posted
Early Populations and Neighboring States Ethiopia Table of Contents
Details on the origins of all the peoples that make up the population of highland Ethiopia were still matters for research and debate in the early 1990s. Anthropologists believe that East Africa's Great Rift Valley is the site of humankind's origins. (The valley traverses Ethiopia from southwest to northeast.) In 1974 archaeologists excavating sites in the Awash River valley discovered 3.5-million-year- old fossil skeletons, which they named Australopithecus afarensis. These earliest known hominids stood upright, lived in groups, and had adapted to living in open areas rather than in forests.
Coming forward to the late Stone Age, recent research in historical linguistics--and increasingly in archaeology as well--has begun to clarify the broad outlines of the prehistoric populations of present-day Ethiopia. These populations spoke languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic super-language family, a group of related languages that includes Omotic, Cushitic, and Semitic, all of which are found in Ethiopia today. Linguists postulate that the original home of the Afro-Asiatic cluster of languages was somewhere in northeastern Africa, possibly in the area between the Nile River and the Red Sea in modern Sudan. From here the major languages of the family gradually dispersed at different times and in different directions--these languages being ancestral to those spoken today in northern and northeastern Africa and far southwestern Asia.
The first language to separate seems to have been Omotic, at a date sometime after 13,000 B.C. Omotic speakers moved southward into the central and southwestern highlands of Ethiopia, followed at some subsequent time by Cushitic speakers, who settled in territories in the northern Horn of Africa, including the northern highlands of Ethiopia. The last language to separate was Semitic, which split from Berber and ancient Egyptian, two other Afro-Asiatic languages, and migrated eastward into far southwestern Asia.
By about 7000 B.C. at the latest, linguistic evidence indicates that both Cushitic speakers and Omotic speakers were present in Ethiopia. Linguistic diversification within each group thereafter gave rise to a large number of new languages. In the case of Cushitic, these include Agew in the central and northern highlands and, in regions to the east and southeast, Saho, Afar, Somali, Sidamo, and Oromo, all spoken by peoples who would play major roles in the subsequent history of the region. Omotic also spawned a large number of languages, Welamo (often called Wolayta) and Gemu-Gofa being among the most widely spoken of them, but Omotic speakers would remain outside the main zone of ethnic interaction in Ethiopia until the late nineteenth century.
Both Cushitic- and Omotic-speaking peoples collected wild grasses and other plants for thousands of years before they eventually domesticated those they most preferred. According to linguistic and limited archaeological analyses, plough agriculture based on grain cultivation was established in the drier, grassier parts of the northern highlands by at least several millennia before the Christian era. Indigenous grasses such as teff and eleusine were the initial domesticates; considerably later, barley and wheat were introduced from Southwest Asia. The corresponding domesticate in the better watered and heavily forested southern highlands was ensete, a root crop known locally as false banana. All of these early peoples also kept domesticated animals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys. Thus, from the late prehistoric period, agricultural patterns of livelihood were established that were to be characteristic of the region through modern times. It was the descendants of these peoples and cultures of the Ethiopian region who at various times and places interacted with successive waves of migrants from across the Red Sea. This interaction began well before the modern era and has continued through contemporary times.
During the first millennium B.C. and possibly even earlier, various Semitic-speaking groups from Southwest Arabia began to cross the Red Sea and settle along the coast and in the nearby highlands. These migrants brought with them their Semitic speech (Sabaean and perhaps others) and script (Old Epigraphic South Arabic) and monumental stone architecture. A fusion of the newcomers with the indigenous inhabitants produced a culture known as pre-Aksumite. The factors that motivated this settlement in the area are not known, but to judge from subsequent history, commercial activity must have figured strongly. The port city of Adulis, near modern-day Mitsiwa, was a major regional entrepôt and probably the main gateway to the interior for new arrivals from Southwest Arabia. Archaeological evidence indicates that by the beginning of the Christian era this pre-Aksumite culture had developed western and eastern regional variants. The former, which included the region of Aksum, was probably the polity or series of polities that became the Aksumite state. - US Library of Congress
rasol Member # 4592
posted In a similar vein, Murdock (1959) suggested that sometime in prehistory "Sidamo tribes" (i.e., Omotic and eastern Cushitic-speaking groups) of southwestern Ethiopia independently brought enset under domestication. Later, central Cushitic-speaking peoples of northern Ethiopia (i.e., the Agaw) also began to grow enset and a wide range of other crops, and were quick to incorporate wheat, barley, cattle, goats, and sheep into their economy once these domesticates were introduced into Ethiopia from Dynastic Egypt. - http://www.aaas.org/international/africa/enset/history.shtml
rasol Member # 4592
posted
And now for something different.
Genetics:
Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow. Three different passages can be outlined.
The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches.
Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa.
Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia.
The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa.
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild - 2004
Supercar Member # 6477
posted
Some of us may already have access to the full text of the study cited above, but for those who may not otherwise bother to find out, can you please spell out the supposed extra-"sub-Saharan" mtDNA identified in those sampled Ethiopians...and, it had better not be M1 lineages [Ps - I sense "N" derivatives]
posted
Pre-Aksumite contact with the Sabean culture is way overexaggerated. It was primarily religious in nature and not a major revolutionary social event. Aksum was built by indigenous Ethiopians!
rasol Member # 4592
posted
Osirion - couldn't agree more. This view is changing, but too slow still.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Pre-Aksumite contact with the Sabean culture is way overexaggerated. It was primarily religious in nature and not a major revolutionary social event. Aksum was built by indigenous Ethiopians!
So true. I believe on another thread someone cited a source that explained how a vast majority of Pre-Axumite artifacts and material have little in common with Sabeaeans and is peculiar to Africa like the stela tradition.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
Here is an even better place for your debate Yom and Super!
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
Wrong, "Habashat" is an Ethiopian name referring to all of the Ethiopian tribes. It was first found in a Sabaean inscription talking about the king of Aksum, referring to him as the King of "the tribes of Habashat" and has only ever been used to describe peoples in Ethiopia, not in South Arabia. Besides, the Sabaean invasion theory has long been discredited. When did the Greeks in your view? Did the Greeks die out before 300 AD then? I can show you another image of the inscription showing both languages and alphabets used if you need.
Here's one:
You can see the title "King of Kings" on the fourth line of the Greek text" (Basileus Basileon - Greek alphabet - BACIΛEYC BACIΛEωN)
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
"Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means? Yes, the Habasha were natives of Aksum, but that doesn't mean that the Sabeans didn't migrate into the region in the early phases of the Aksumite complex, an indigenous cultural complex of the region.
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: "Ethiopian" in Greek, meant "burnt face", is that what "Habasha" means?
Habesha or HBSHT is just a name assigned to the collective of tribes of Ethiopia. That Ezana equates the two indicates that Ethiopia has been used for the state the developed into modern Ethiopia by its inhabitants since at least the early to mid 4th century AD.
quote:Yes, the Habasha were natives of Aksum, but that doesn't mean that the Sabeans didn't migrate into the region in the early phases of the Aksumite complex, an indigenous cultural complex of the region.
If you want to use technical logic, then one does not necessarily follow from the other, but that the term is only used to refer (in Sabaean texts as well) to Ethiopians and kings of Ethiopia indicates that the tribe is Ethiopian, though it does not necessarily mean that it didn't descend from Yemenis earlier. However, the Sabaean migration has been discredited as I stated earlier. The proto-Aksumite culture is ca. 5th/4th c. BC-1st c. BC/AD and shows few connections to South Arabia, especially when compared to D`mt. The Sabaean migration was supposed to have happened ca. 5th c. BC, however, yet this is when the D`mt culture is ending (8th c. BC-5th c. BC, primarily 8th-7th c. BC). 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).
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Yom: Habesha or HBSHT is just a name assigned to the collective of tribes of Ethiopia. That Ezana equates the two indicates that Ethiopia has been used for the state the developed into modern Ethiopia by its inhabitants since at least the early to mid 4th century AD.
This doesn't answer the question posed.
quote:Yom: If you want to use technical logic, then one does not necessarily follow from the other, but that the term is only used to refer (in Sabaean texts as well) to Ethiopians and kings of Ethiopia indicates that the tribe is Ethiopian, though it does not necessarily mean that it didn't descend from Yemenis earlier.
Who said anything of the kind, to justify this response?
quote:Yom: However, the Sabaean migration has been discredited as I stated earlier.
Nope. Sabean migration into the region has NOT been discredited. You need to rethink that position.
quote:Yom: The proto-Aksumite culture is ca. 5th/4th c. BC-1st c. BC/AD and shows few connections to South Arabia, especially when compared to D`mt. The Sabaean migration was supposed to have happened ca. 5th c. BC, however, yet this is when the D`mt culture is ending (8th c. BC-5th c. BC, primarily 8th-7th c. BC).
Apparently, the Sabeans had been in the region by the time the D'mt elites came into being, as evidenced by scripts found on relics from that period.
quote:Yom: 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).
I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right? Did Sabeans influence Ethiopian natives culturally in some ways, during their presence in the region? Yes. Can they be considered to be responsible for the Aksum cultural complex? No. The culture that developed, was indigenous in character, though not without any outside influences, which is hardly unique to the Aksumite complex. The likes of Fattovich and Munro Hay make good cases on this.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
quote: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.
quote:Who said anything of the kind, to justify this response?
It stemmed from a bit of a mis-read from your response.
quote:Nope. Sabean migration into the region has NOT been discredited. You need to rethink that position.
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. See Stuart-Munro Hay's Aksum (which I'm sure you have, as I've seen it posted here before), where he notes that Sabaean migration was limited to a few localities and lasted only a few decades or a century before disappearing.
quote:Apparently, the Sabeans had been in the region by the time the D'mt elites came into being, as evidenced by scripts found on relics from that period.
I don't think the scripts prove anything of the sort. Proto-Ge'ez (language) scripts in the Sabaean alphabet with just as old a pedigree as the Sabaean ones have been found. 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.
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.
quote:I guess you will by now, have noticed the contradictions in your earlier claim of Sabean migration being 'discredited' and this one - right? Did Sabeans influence Ethiopian natives culturally in some ways, during their presence in the region? Yes.
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). I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.
quote:Can they be considered to be responsible for the Aksum cultural complex? No. The culture that developed, was indigenous in character, though not without any outside influences, which is hardly unique to the Aksumite complex. The likes of Fattovich and Munro Hay make good cases on this.
Then here we do not disagree.
Supercar Member # 6477
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is an even better place for your debate Yom and Super!
Agree this topic is relevant to our exchanges, but why is a topic on "Ethiopian population history" more appropriate to discuss a matter on the ancient Ethiopian-South Arabian connections, than a topic that is set up specifically to talk about the socio-cultural connections between the ancient Ethiopian and South Arabian cultural complexes, whereby I have specifically addressed the points you've reposted herein?
If Yom cares to address my reaction, it is available in the aforementioned link, which is where I'll continue to address any point related to our exchange.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote: Yom: 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.
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.
And who would have proposed a population replacement?
quote:Yom: See Stuart-Munro Hay's Aksum (which I'm sure you have, as I've seen it posted here before), where he notes that Sabaean migration was limited to a few localities and lasted only a few decades or a century before disappearing.
This is what was stated as per Munro Hay:
"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....
It seems that the pre-Aksumite society on the Tigray plateau, centred in the Aksum/Yeha region but extending from Tekondo in the north to Enderta in the south (Schneider 1973: 389), had achieved state level, and that the major entity came to be called D`MT (Di`amat, Damot?), as appears in the regal title `mukarrib of Da`mot and Saba'. The name may survive in the Aksumite titulature as Tiamo/Tsiyamo (Ch. 7: 5). Its rulers, kings and mukarribs, by including the name Saba in their titles, appear to have expressly claimed control over the resident Sabaeans in their country; actual Sabaean presence is assumed at Matara, Yeha and Hawelti-Melazo according to present information (Schneider 1973: 388)." - Stuart Munro-Hay
quote:Yom:
I don't think the scripts prove anything of the sort. Proto-Ge'ez (language) scripts in the Sabaean alphabet with just as old a pedigree as the Sabaean ones have been found.
More from Munro Hay:
"The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have kept in contact with their own country, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.
Naturally, such an arrangement would have worked also to the benefit of the indigenous Ethiopian rulers, who employed the titles mukarrib and mlkn at first, and nagashi (najashi) or negus later; no pre-Aksumite najashi or negus is known.
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. 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).
It seems 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. Possibly their presence was connected to a contemporary efflorescence of Saba on the other side of the Red Sea. Their influence was only in a limited geographical area, affecting the autochthonous population in that area to a greater or lesser degree. Such influences as did remain after their departure or assimilation fused with the local cultural background, and contributed to the ensemble of traits which constituted Ethiopian civilisation in the rest of the pre-Aksumite period.
Indeed, it may be that the Sabaeans were able to establish themselves in Ethiopia in the first place because both their civilisation and that of mid-1st millenium Ethiopia already had something in common; it has been suggested that earlier migrations or contacts might have taken place, leaving a kind of cultural sympathy between the two areas which allowed the later contact to flourish easily. 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, and discussion of this fascinating problem continues (Marrassini 1985; Avanzini 1987; Pirenne 1987; Isaac and Felder 1988).
Jacqueline Pirenne's most recent (1987) proposal results in a radically different view of the Ethiopian/South Arabian contacts. Weighing up the evidence from all sides, particularly aspects of material culture and linguistic/palaeographic information, she suggests that "il est donc vraisemblable que l'expansion ne s'est pas faite du Yémen vers l'Ethiopie, mais bien en sens inverse: de l'Ethiopie vers le Yémen". According to this theory, one group of Sabaeans would have left north Arabia (where they were then established) for Ethiopia in about the eighth or seventh century BC under pressure from the Assyrians; they then continued on into south Arabia. A second wave of emigrants, in the sixth and fifth century, would reign over the kingdom of Da'amat (D`MT), and would have been accompanied by Hebrews fleeing after Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem; an explanation for the later Ethiopian traditions with their Jewish and Biblical flavour, and for the Falashas or black Jews of Ethiopia.
On that note, we come to....
"Aksumite origins are still uncertain, but a strong South Arabian (Sabaean) influence in architecture, religion, and cultural features can be detected in the pre-Aksumite period from about the fifth century BC, and it is clear that contacts across the Red Sea were at one time very close (Ch. 4: 1).
A kingdom called D`MT (perhaps to be read Da`mot or Di`amat) is attested in Ethiopian inscriptions at this early date, and, though the period between this and the development of Aksum around the beginning of the Christian era is an Ethiopian `Dark Age' for us at present, it may be surmised that the D`MT monarchy and its successors, and other Ethiopian chiefdoms, continued something of the same *`Ethio-Sabaean'* civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum." - S. Munro-Hay
There you have it: *`Ethio-Sabaean'* civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum."
Ps - of course, the aforementioned is not suggesting a South Arabian origin for the said complex, but speaking in terms of potential 'commonality' between them, and in other cases, cultural exchanges, as in the examples provided. The Sabean immigrants, whom Munro-Hay referred to as "inscriptional Sabeans", didn't appear to have maintained a lengthy presence as a "separate identifiable" people; thus if they did stay beyond the time estimations of what the archeological indicators suggest [according to Munro-Hay, no more than a century or so at best], then it is they who had eventually assimilated into the local populace, which could be facilitated by adopting the cultures of the locals, so as to blend in culturally.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yom:
quote: Supercar: 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."
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:Super: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).
See Stuart-Munro Hay's Aksum (which I'm sure you have, as I've seen it posted here before), where he notes that Sabaean migration was limited to a few localities and lasted only a few decades or a century before disappearing.
quote:Supercar:
Apparently, the Sabeans had been in the region by the time the D'mt elites came into being, as evidenced by scripts found on relics from that period.
I don't think the scripts prove anything of the sort. Proto-Ge'ez (language) scripts in the Sabaean alphabet with just as old a pedigree as the Sabaean ones have been found.
quote:More from Munro Hay:
"The Sabaeans in Ethiopia appear, from the use of certain place-names like Marib in their inscriptions, to have kept in contact with their own country, and indeed the purpose of their presence may well have been to maintain and develop links across the sea to the profit of South Arabia's trading network.
**Cut out a lot of quotations**
quote:There you have it: *`Ethio-Sabaean' civilisation until eventually subordinated by Aksum."
It should be noted, however, that Ethio-Sabaean is a term used because of the script and certain cultural affinities and not because it was an Ethiopian civilization founded by Sabaeans (not that you're suggesting that, but to clear any confusion for others). The traditional dating of the Sabaean migration and D`mt dates still do not fit, however, and a lot of archaeological and chronological work still has to be done before a clear picture emerges.
Ps - of course, the aforementioned is not suggesting a South Arabian origin for the said complex, but speaking in terms of potential 'commonality' between them, and in other cases, cultural exchanges, as in the examples provided. The Sabean immigrants, whom Munro-Hay referred to as "inscriptional Sabeans", didn't appear to have maintained a lengthy presence as a "separate identifiable" people; thus if they did stay beyond the time estimations of what the archeological indicators suggest [according to Munro-Hay, no more than a century or so at best], then it is they who had eventually assimilated into the local populace, which could be facilitated by adopting the cultures of the locals, so as to blend in culturally.
No arguments here.
quote:Super: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? 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. 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.
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.
quote:Sure, but I still think very little is known about South Semitic scripts in the 2nd millenium BC, making determinations difficult.
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).
quote: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. 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: I don't deny that any migration has taken place, though.[QUOTE]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. [/QB]
What do you define as significant?
Hikuptah Member # 11131
posted
If Nubia and Kemet were the same people why cant the Sabean and Ethiopians be the same people. For instance Sabeans means Seb which every ethiopian calls themselves Sab=Human Sabeans=Humans this is in the ethiopian language. I dont know if this is of any importance but i dont see the Southern Arabian script being used by anyone in Arabia at all it is only used by the Eritreans & Ethiopians & Somalia for a little while so it could not of been of Yemeni origins. There is to much proof showing Ethiopians Ruleing Yemen and Arabia even Arabs dont contest to this but there is NO i mean NO Evidence of Any type of control by the Southern Arabians of Ethiopia.
Supercar Member # 6477
posted
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: If Nubia and Kemet were the same people why cant the Sabean and Ethiopians be the same people. For instance Sabeans means Seb which every ethiopian calls themselves Sab=Human Sabeans=Humans this is in the ethiopian language. I dont know if this is of any importance but i dont see the Southern Arabian script being used by anyone in Arabia at all it is only used by the Eritreans & Ethiopians & Somalia for a little while so it could not of been of Yemeni origins. There is to much proof showing Ethiopians Ruleing Yemen and Arabia even Arabs dont contest to this but there is NO i mean NO Evidence of Any type of control by the Southern Arabians of Ethiopia.
I'm afriad you are not looking [objectively] at this issue within the context of the sort of complexity it deserves. I suggest you look into the following, to see why:
posted
Ok i understand Supercar so what is your point was there a major migration of Sabeans into Ethiopia and did they bring there script with them or was it already there and did they the sabeans come to ethiopia as foriegners or did they come as Ethiopians returning back. Well there has been many major works relating to this issue and many people have come up with the idea that the Sabeans were ethiopians and the migration went from Ethiopia into Yemen and they the ethiopians brought there writings to Yemen.
Hikuptah Member # 11131
posted
Rasol from your Genetics part of this what is exactly u are saying about the DNA of ethiopians Berbers Yemenis.
Supercar Member # 6477
posted
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Ok i understand Supercar so what is your point was there a major migration of Sabeans into Ethiopia and did they bring there script with them or was it already there and did they the sabeans come to ethiopia as foriegners or did they come as Ethiopians returning back. Well there has been many major works relating to this issue and many people have come up with the idea that the Sabeans were ethiopians and the migration went from Ethiopia into Yemen and they the ethiopians brought there writings to Yemen.
Read my post. I told what's up, and if you care to discuss it further, you can do so in the link provided.
rasol Member # 4592
posted
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Rasol from your Genetics part of this what is exactly u are saying about the DNA of ethiopians Berbers Yemenis.
The proper question is, what are the geneticists saying?
I can only interpret:
Phylogenetic analysis reveals that the origin of sub-Saharan African mtDNA variants in Yemenis is a mosaic of different episodes of gene flow.
Yemenis have African ancestry from many different sources.
The first is gene flow, likely mediated by the Arab slave trade from southeastern Africa, as evidenced by exact mtDNA haplotype matches.
Such matches account for 23% of the total variation in Yemenis and occur in lineages and lineage groups that cannot be found in Ethiopia and northeastern Africa.
Yemeni have WEST AFRICAN maternal ancestry, which here...links them directly to West Africans, but *not* to Ethiopians.
Many of these can be traced to the Bantu dispersal; they have their origin in West Africa and supply thereby the upper time limit of 3,000–4,000 years for their departure from southeastern Africa toward Arabia.
It's the Yemeni who are part "Bantu". Ethiopians are not. Yemeni are not the basis from which to adjuge 'ethnic purity' in other peoples.
Conclusion:
The sub-Saharan African component of Ethiopians has remained untouched by such influences and may therefore be considered most representative of the indigenous gene pool of sub-Saharan East Africa. - Kivisild.