millennium BC. Potsherds similar to Bronze Age ones in South Arabia occur in assemblages of the Gash Group (ca 2700-1400 BC) in the Gash Delta (Kassala). In the mid-2nd millennium BC, a new pattern of interregional contacts and exchanges emerged along the coastal regions of the southern Red Sea, in Eritrea and Arabia (Tihama Cultural Complex). The main sites of this complex (Adulis in the Eritrean Sahel, Sihi in the Saudi Tihama, Wadi Urq= in the Yemeni Tihama, and Subr near Aden) share enough pottery features to be considered regional variants of one cultural complex. In the late 2nd-early 1st millennia BC the eastern plateau in central Eritrea was included in the area of influence of the Tihama complex, as some ceramics from the lower strata at Matara (Akkele Guzay) and Yeha (Tigray) are comparable to those from Subr. The range of contacts of the Ona Group A (late 2nd-early 1st millennia BC) in the Hamasien plateau (Eritrea) cannot be established on the available evidence. Similarities in pottery style may point to contacts with Nubia, eastern Sudan, and perhaps southern Arabia.


The >Ethio-Sabaean State= (ca. 700-400 BC)

Rock inscriptions at the edge of the plateau in Qohaito suggest that South Arabs (maybe traders) penetrated into the plateau beginning in the 9th century BC. The dynamics of this penetration are still unclear. Most likely, individuals or small groups settled on the plateau and mixed with the local people, originating an Afro-Arabian elite in conformity with the later Swahili model in East Africa. The Ona people of Hamasien and northern Akkele Guzzay may have had a relevant role in this process as the Ona pottery formed a consistent component of the pre-Aksumite ceramics. In the 7th century BC the Afro-Arabian complex society (-ties) in Eritrea were included in the area of influence of the Sabaean state, and a new state arose on the plateau. Sabaean cultural features were adopted by the local elite in conformity with the same model of cultural contact we can observe in the Nubian Kingdom of Kush. The present evidence points to an expansion of the so-called >Ethio-Sabaean= state along a straight and narrow transect from Qohaito in Eritrea to the Takkazze river in Tigray, and this expansion was probably marked by the foundation of ceremonial centers such as Kaskase and Yeha


The collapse of the >Ethio-Sabaean= state and the rise of Aksum

Archaeological and epigraphic evidence suggest that the >Ethio-Sabaean= state collapsed in Tigray in the 4th-3rd centuries BC, although most likely an Afro-Arabian urban (state?) society survived in the Akkele Guzzay. At this time, a new polity emerged at Aksum in central Tigray (Proto-Aksumite Period). The Proto-Aksumite polity distinguished itself from the former Ethio-Sabaean one, focusing ideologically on platforms with stele and pit-graves for the funerary cult of the elite rather than on monumental cult temples of the gods. The remains of a monumental building, constructed in a technique reminiscent of Ethio-Sabaean architecture at Ona Nagast may suggest that some symbols of the earlier state were maintained in Proto-Aksumite times. At present, the Proto-Aksumite culture can be ascribed to an indigenous tradition of Tigray, maybe related to the cultural traditions of the western lowlands. Actually, the style and symbolism of the funerary stelae suggest a possible link with the late prehistoric cultures in the Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands. Finally, in the early 1st millennium BC the Aksumite kingdom progressively expanded to the east and included Eritrea and Yemen into the area of political control of Aksum.



Further reading

Fattovich, R. (1977) >Pre-Aksumite Civilization of Ethiopia: a Provisional Review=, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7, 73-78.

__________ (1980) Materiali per lo studio della ceramica preaksumita etiopica, Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

__________ (1990a) >The Peopling of the Northern Ethiopian-Sudanese Borderland between 7000 and 1000 BP: a preliminary model=, Nubica 1/3, 3-45.

__________ (1990b) >Remarks on the Pre-Aksumite Period in Northern Etiopia=, Journal of Ethiopian Studies 23, 1-33.

_________ (1992) Lineamenti di storia dell'archeologia dell'Etiopia e Somalia, Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

__________ (1996a) >Punt: the archaeological perspective=, Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 6, 15-29.

__________ (1996b) >The I.U.O. and B.U. Excavations at Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum) in Tigray (Northern Ethiopia)=, Journal of Ethiopian Studies 30/1, 1-29 (with K. A. Bard).

__________ (1997a) >The Peopling of the Tigrean Plateau in ancient and Medieval Times (ca. 4000 B.C. - A.D. 1500): Evidence and State of Art=, The Environmental History and Human Ecology of Northern Ethiopia in the Late Holocene (Bard, K. A., ed.), 81-105, Napoli.

__________ (1997b) >The contacts between Southern Arabia and the Horn of Africa in late prehistoric and early historical times: a view from Africa=, Profumi d'Arabia (Avanzini, A., ed.), 273-86, Roma.

__________ (1997c) >Archaeology and historical dynamics: The case of Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum), Ethiopia=, Annali dell=Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 57 (published 1999), 48-79.

__________ (2000a) >The Environmental History of Tigray (Northern Ethiopia) during the Holocene: a Preliminary Outline=, The African Archaeological Review 17/2, 65-86 (with K. A. Bard, M. Coltorti, M. C. Di Blasi, F. Dramis).

_________ (2000b) The Archaeological Area of Aksum: A Preliminary Assessment, Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale (co-author with K.A. Bard, L. Petrassi and V. Pisano).

_________ (2000c) Aksum and the Habashat: State and Ethnicity in Ancient Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, W.P. No 238, Boston University, African Studies Center, Boston.

__________ (2001a) >The Proto-Aksumite Period: An Outline=, Annales d=Ethiopie 17, 3-24 (with K. A. Bard).

__________ (2001b) >Some Remarks on the Process of State Formation in Egypt and Ethiopia=, Africa and Africans in Antiquity (Yamauchi, E., ed.), 276-90 (with K. A. Bard), East Lansing.


Note that his idea that this was a gradual incorporation of more and more of the inland areas of Tigray doesn't seem to be the case. For one, the existence of Yeha as an early capital (in Western Tigray, the farthest area from the coast, yet the center of Ethiopian civilization pre-1st millenium AD), which was included in the "Tihama Cultural Complex." I'll follow this post with some studies on early Western Tigray and early contacts with South Arabia.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Skipping Western Tigray for now since the studies are not that interesting (showing the existence of early cultures contemporary with the others described, but little research done so far), here's a very intersting study on early (pre-1st millenium BC) interactions between N. Ethiopia/Eritrea and Yemen (specifically Tihama). Note that the exact nature of the relationship between the Tihama and Saba' is not yet understood.


EALL, Dr. Edward J.

Contact across the Red Sea (between Arabia and Africa) in the 2nd millennium BC: circumstantial evidence from the archaeological site of al-Midamman, Tihama coast of Yemen, and Dahlak Kabir Island, Eritrea

Based on excavations along the Red Sea coast of Yemen, this paper explores the possibility that people had the ability to cross the sea in the 3rd - 2nd millennia BC. It is inconceivable that fishermen living along the Red Sea coast did not know about the seasonality of the winds. Whether others had both the will and the skill to make journeys into deep waters, is an entirely different matter. While the material record for al-Midamman is unique, circumstantial evidence points to connections between Yemen and the Horn of Africa. It is hypothesised that this **did not involve the mass movement of people, with their cultural baggage complete**. But it is suggested that **people on both sides of the Red Sea may have had a common ancestry, and their cultural expressions emerge from that common background.**

The earliest cultural record from al-Midamman is an ephemeral presence defined by the surface recovery of stone projectile points and scrapers belonging to a Neolithic culture, say, from before 4000 BC. The first substantial and monumental phase of the site starts in the 3rd millennium BC. It involved the setting up of **giant stone markers**. Certain slender pillars were once set up with infants buried beneath them, yet without grave goods; an isolated stone marked the grave of an adult male. Hypothetically, these burials pre-date the setting up of giant stones, an act dated roughly to 2400-1800 BC by the cache of copper-alloy tools and a core of obsidian found buried beneath one of the megaliths.

All of the stone used had to be imported from at least 50 km away. A later phase of the activity involved recycling the stone. Yet there is no evidence that this was a destructive act. Rather, it appears to suggest reverence for the past. The most impressive use of the stone was to create monumental buildings. Two rectilinear structures were built with foundations and walls of stone, and partition walls of mudbrick. A third stone building is likely slightly more recent in date, and may be an open-air shrine enclosure. Shallowly carved decorations date earlier than the 8th century BC.

Re-used stone was also employed in a cemetery. The pottery grave goods consist of whole vessels, of a kind known from the domestic settlement. This ephemeral settlement has furnished a rich record of pottery, obsidian, grind stones, and masses of fish bone. A commonality of artifact in all of the settings is, in fact, the most remarkable of the recent discoveries. Grind stones, for instance, were found in the context of the megaliths as well as in the domestic settlement, and set deliberately onto burnt stone, perhaps as field markers. Gold beads have been recovered from both the stone enclosure and the site of the standing stones.

The idea of different phases of the occupation has always been present in the eyes of the excavators. The idea of newcomers supplanting the old ways has always been a possibility. **The most recent work has demonstrated this to be untenable.** Finding only the same kind of pottery in both the domestic, the funerary and commemorative areas implies that the same people were involved throughout the site's life. Yet clearly their cultural habits did evolve.

Despite the fact that the inhabitants appear to have been obsessed with stone, there are no inscriptions carved in stone; no sacrificial offering trays of stone; no stone incense burners; no three dimensional sculptures of either animals or humans, in stone. All of these would be appropriate for a culture linked to Sabaean realm in its broad sense. But there are no statue-menhirs either, which would have made a plausible link to the people Zarins sees as reflecting a Bronze Age elite on the plateau.

From al-Midamman there is one bull's head in relief from a pottery vessel; two human figurines in pottery; incense burners of pottery; and an example of alphabetic letters scratched into a pottery vessel. But pottery items are very rare within the corpus of finds, representing four out of 4000 recorded (and diagnostic) fragments. As for the pottery itself, it is far superior to anything from classic South Arabia. Though hand-built, it is well produced from good quality clay. It is often burnished and decorated with punctate designs that call to mind Fattovich's Afro-Arabian cultural complex theories regarding the punctate incised pottery from Kassala in the Gash delta of southeastern Sudan. And upper Nile-area specialists will no doubt think of so-called wavy-line punctate pottery associated with the C-Group people. Yet, the one striking absence, which cannot be overlooked, is that Kassala does not have the same kind of obsidian record as al-Midamman where there is a clearly definable assemblage of obsidian microliths. It arrives **fully developed** as a lithic tradition, and it does not evolve out of the Arabian bi-facial tradition. Numerous *antecedents* can be found in East Africa. Our expedition has also observed obsidian of exactly the same technological tradition on the island of Dahlak Kabir, offshore from the Eritrean mainland. Other circumstantial evidence also points to possible links between the island and the coast of Yemen. In the Islamic cemetery of the 11th and 12th centuries, one tombstone is carved from a pillar of basalt that is foreign to the island and is likely recovered from a Bronze Age context.

I hasten to argue that we may not find a single, common template into which all of these cultures fit. We are not looking at a systematic expansion, with a socially cohesive, even politically based, organization. So different expressions may have been adopted by different groups, as they came into contact with others. At least four obstacles need to be removed before the Afro-Arabian connection becomes plausible. Our best analogy for the copper-alloy tools is drawn from Syria. I would counter here by saying that our knowledge of the copper-bronze industry from both Yemen and the Horn of Africa is so poor that the absence of parallels for our tools may not be significant.

The second problem is that we find obsidian with the same technology as from al-Midamman, both in the Wadi al-Jubah, in the interior of Yemen, and in the Hadramawt, and on Dahlak Kabir island. But in the last example we have found no related pottery. From Sabir, al-Hamid, and al-Kashawba there is generically similar pottery but no obsidian. Perhaps we may explain this as a difference of time. At al-Midamman there seem to have been both obsidian and pottery in use at all times.

Another difficulty is that we have scratched stone decorations that can be parallelled in the Jawf. Conveniently, Audouin has suggested that these carvings in the Jawf could easily be dated to the late 2nd millennium BC rather than the early 1st millennium BC as previously suggested. What is the connection between our two areas? None, if we look at political realities.

My current hypothesis is that during the late 3rd millennium BC, in response to a drying climate, people were on the move. Some settled on Dahlak island. The people who settled in al-Midamman **crossed the Red Sea and settled in the Tihama** where they found a window of opportunity for life as result of the **massive flooding that was emanating from the highlands**, from a landscape out of control. When checks and balances were put in place in the highlands, as part of the landscape stabilisation for which Yemen became synonymous, the people at the coast were forced to move on. Groups may have found their way into the Jawf, and the Hadramawt. They retained some of their specific lithic technology, but generally otherwise became integrated with the rest of the South Arabian populations.


Further reading

Keall, E. J. (2000) >Changing Settlement along the Red Sea Coast of Yemen in the Bronze Age=, First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Rome May 18-23, 1998), Proceedings, (Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F., eds), 719-31, Rome.

Giumlia-Mair, A., Keall, E. J., Shugar, A. and Stock, S. (2002) >Investigation of a Copper-based Hoard from the Megalithic Site of al-Midamman, Yemen: an Interdisciplinary Approach=, Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 195-209.


Very interesting stuff, though parts are difficult to interpret.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Another link : Copper-based implements of a newly identified culture in Yemen

by Alessandra Giumlia-Mair, Edward Keall, and Susan Stock, and Aaron Shugar.

An excerpt:

5. Ancient texts and possible connections with other civilizations Several maritime trading centres on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, are mentioned in cuneiform texts dated 2340–1750 BC between Sargon and Hammurabi): these are Dilmun (Bahrein), Magan (Oman?) and Melukhkha (possibly Makrān in Pakistan). These centres seem to have been independent from the Sumerian and Accadic civilizations, but economically in contact with Iran and India [25]. At the end of the 3rd millennium the influence of Accadic Mesopotamia apparently spread to the Arabic coast: Lukhkhisˇsˇan, king of Elam, was defeated by Sargon and later the capital of Elam, Awan:An Shan, was destroyed by Manishtushu (2274–2260 BC), son of Sargon, who on this occasion also subjugated the ‘king of Magan’. This suggests of course that in this period ‘Magan’ was subordinated by Elam. Fattovich [26] dates the megalith stones ordered in circles or in lines in the South of Yemen to the 2nd millennium BC ‘‘and possibly earlier’’. He connects the Yemeni megaliths with the dolmens in the area of Harar and postulates the existence of contacts between the Arabian and the African populations as early as the 3rd millinnium BC. He mentions the existence of paintings and incisions on the stones in the Hidjaz desert, very similar to those found in the Ogaden, as a proof that the African populations were able to cross the Red Sea very early (as confirmed by a wiltonian industry in the
Dahlak islands). His hypothesis is that they regularly traded in incense and myrrh between the Mediterranean and both sides of the Red Sea, where
these plants were to be found. He supposes the existence of three trade routes. One was the maritime route down the western coast of the Red Sea, but there should also be a land route down the Nile valley and a second one along the western Arabic Peninsula. This trade seems to have lasted for a long period: late texts – the lists of Tuthmes III – mention the Gnb-tjw, which are identified as the inhabitants of Quataban in Yemen. Other texts of the same period mention the import of incense from Syro-Palestinian areas, which Fattovich believes to be Yemen [26]. The ancient texts and Fattovich’s theories seem to suggest that eastern Arabia gravitated towards Mesopotamia, while the western coast shared its culture and economy with the eastern coast of Africa. The results of the metallurgical researches seem to point in the same direction.
 

---

Posted by nur (Member # 10191) on :
 
May i ask what the axumites looked like appearance wise? To what extent do they resemble the habesha population?

I've never seen a picture of actual axumites. Are there even any available?
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nur:
May i ask what the axumites looked like appearance wise? To what extent do they resemble the habesha population?

I've never seen a picture of actual axumites. Are there even any available?

---

There's no question about the ethnic makeup of the Aksumites, nor of the majority of those living in the time of D`mt. There aren't any surviving painted depictions of the Aksumites, but there are some small statues and faces of rulers on coins (and one sketch by Cosmas Indicopleustes).

Look here on the top right corner for an image of Aksumites. The whole body is darkened, except for the face.

Here are a couple images of Aksumite rulers.

Endubis Silver Coin (ca. 270 - first ruler to mint coins)


Aphilas Gold Coin (late 3rd early, 4th c.)


Ousanas Gold Coin (predecessor and possibly father to Ezana)


Ezana Gold Coin (ca. 330-360)


Ezana Silver Coin



And here's a D`mt statue of a woman recovered at Hawulti, Tigray (one of the places where there was actual Sabaean presence). Note the curly hair.



Who may be the same person as the Refesh (actually unvocalized, smaller figure) below, found in close proximity to the statue.


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^^The statue above bears somewhat of an appearance to certain Sabaean statuary I've seen in a book about Southern Arabian history an in particular the Queen of Sheba.
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 
Do you have a link to an online picture?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^Nope. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
 
Here is some interesting information that I found Yom. It is an Islamic source speaking about the Sabeans. Got it from a book called, "Islam Revealed" by Dr. Anis Shorrosh.

On pg. 159, he says, "Ancient historians like Abi Isa the Moroccan tell that Sabeans were the first religious people whose language was Syriac. Even Adam spoke that language. Seba was said to be the same Seba, son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah.........". Salaam
 

---

Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Israel:
Here is some interesting information that I found Yom. It is an Islamic source speaking about the Sabeans. Got it from a book called, "Islam Revealed" by Dr. Anis Shorrosh.

On pg. 159, he says, "Ancient historians like Abi Isa the Moroccan tell that Sabeans were the first religious people whose language was Syriac. Even Adam spoke that language. Seba was said to be the same Seba, son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah.........". Salaam

---

quote:

---

I am quite aware that the Sabeans didn't speak "Syriac", but it is interesting to read Arab and/or Muslim scholars who know the history of their Arabian culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by salah:
i just wanted to say that some of u add together
ethiopia and eretria . i know that they used to be one country but can ull differ between etiopia and eriteria just like ull differ between djiboti from somalia . thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nur:

Which of the semetic speakers show most cushitic influence?

genetic and linguistic wise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nur:
Which of the semetic speakers show most cushitic influence?

genetic and linguistic wise.

---

As for genetic wise, there is no genetic marker associated with Cushitic speakers. Overall, Cushitic speaking peoples share the same markers associated with other East Africans or Africans in general.

---

quote:

---

As far as linguitic influence, I'd say the Amhara because their language reflects many features of the Central Cushitic Agau people, but it could be that it was the other way around-- that the Amhara were originally Agau peoples who adopted Semitic language.

---

quote:

---

It's hard to tell because it seems that both Cushitic and Semitic speakers have been cohabiting in the Northern Ethiopian areas for a long while.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Israel

quote:

---

I am quite aware that the Sabeans didn't speak "Syriac", but it is interesting to read Arab and/or Muslim scholars who know the history of their Arabian culture.

---

Arabs have mainly been a nomadic people. What Arabian culture? Are you sure Arabs have a great history? Most of the things associated with "Arabian" culture was really the creation of the Iranians and the Africans in Spain.

.

---

quote:

---

However, what I was trying to say is that the foundation of Arabian culture(and civilization) is African. It starts with Saba being the son of Kush, know what I mean? Salaam

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yom:

Cushitic features are found most among the Gurages, especially among the more southern groups; there exists to a degree a dialect continuum between the different languages, with Soddo (northernmost) having the least Cushitic influence and closest to the Amharic-Argobba group and Harari. Originally, there seems to have been a continuum between Harari and Soddo as well as between Harari and Amharic/Argobba, as evidenced by al-`Umari's statement that Ifat (in between Adal and Shewa) spoke "Habashi."[/qqb]

---

quote:

---

[qb]Genetically, I've seen studies that say that Gurages and people from Tigray are closely related (though the claim that Gurages came from Tigray is known to be false and a much earlier date for Ethnogenesis is believed to be true). However, these studies were based on the presence or lack of "Caucasoid" genes, so I'm not sure if the data can be believed, but it may indicate a higher percentage of J lineages or the like.

---

quote:

---

For millenia, at least. The first reference to the Agaw are by the (3rd century?) Monumentum Adulitanum as a territory conquered by the (unnamed) king. It later shows up in an inscription by King Ezana (ca. 330-70), one of whose provinces was called "Athagaus" (in Greek), possibly from *`Ad Agaw. "`Ad" meaning "son of" or "derived from," cf. many Tigre villages in Eritrea with "`Ad" like `Ad Tekelezan, or many Tigray/Tigrinya villages with "`Addi" (geminated "d" so the "i" is grammatically necessary) meaning "village." The name pops up as a province again under Kaleb, where it is called

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
So what is the northernmost group with Cushitic influence and vice-versa-- what is the southernmost group with Semitic influence?

---

quote:

---

Yes, I too would be careful of studies that label lineages "caucasoid". They may be referring to J lineages but you never know. Remember, even E3b was once labeled "caucasoid" on account that it was found outside of Africa.

---

quote:

---

So are you saying that names with the word 'Ad' or 'Addi' are all or Cushitic derivation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^Ironically, other than the Bantus, the Habeshas themselves were sold into the Arab slave trade!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nur:

Which habeshas?

source?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nur:

Which habeshas?

source?

---

Just Habeshas in general.

Here is one source. These slaves were called 'Habshi' or Abasi by Indians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Some were Oromo but there were ethnic Habeshas-- Amharas and Tigre who were sold as slaves.

Just as the Somalis in here.

I believe only Muslims were protected from Arab slavery.

---