Sabean theory

[The alchemist]

@Step a side
Early Semites- pre-Axum, Axum, all those were not from Agaws. Agaws had influence in the material culture, such as pottery and lithing industries but they were incorporated by those Semites from Southern Arabia. Architecture, political and social organizational design, elite hierarchy, etc, were Arabian in root. After the Sabaean period, you had a respective trajectory during the Axumite period that deviated from Yemen but that was rooted in the initial Semite origin.

Ona was predominantly Agaw (probably mixed with lowlander non-Agaw to some extent though due to what happened some millenium earlier), and Agaws were the people who lived in northern Tigray that gave the Semite settlers farmer technology, wares such as pottery and lithics that were sourced and shared throughout the northern Ethiopian region (due to the Aagw commonality) what you had in Ona in the Asmara plateau. Those were not Semitic rooted but indigenous, or more like the original Sudanic Butan and Gash rooted.

@rania212

Yeha was constructed to worship a Southern Arabian moon god:

Almaqah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You have the same in Sirwah Yemen worshipping the same god during the same period building structures that followed the same material type:

These are from northern Ethiopia. They have nothing to do with the Cushitic building but are straight out of Yemen.

The Agaws had no such architectural structural pre-conditions that explain any of what you see above -- none. Those grew out of the southern Arabian region.

Semitic is rooted in the Near East where we have the most ancient languages established, expanding later during the Bronze Age to Arabia, with Ethiopian Semitic being a section of those, not the origin itself.

It could be that Sabaean Yemenite rulers settled in Ethiopia and controlled both sides (in those inscriptions, those kings claim suzerainty to control Saba, though that is probably competition of internal Sabaean families that were probably rivals for succession or something and might have lied) but Saba is rooted in South Arabia, not Ethiopia. Northern Ethiopia was Cushitic land first, not Semitic. In the earliest Ethio-Semitic layers, the Semites absorbed Agaw root words during the first centuries of its arrival.

By the way, the early Semites did not have one all-encompassing kingdom called D'MT - that inscription was noted a bit more than a handful of times within a specific sub-region. There were several polities. Pre-Axum was a later confluence and offshoot of some of those localized adjacent Semitic polities that died out and transformed into Axum later. There were other Semitic communites that existed adjacent to Axum until they were absorbed by the early Axumite kings during expansion eastward and northward.

Here is one supposed Axumite king talking about expansionism from what seemed to be local.

". . . after I grew to be a man and forced the peoples (ethnē) bordering on my kingdom to live in peace, I made war upon the following peoples, and by force of arms reduced them to subjection. First I fought with the Gaze people [Agazi], then with Agame [both immediately north of the Axum kingdom] and Sigyene. After conquering them, I exacted a payment of half of everything they possessed."

With regards to who came up with the script, well we have a chronology in Yemen. People wrote the earliest script at the end of the 2nd millennium BC, before any Sabaean or Semitic structures or evidence was found in Northern Ethiopia. Furthermore, there is no chronology found of a gradual change of the Semitic script in the northern Horn of Africa. Those scripts came ready-made with the civilization that was brought, not prior.

DASI: Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions: Site details

Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions

dasi.cnr.it

Those people who first had the earliest South Arabian script that looked like this:

What was shown in the pottery in central Yemen was undoubtedly the developmental precursor to what you see in Yeha and other places in northern Ethiopia, substantiated not only by linguistics but also by radiocarbon dating. Yeha is dated around the 7th century BC, and you see the script used in section "B" follows neatly because that is what you see in there as well.

Not only that, the region of Yemen that had the earliest script also believed in the same polytheistic god 'lmqh.

Concordant with this is the statistical dating of the Ethio-Semitic languages that points toward a single introduction 2800 years ago.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0408

Furthermore, we have genetic evidence that comprehensively attests to the introduction of Arabian ancestry synonymous with the period we see the introduction of Semitic linguistic dating and archeological radio-carbon dating.

Agaw had loaned words Ethiosemitic when it was a baby language which automatically entails that it was new, not old, according to linguists:

"A major loanword set in the Proto-Ethiosemitic language reveals that the formative period of a distinct Proto-Ethiosemitic community took place on the African side of that sea. because the particular source language of the loanwords belonged to the Agäw branch of Cushitic (see appendix 5)—the ancient territories of which extended from the northern fringe of the Ethiopian Highlands south to Lake Tana— we can argue that the speakers of Proto-Ethiosemitic established their early settlements in the northern parts of the Ethiopian Highlands. This placement of the Proto-Ethiosemitic speakers is further confirmed by epigraphic evidence dating to the mid- and later first millennium BCE at sites such as Yeha in modern-day far northern Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Agäw loanword set in Proto-Ethiosemitic fits the “intensive general” category of borrowing. The most notable characteristic of this kind of borrowing is the significant penetration of loanwords into even the one-hundred-word list of core vocabulary meanings. This kind of word borrowing has both demographic and chronological implications. (see chapter 4.)"

Another evidence is that South Ethiosemitic had East Cushitc loanwords in its early structure showing how it was fairly young as South Ethiosemitic diverged very early from its earlier formation. Here is evidence using glottochronology:

"How long before that period should we place the initial settlement of the ancestral Proto-Ethiosemitic community in the northern Horn? e evidence, examined just above, of intensive general word borrowing from an Agäw language, including as many as six Agäw loanwords in core vocabulary, indicates that the settlement of the first Ethiosemitic speakers took place at least two to three centuries before the divergence of the Proto-Ethiosemitic society into Proto–north and Proto–south Ethiosemitic branches began, at least to mid millennium and perhaps to the sixth or seventh century"

You're going against a very established consensus by the claims you make. You need to update because the "Semitic originated in Ethiopian" arguments were from bums in 2008 type shit.

 

[Step a side]

@Step a side
Early Semites- pre-Axum, Axum, all those were not from Agaws. Agaws had influence in the material culture, such as pottery and lithing industries but they were incorporated by those Semites from Southern Arabia. Architecture, political and social organizational design, elite hierarchy, etc, were Arabian in root. After the Sabaean period, you had a respective trajectory during the Axumite period that deviated from Yemen but that was rooted in the initial Semite origin.

Ona was predominantly Agaw (probably mixed with lowlander non-Agaw to some extent though due to what happened some millenium earlier), and Agaws were the people who lived in northern Tigray that gave the Semite settlers farmer technology, wares such as pottery and lithics that were sourced and shared throughout the northern Ethiopian region (due to the Aagw commonality) what you had in Ona in the Asmara plateau. Those were not Semitic rooted but indigenous, or more like the original Sudanic Butan and Gash rooted.

@rania212

Yeha was constructed to worship a Southern Arabian moon god:

Almaqah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 343428

You have the same in Sirwah Yemen worshipping the same god during the same period building structures that followed the same material type:

View attachment 343432

These are from northern Ethiopia. They have nothing to do with the Cushitic building but are straight out of Yemen.
View attachment 343433
View attachment 343434
The Agaws had no such architectural structural pre-conditions that explain any of what you see above -- none. Those grew out of the southern Arabian region.

Semitic is rooted in the Near East where we have the most ancient languages established, expanding later during the Bronze Age to Arabia, with Ethiopian Semitic being a section of those, not the origin itself.

It could be that Sabaean Yemenite rulers settled in Ethiopia and controlled both sides (in those inscriptions, those kings claim suzerainty to control Saba, though that is probably competition of internal Sabaean families that were probably rivals for succession or something and might have lied) but Saba is rooted in South Arabia, not Ethiopia. Northern Ethiopia was Cushitic land first, not Semitic. In the earliest Ethio-Semitic layers, the Semites absorbed Agaw root words during the first centuries of its arrival.

By the way, the early Semites did not have one all-encompassing kingdom called D'MT - that inscription was noted a bit more than a handful of times within a specific sub-region. There were several polities. Pre-Axum was a later confluence and offshoot of some of those localized adjacent Semitic polities that died out and transformed into Axum later. There were other Semitic communites that existed adjacent to Axum until they were absorbed by the early Axumite kings during expansion eastward and northward.

Here is one supposed Axumite king talking about expansionism from what seemed to be local.

". . . after I grew to be a man and forced the peoples (ethnē) bordering on my kingdom to live in peace, I made war upon the following peoples, and by force of arms reduced them to subjection. First I fought with the Gaze people [Agazi], then with Agame [both immediately north of the Axum kingdom] and Sigyene. After conquering them, I exacted a payment of half of everything they possessed."

With regards to who came up with the script, well we have a chronology in Yemen. People wrote the earliest script at the end of the 2nd millennium BC, before any Sabaean or Semitic structures or evidence was found in Northern Yemen. Furthermore, there is no chronology found of a gradual change of the Semitic script in the northern Horn of Africa. Those scripts came ready-made with the civilization that was brought, not prior.

DASI: Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions: Site details

Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions

dasi.cnr.it

Those people who first had the earliest South Arabian script that looked like this:
View attachment 343438
What was shown in the pottery in central Yemen was undoubtedly the developmental precursor to what you see in Yeha and other places in northern Ethiopia, substantiated not only by linguistics but also by radiocarbon dating. Yeha is dated around the 7th century BC, and you see the script used in section "B" follows neatly because that is what you see in there as well.

Not only that, the region of Yemen that had the earliest script also believed in the same polytheistic god 'lmqh.
View attachment 343440

Concordant with this is the statistical dating of the Ethio-Semitic languages that points toward a single introduction 2800 years ago.View attachment 343442
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0408

Furthermore, we have genetic evidence that comprehensively attests to the introduction of Arabian ancestry synonymous with the period we see the introduction of Semitic linguistic dating and archeological radio-carbon dating.

Agaw had loaned words Ethiosemitic when it was a baby language which automatically entails that it was new, not old, according to linguists:

"A major loanword set in the Proto-Ethiosemitic language reveals that the formative period of a distinct Proto-Ethiosemitic community took place on the African side of that sea. because the particular source language of the loanwords belonged to the Agäw branch of Cushitic (see appendix 5)—the ancient territories of which extended from the northern fringe of the Ethiopian Highlands south to Lake Tana— we can argue that the speakers of Proto-Ethiosemitic established their early settlements in the northern parts of the Ethiopian Highlands. This placement of the Proto-Ethiosemitic speakers is further confirmed by epigraphic evidence dating to the mid- and later first millennium BCE at sites such as Yeha in modern-day far northern Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Agäw loanword set in Proto-Ethiosemitic fits the “intensive general” category of borrowing. The most notable characteristic of this kind of borrowing is the significant penetration of loanwords into even the one-hundred-word list of core vocabulary meanings. This kind of word borrowing has both demographic and chronological implications. (see chapter 4.)"

Another evidence is that South Ethiosemitic had East Cushitc loanwords in its early structure showing how it was fairly young as South Ethiosemitic diverged very early from its earlier formation. Here is evidence using glottochronology:

"How long before that period should we place the initial settlement of the ancestral Proto-Ethiosemitic community in the northern Horn? e evidence, examined just above, of intensive general word borrowing from an Agäw language, including as many as six Agäw loanwords in core vocabulary, indicates that the settlement of the first Ethiosemitic speakers took place at least two to three centuries before the divergence of the Proto-Ethiosemitic society into Proto–north and Proto–south Ethiosemitic branches began, at least to mid millennium and perhaps to the sixth or seventh century"

You're going against a very established consensus by the claims you make. You need to update because the "Semitic originated in Ethiopian" arguments were from bums in 2008 type shit.

Loved reading your posts. So much information explained so well and easy to understand and digest.

 

[The alchemist]

Loved reading your posts. So much information explained so well and easy to understand and digest.

Thanks, brother.

 

[Emir of Zayla]

@Step a side
Early Semites- pre-Axum, Axum, all those were not from Agaws. Agaws had influence in the material culture, such as pottery and lithing industries but they were incorporated by those Semites from Southern Arabia. Architecture, political and social organizational design, elite hierarchy, etc, were Arabian in root. After the Sabaean period, you had a respective trajectory during the Axumite period that deviated from Yemen but that was rooted in the initial Semite origin.

Ona was predominantly Agaw (probably mixed with lowlander non-Agaw to some extent though due to what happened some millenium earlier), and Agaws were the people who lived in northern Tigray that gave the Semite settlers farmer technology, wares such as pottery and lithics that were sourced and shared throughout the northern Ethiopian region (due to the Aagw commonality) what you had in Ona in the Asmara plateau. Those were not Semitic rooted but indigenous, or more like the original Sudanic Butan and Gash rooted.

@rania212

Yeha was constructed to worship a Southern Arabian moon god:

Almaqah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 343428

You have the same in Sirwah Yemen worshipping the same god during the same period building structures that followed the same material type:

View attachment 343432

These are from northern Ethiopia. They have nothing to do with the Cushitic building but are straight out of Yemen.
View attachment 343433
View attachment 343434
The Agaws had no such architectural structural pre-conditions that explain any of what you see above -- none. Those grew out of the southern Arabian region.

Semitic is rooted in the Near East where we have the most ancient languages established, expanding later during the Bronze Age to Arabia, with Ethiopian Semitic being a section of those, not the origin itself.

It could be that Sabaean Yemenite rulers settled in Ethiopia and controlled both sides (in those inscriptions, those kings claim suzerainty to control Saba, though that is probably competition of internal Sabaean families that were probably rivals for succession or something and might have lied) but Saba is rooted in South Arabia, not Ethiopia. Northern Ethiopia was Cushitic land first, not Semitic. In the earliest Ethio-Semitic layers, the Semites absorbed Agaw root words during the first centuries of its arrival.

By the way, the early Semites did not have one all-encompassing kingdom called D'MT - that inscription was noted a bit more than a handful of times within a specific sub-region. There were several polities. Pre-Axum was a later confluence and offshoot of some of those localized adjacent Semitic polities that died out and transformed into Axum later. There were other Semitic communites that existed adjacent to Axum until they were absorbed by the early Axumite kings during expansion eastward and northward.

Here is one supposed Axumite king talking about expansionism from what seemed to be local.

". . . after I grew to be a man and forced the peoples (ethnē) bordering on my kingdom to live in peace, I made war upon the following peoples, and by force of arms reduced them to subjection. First I fought with the Gaze people [Agazi], then with Agame [both immediately north of the Axum kingdom] and Sigyene. After conquering them, I exacted a payment of half of everything they possessed."

With regards to who came up with the script, well we have a chronology in Yemen. People wrote the earliest script at the end of the 2nd millennium BC, before any Sabaean or Semitic structures or evidence was found in Northern Ethiopia. Furthermore, there is no chronology found of a gradual change of the Semitic script in the northern Horn of Africa. Those scripts came ready-made with the civilization that was brought, not prior.

DASI: Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions: Site details

Digital Archive for the Study of pre-islamic arabian Inscriptions

dasi.cnr.it

Those people who first had the earliest South Arabian script that looked like this:
View attachment 343438
What was shown in the pottery in central Yemen was undoubtedly the developmental precursor to what you see in Yeha and other places in northern Ethiopia, substantiated not only by linguistics but also by radiocarbon dating. Yeha is dated around the 7th century BC, and you see the script used in section "B" follows neatly because that is what you see in there as well.

Not only that, the region of Yemen that had the earliest script also believed in the same polytheistic god 'lmqh.
View attachment 343440

Concordant with this is the statistical dating of the Ethio-Semitic languages that points toward a single introduction 2800 years ago.View attachment 343442
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0408

Furthermore, we have genetic evidence that comprehensively attests to the introduction of Arabian ancestry synonymous with the period we see the introduction of Semitic linguistic dating and archeological radio-carbon dating.

Agaw had loaned words Ethiosemitic when it was a baby language which automatically entails that it was new, not old, according to linguists:

"A major loanword set in the Proto-Ethiosemitic language reveals that the formative period of a distinct Proto-Ethiosemitic community took place on the African side of that sea. because the particular source language of the loanwords belonged to the Agäw branch of Cushitic (see appendix 5)—the ancient territories of which extended from the northern fringe of the Ethiopian Highlands south to Lake Tana— we can argue that the speakers of Proto-Ethiosemitic established their early settlements in the northern parts of the Ethiopian Highlands. This placement of the Proto-Ethiosemitic speakers is further confirmed by epigraphic evidence dating to the mid- and later first millennium BCE at sites such as Yeha in modern-day far northern Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Agäw loanword set in Proto-Ethiosemitic fits the “intensive general” category of borrowing. The most notable characteristic of this kind of borrowing is the significant penetration of loanwords into even the one-hundred-word list of core vocabulary meanings. This kind of word borrowing has both demographic and chronological implications. (see chapter 4.)"

Another evidence is that South Ethiosemitic had East Cushitc loanwords in its early structure showing how it was fairly young as South Ethiosemitic diverged very early from its earlier formation. Here is evidence using glottochronology:

"How long before that period should we place the initial settlement of the ancestral Proto-Ethiosemitic community in the northern Horn? e evidence, examined just above, of intensive general word borrowing from an Agäw language, including as many as six Agäw loanwords in core vocabulary, indicates that the settlement of the first Ethiosemitic speakers took place at least two to three centuries before the divergence of the Proto-Ethiosemitic society into Proto–north and Proto–south Ethiosemitic branches began, at least to mid millennium and perhaps to the sixth or seventh century"

You're going against a very established consensus by the claims you make. You need to update because the "Semitic originated in Ethiopian" arguments were from bums in 2008 type shit.

Any evidence or possibility of early-Somali polities during this time period. Also what do you make of this Sabaean temple found in northern Somalia?

 

[rania212]

Thanks, brother.

You’ve said nothing to substantiate your argument. As Schneider puts it “ there were similarities between them way before the coming of the Sabeans” the architecture and structures were found all over Eritrea, with no monopoly found in Yemen. So no we know it was not exclusive to them and absolutely nothing predates anything found in Yemen. This is already readily admitted. Dm’t rulers were all indigenous, no Yemeni rulers ever ruled the horn and the scripts were written in proto-Ge’ez. It clearly states that the Sabeans were under their dominion and that these people who clearly had no kingdom or state, excercised no politician control. The bogus Sabean narrative has always had holes. The process to Axum has been linear and there were thriving cities built by its own people that by far precede contact as beautifully detailed by Curtis and Schmidt.

Hocus pocus DNA Tests mean nothing, without archaolgical evidence. The archeology does not support any mass migration into the horn. It never happened.

 

[Step a side]

You’ve said nothing to substantiate your argument. As Schneider puts it “ there were similarities between them way before the coming of the Sabeans” the architecture and structures were found all over Eritrea, with no monopoly found in Yemen. So no we know it was not exclusive to them and absolutely nothing predates anything found in Yemen. This is already readily admitted. Dm’t rulers were all indigenous, no Yemeni rulers ever ruled the horn and the scripts were written in proto-Ge’ez. It clearly states that the Sabeans were under their dominion and that these people who clearly had no kingdom or state, excercised no politician control. The bogus Sabean narrative has always had holes. The process to Axum has been linear and there were thriving cities built by its own people that by far precede contact as beautifully detailed by Curtis and Schmidt.

Hocus pocus DNA Tests mean nothing, without archaolgical evidence. The archeology does not support any mass migration into the horn. It never happened.

Says the hotep that believes Semitic languages originated in Ethiopia

 

[Idilinaa]

You’ve said nothing to substantiate your argument. As Schneider puts it “ there were similarities between them way before the coming of the Sabeans” the architecture and structures were found all over Eritrea, with no monopoly found in Yemen. So no we know it was not exclusive to them and absolutely nothing predates anything found in Yemen. This is already readily admitted. Dm’t rulers were all indigenous, no Yemeni rulers ever ruled the horn and the scripts were written in proto-Ge’ez. It clearly states that the Sabeans were under their dominion and that these people who clearly had no kingdom or state, excercised no politician control. The bogus Sabean narrative has always had holes. The process to Axum has been linear and there were thriving cities built by its own people that by far precede contact as beautifully detailed by Curtis and Schmidt.

Hocus pocus DNA Tests mean nothing, without archaolgical evidence. The archeology does not support any mass migration into the horn. It never happened.

Can you link me the studies to that? Sounds very interesting.

Old academics often oversimplified things or were driven by a colonial settler ideology to explain things, when in reality the Horn of Africa and Arabia existed on a cultural continuum, and in a lot of cases acted as a cultural extension of each-other that would be mutually influential and there was also trans-localist culture and community that formed itself from that.

Translocal relations connect and influence different localities and people at the same time. That means conditions or events at one place have an immediate impact on other connected places.

That description i quoted is how things played out in a lot of cases. Developments on one side , would happen on the other side. Vice versa .

 

[The alchemist]

You’ve said nothing to substantiate your argument. As Schneider puts it “ there were similarities between them way before the coming of the Sabeans” the architecture and structures were found all over Eritrea, with no monopoly found in Yemen. So no we know it was not exclusive to them and absolutely nothing predates anything found in Yemen. This is already readily admitted. Dm’t rulers were all indigenous, no Yemeni rulers ever ruled the horn and the scripts were written in proto-Ge’ez. It clearly states that the Sabeans were under their dominion and that these people who clearly had no kingdom or state, excercised no politician control. The bogus Sabean narrative has always had holes. The process to Axum has been linear and there were thriving cities built by its own people that by far precede contact as beautifully detailed by Curtis and Schmidt.

Hocus pocus DNA Tests mean nothing, without archaolgical evidence. The archeology does not support any mass migration into the horn. It never happened.

I presented conclusive evidence based on expert consensus on interdisciplinary research stances that are impossible to debunk. I mean literally impossible. You peddle uninformed takes. You've presented no evidence thus far, and what you quoted or associated with the Sabaean megalithic structures and presence was either a misunderstanding of what the authors quoted, misattribution of separate developments, and, of course, false associations, and lastly vague unprofessional take that mix unrelated things by one of the authors.

These are the evidence available and presented thus far which are conclusive:

- Archeological (We have radiocarbon dates.)
- Linguistic (Epigraphic evidence from Arabia itself shows the earliest script but also internal analysis by experts on these languages reveals consensus on how they are derived from something that came during the period that agrees with archeology and genetics.)
- Genetic (Using words like "Hokus pokus" reveals your ignorance of the strength of science to reveal population history. The average Habash population has around 30-35% paternal Arabian DNA and ~25% autosomal ancestry.)

You coming here and saying there is no evidence is delusional and childish. Such activities get accepted as a standard among the Ethiopianist forums with their idiotic drivel, not here.

 

[The alchemist]

Any evidence or possibility of early-Somali polities during this time period. Also what do you make of this Sabaean temple found in northern Somalia?

View attachment 343504View attachment 343505

I am not sure about that. We have evidence of economic activity a few centuries later for long-standing hubs, and stretching coastal activities along the northern Somali peninsula. There was an economic potential earlier, but probably as an extension of Punt whereas a place like Somaliland would merely be an economic extension, and/or peripheral. We'll have to see when more archeology is revealed. But genetics itself have proven that people descended down through the Eritrean corridor around the 2nd millennium BC.

This is an interesting find. Is there any systematic archeological work done on it or radiocarbon dating?

 

[Emir of Zayla]

This is an interesting find. Is there any systematic archeological work done on it or radiocarbon dating?

Not yet, I believe it was a Somali local that directed the archaeologists to it but my memory is pretty fuzzy due to not reading up on it for a long while.

 

[rania212]

I presented conclusive evidence based on expert consensus on interdisciplinary research stances that are impossible to debunk. I mean literally impossible. You peddle uninformed takes. You've presented no evidence thus far, and what you quoted or associated with the Sabaean megalithic structures and presence was either a misunderstanding of what the authors quoted, misattribution of separate developments, and, of course, false associations, and lastly vague unprofessional take that mix unrelated things by one of the authors.

These are the evidence available and presented thus far which are conclusive:

- Archeological (We have radiocarbon dates.)
- Linguistic (Epigraphic evidence from Arabia itself shows the earliest script but also internal analysis by experts on these languages reveals consensus on how they are derived from something that came during the period that agrees with archeology and genetics.)
- Genetic (Using words like "Hokus pokus" reveals your ignorance of the strength of science to reveal population history. The average Habash population has around 30-35% paternal Arabian DNA and ~25% autosomal ancestry.)

You coming here and saying there is no evidence is delusional and childish. Such activities get accepted as a standard among the Ethiopianist forums with their idiotic drivel, not here.

You did not present conclusive evidence you presented theories, those are two different things. One needs to critically analyse what they reading not merely read it. It is obviously no surprise that DNA tests are going to emanate around the same time as the fabrication, that is how it works. There is clear evidence of them trying to dislocate the history that is a fact not an opinion, hence why it was revised in the first place. There was no Sabean colony in the horn, the inscriptions and archaeological evidence clearly show the opposite, which shows a linear process and they could have never been the precursors.

The dating of structures and the script show them as appearing at the same time on both sides not owing to one so you are very wrong there and this is admitted. Also to quote schneider

'' the similarities between cultures were evident long before the coming of Sabeans to Ethiopia''

''A recurring theme of this chapter is the need critically to evaluate the view that cultural and political trends in the northern Horn were dominated by contacts with southern Arabia and, more specifically, that colonisation from the latter area was responsible for numerous cultural innovations which, according to the late Professor Edward Ullendorff, contributed to 'a vastly superior civilisation'.1 This view, first enunciated in detail over 80 years ago by Carlo Conti Rossini,2 has been widely – if uncritically – accepted and has passed into much popular historical understanding and, for that matter, mythology,3 despite strong epigraphic counter-indications from the 1970s and, more recently, archaeological evidence that a number of innovations to which Conti Rossini had attributed a southern Arabian origin were in fact indigenous African developments at a significantly earlier date. While it should not be argued that cultural trends east and west of the Red Sea took place completely independently at this time, it now appears that the scale, duration, and overall importance of their interconnections have been significantly exaggerated. As argued in Chapter 2, this has been at least partly due to paucity of information about earlier times in the northern Horn''

This thesis was further spelt out, in the following year, by the epigraphist Roger Schneider. Emphasising the entirely unproven character of Conti Rossini's suppositions, he pointed out for example that the people of northern Ethiopia, living as they did in a rocky environment, did not have to wait for the arrival of the Sabaeans to erect houses built of stone. He argued further that Sabaeans who came to Ethiopia "did not arrive in a cultural vacuum", but that, on the contrary, a significant Ethiopian state, people, and language had existed well before their advent. He contended further that Sabaean settlement was restricted to a few localities, and did not impinge greatly on Northern Ethiopia as a whole.


Drewes also points out Graffiti which refutes Conti rossini(hack on the first place) Ethiopia of Ge'ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia. This discovery showed that Conti Rossini had been mistaken in assuming that Sabaean inscriptions in the country represented the prototype from which Ge'ez had later developed.

To claim that a wide range of people have such and such DNA is completely asinine. Habesh is a just a term that was designated for a group of people was not even constrained to those that spoke Semitic languages. Secondly you are clearly oblivious to the history of using DNA to skew history in the continent. Nor does DNA work in isolation, it needs to be supported by archaeological evidence. A wide migration is not supported by evidence. These Sabeans seem to move in mysterious ways, they are missing from major pre-axumite sites. Now I can pull up the evidence that refutes your points about the script and archaeology appearing earlier in South Arabia, which is a flagrant lie.

Cheerio

 

[Khaem]

Hotep is not a response but a denial tactic. Nobody is embarrassed and nothing of what you wrote was accurate. Absolutely no evidence of this iron age semitic invasion or colonisation. Semitic languages spoken in the horn are not a result of contact, we have already discovered that the semitic languages spoken in the horn also precede all of the semitic languages spoken in arabia, how strange.

We wuzz Muslim Adal
We Wuzz Jewish Queen of Sheba
We wuzz Pagan Semites from Yemen
We wuzz the home of Semetic languages

We wuzz... kangz

 

[The alchemist]

You did not present conclusive evidence you presented theories, those are two different things. One needs to critically analyse what they reading not merely read it. It is obviously no surprise that DNA tests are going to emanate around the same time as the fabrication, that is how it works. There is clear evidence of them trying to dislocate the history that is a fact not an opinion, hence why it was revised in the first place. There was no Sabean colony in the horn, the inscriptions and archaeological evidence clearly show the opposite, which shows a linear process and they could have never been the precursors.

The dating of structures and the script show them as appearing at the same time on both sides not owing to one so you are very wrong there and this is admitted. Also to quote schneider

'' the similarities between cultures were evident long before the coming of Sabeans to Ethiopia''

''A recurring theme of this chapter is the need critically to evaluate the view that cultural and political trends in the northern Horn were dominated by contacts with southern Arabia and, more specifically, that colonisation from the latter area was responsible for numerous cultural innovations which, according to the late Professor Edward Ullendorff, contributed to 'a vastly superior civilisation'.1 This view, first enunciated in detail over 80 years ago by Carlo Conti Rossini,2 has been widely – if uncritically – accepted and has passed into much popular historical understanding and, for that matter, mythology,3 despite strong epigraphic counter-indications from the 1970s and, more recently, archaeological evidence that a number of innovations to which Conti Rossini had attributed a southern Arabian origin were in fact indigenous African developments at a significantly earlier date. While it should not be argued that cultural trends east and west of the Red Sea took place completely independently at this time, it now appears that the scale, duration, and overall importance of their interconnections have been significantly exaggerated. As argued in Chapter 2, this has been at least partly due to paucity of information about earlier times in the northern Horn''

This thesis was further spelt out, in the following year, by the epigraphist Roger Schneider. Emphasising the entirely unproven character of Conti Rossini's suppositions, he pointed out for example that the people of northern Ethiopia, living as they did in a rocky environment, did not have to wait for the arrival of the Sabaeans to erect houses built of stone. He argued further that Sabaeans who came to Ethiopia "did not arrive in a cultural vacuum", but that, on the contrary, a significant Ethiopian state, people, and language had existed well before their advent. He contended further that Sabaean settlement was restricted to a few localities, and did not impinge greatly on Northern Ethiopia as a whole.


Drewes also points out Graffiti which refutes Conti rossini(hack on the first place) Ethiopia of Ge'ez graffiti, and other inscriptions, which were quite as old as the South Arabian inscriptions in Ethiopia. This discovery showed that Conti Rossini had been mistaken in assuming that Sabaean inscriptions in the country represented the prototype from which Ge'ez had later developed.

To claim that a wide range of people have such and such DNA is completely asinine. Habesh is a just a term that was designated for a group of people was not even constrained to those that spoke Semitic languages. Secondly you are clearly oblivious to the history of using DNA to skew history in the continent. Nor does DNA work in isolation, it needs to be supported by archaeological evidence. A wide migration is not supported by evidence. These Sabeans seem to move in mysterious ways, they are missing from major pre-axumite sites. Now I can pull up the evidence that refutes your points about the script and archaeology appearing earlier in South Arabia, which is a flagrant lie.

Cheerio

Just because you were told a stupid baseless story now you have to project that onto conclusive, scientifically-backed truth since you did not learn to adjust to a world that contradicts your beliefs. Your Habash papa told you a little layman fairytale when you were little and The Alchemist came and shattered your world? That's cute.

No one takes you seriously.

 

[Ella Amida]

He contended further that Sabaean settlement was restricted to a few localities, and did not impinge greatly on Northern Ethiopia as a whole.

Reading this paper kind of made me think of @Shimbiris' model here taking into account a possible earlier wave of Copt-like gene flow which in turn would render Arabian ancestry in Habeshas and other Northern Horners quite a bit lower than 25-30%. This also would accord better with Ehret's postulation based on patterns of word-borrowing that this would have been a tiny minority:

@The alchemist I'm in agreement with you overall, but based on the archeology and linguistics, and taking into account the possibility of earlier gene flow, I do wonder if the 1/4 Arabian autosomal figure (up to 30% in some Eritrean samples) might possibly be somewhat inflated.

I also think we should understand the Proto-Ethiosemites to be their own distinct cultural group rather than referring to them as "Sabaeans" per-say as many sources tend to do since they appear so archeologically. But PES is linguistically pretty diverged from Sabaean as @Shimbiris once reminded me. These people were clearly under the Sabaean sphere of influence given their material culture and bilingual inscriptions but they would have been linguistically and likely culturally distinct.

 

[Midas]

Another intresting aspect to this discussion is this point about south semetic not being accepted as a branch. We might possibly be looking at a harari lanaguge situation again expcet farther in the past . @Idilinaa (this is a profess of semetic lanaguges you can find him on twitter and interviews on youtube) thr cushitic substrate of MSA and the existence of that tihama culture i posted on here make me things there is definitely something weird going on here.

 

[Idilinaa]

Another intresting aspect to this discussion is this point about south semetic not being accepted as a branch. We might possibly be looking at a harari lanaguge situation again expcet farther in the past . @Idilinaa (this is a profess of semetic lanaguges you can find him on twitter and interviews on youtube) thr cushitic substrate of MSA and the existence of that tihama culture i posted on here make me things there is definitely something weird going on here.View attachment 344867

I don't think it's similar to Harari. The difference between Harari and East Gurage, its like the difference between Af Maxaa and Af Maay dialects. And Harari/Gurage forms out of branch of the South Ethiopic group, with the original speakers being cushitic speaking Sidamo.

But this is interesting what he is saying that South Semetic form their own branch in the Afro-Asiatic family tree like Berber and Egyptian, rather than a branch of semetic.

Does that make Ethio-semetic included in that branch?

 

[Midas]

I don't think it's similar to Harari. The difference between Harari and East Gurage, its like the difference between Af Maxaa and Af Maay dialects. And Harari/Gurage forms out of branch of the South Ethiopic group, with the original speakers being cushitic speaking Sidamo.

But this is interesting what he is saying that South Semetic form their own branch in the Afro-Asiatic family tree like Berber and Egyptian, rather than a branch of semetic.

Does that make Ethio-semetic included in that branch?

No my bad i screenshoted it poorly. It's own sub branch of west semetic is what he thinks it might be.

I dont think its exactly like the harrai situation but it's a very weird thing becuase
1) we have evidence of megalith building culutre on the tihama plain which resembles the megalthhic buidling culutre of cushtites and this predates the arrival of semetic speakers to the area.
2) the fact that the Msa lanaguges spoken on the coastal regions of yemen and oman have a cushitic substratum .
3) the oral tradition of a wave of semetic speakers from the north arriving i.e the Levant (Adnan and qahtan)

My best guess at what is going on is that if you look at the date when the old south arabian script first appears( late second millenia b.c) that matches up with a major world event at the time. The bronze age collapse and consider if sabaic was a central semetic language from the north. It doesn't seem to be that suprsing that a massive wave of fleeing semetic speakers from the densely populated bronze age Kingdoms of the Levant arrived in yemen with knwoldege of semetic scripts. They probably then mixed with local cushitic pouplations in at least some of the areas. (There was probably other non cushitic groups like arabian hunter gatherer pouplations )

 

[The alchemist]

Reading this paper kind of made me think of @Shimbiris' model here taking into account a possible earlier wave of Copt-like gene flow which in turn would render Arabian ancestry in Habeshas and other Northern Horners quite a bit lower than 25-30%. This also would accord better with Ehret's postulation based on patterns of word-borrowing that this would have been a tiny minority:

View attachment 344848
@The alchemist I'm in agreement with you overall, but based on the archeology and linguistics, and taking into account the possibility of earlier gene flow, I do wonder if the 1/4 Arabian autosomal figure (up to 30% in some Eritrean samples) might possibly be somewhat inflated.

I also think we should understand the Proto-Ethiosemites to be their own distinct cultural group rather than referring to them as "Sabaeans" per-say as many sources tend to do since they appear so archeologically. But PES is linguistically pretty diverged from Sabaean as @Shimbiris once reminded me. These people were clearly under the Sabaean sphere of influence given their material culture and bilingual inscriptions but they would have been linguistically and likely culturally distinct.

The idea that aspects of what is enriched in the Habash or northern Ethiopians’ DNA when using Somali as a Cushitic proxy, highlighting results of elevated baseline endemic Nile Valley old elements that one can attribute to Mesolithic and Neolithic Natufian-like ancestry that already exist within the bulk of the non-AEA ancestry of Cushites in general carry, is not new. We knew that since 2019 on this forum, initially spread by some other user.

However, you are making a massive overstatement on how much it, in frequency, is relevant to the conversation and to what degree it is consistent across the board throughout the population from an admixture perspective rather than a Cushiitc Eurasian enrichment. When I model these groups, I note Natufian but rarely historic Egyptian ancestry often present in Sudanese populations, something that checks out among the available sample set when running them on G25. One can notice the condition most markedly present among the Ethiopian Jewish samples who are, on average, 20% Near Eastern added to whatever Somali sample one uses. This was a group that mostly derived from Agaws before they became Jewish, giving a sense of how they have elevated endemic Nile Valley stuff way older than Copt and most likely sourcing from the get-go (Butana and Gash), rather than post-middle dynasty geneflow which the Copts are mainly the result of.

It is evident that initially the Arabians were a minority but not necessarily an overwhelmed minority. What I mean by this is that although linguistics does show that there was intensive word borrowing in the earliest stages, hypothesized as such because of linguistic grounds, we have to set a big reality check on this. The autosomal genetics that are stable throughout Ethiopia and even show significant presence among non-Habash people that had historical contact with Ethio-Semites, vindicate the demographic control, distinction, and relative size of those Arabians and their continual pedigree. As such, you won’t see the Natufian-like Cushitic element rise above 25% within what is the extra Near Eastern when using Somali proxy. That still shows over 20% in Arabian on average which is significant whereas saying they were a snuffed-out population is quite unrealistic because they would not have such autosomal success if they were conditioned under such continual pressures. A very damning evidence is that the average Habash has over 30% of their Y-DNA descend from those Arabians.

The linguistic evidence supports this further by showing how the intensive borrowing ended after a relatively short period. That is, the autosomal, uniparental, and linguistic data are very concordant that those Arabian settlers, although they had contact with Agaws, always maintained population integrity, they were demographically successful and did not throw themselves amidst an overwhelming Agaw region but probably only dealt with certain tribes mainly since Agaws lived throughout the northern horn, not just one place as urbanites. One can also make the potential argument that although these Arabians were not larger than the Agaw population, they were stronger in their reproductive success and that the Agaws themselves were not that big of a population, otherwise, those Arabs would literally have been overwhelmed.

I think this interpretation is only half correct and assumes things that don’t support the data. It is implied by the interpretation, without evidence, that there was an in-group northern Horn of Africa macro perspective when in reality, the data shows how the Semites were always distinguished in their presence, not just people who assimilated into an Agaw majority. You cannot have the DNA results as that persisted if this was the reality. On top of that, the intensive word borrowing does not support the notion that they spoke Agaw more than Semitic at any point other than having loanwords with some multi-linguals. The linguistics by their own scientific admission was always majorly Semitic, not showing evidence of equal use at all. In fact, we see Semitic being the overwhelming foundation with the percentage of Agaw seeping in rather than a creolization of any kind.

The other aspect of no adaptation is somewhat ridiculous. There was a marked macroeconomic relationship after those Semites arrived that the Agaws did not engage with to the same degree. So they did spread their relations across time and space in their own unique way. It is true that various farming techniques was borrowed by the Agaws, and that is evident. But much of this is regional adaptation. So they came with social and political technology that transformed things and made them very successful.

Models:

Notice the high Natufian but no historic Egyptian ancestry:

Me personally don’t think the proto-Ethio-Semites were any distinct people as soon as they jumped overseas; that does not make any sense. Politically distinct? Most definitely. Ethnically (though this is a modern concept), not during these very early centuries. I think distinctions are related to how much time went by through cultural development. When I said Sabaean, I mean the cultural horizon that went over and inspired new elements. Note that the contentions above were specifically about where the Sabaean-type civilization started, not that the Ethio-Semites were indistinguishable from the Sabaeans in South Arabia. I used Sabaeans as a broad concept because no matter how much we want to inspire independence, many of the markers were straight South Arabian, not independently rooted. However, this is the proto-Ethio-Semitic period, at least in its early to middle period. When the pre-Axumite period came, which is a sub-regional period, is when one can undoubtedly say they were very distinct (though direct continuity from regional dead polities of the earlier layers of South Arabian settlers), because we have to distinguish the earlier polities with what later became pre-Axumite proper that had a lot of cultural "evolution" and independent development to the point where one cannot say it was one horizon with South Arabia. You see, I have a fairly nuanced picture. Note also that I did surely emphasize that aspects material aspects of even Ethio-Semites were borrowed from the ancient Agaws, so I don’t think it is fair to characterize my position as painting it reductively.

 

[Nin123]

Because these Habesha never build it in the 1st place The D’MT civilisation (precursor to Aksum) was run by South Arabians. These south Arabian colonialists were absorbed and forgotten. The only thing left of their legacy in the Horn of Africa is the script, Semitic tongue and the Arabian paternal lineages and the high to moderate amount of the Yemeni Iron Age component found in the Habesha and neighbouring tribes.

According to the Tigray and Amhara their ancestors came form souther Yemen and mixed with the native blacks.

 

[Nin123]

According to the Tigray and Amhara their ancestors came form souther Yemen and mixed with the native blacks.

Warya @Step a side read this tplf manifesto in it they claim habasha was tribe from southern Yemen.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ethiopia/tigray-program.pdf
I believe them 100% than any cadaan historian.