|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 19:55:20 GMT -5
The Meroitic Empire was made up by a number of different ethnic groups. Due to the multicultural presence of the ancient Kushites they first used Egyptian as a lingua franca to unite the Meroites.
After thousands of Egyptians left Egypt as a result of European rule, to settle in Egypt the Meroites invented their own script based on Tocharian/Kushana to write their records.
The Meroites employed Meroitic because it was already in use among the Egyptian and Meroite Buddhist: the Gymnosophists mentioned in the Classical literature who lived in this region.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 19:56:11 GMT -5
Ancient Kush extended across a large part of the Sudan. In this vast region encompassing the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations there were many different nationalities, that spoke a myriad of languages.
Due to the ethnic diversity of the Napatans, it is clear that at least from the Napatan period of Kush the rulers of the empire had decided that no single language spoken in the empire would be used to record political, administrative and religious information. To maintain an equilibrium within and among the Napatan nationalities Egyptian was used as the lingua franca of the Napatan empire.
The leaders of the Napatan empire probably used Egyptian because it was an international language, and few Kushites were of Egyptian ethnic origin.Egyptian remained the lingua franca for the Kushites during the Napatan and early Meroitic periods in Kushite history. After the Assyrians defeated the Egyptians the ethnic composition of the Kushite empire began to change. Many Egyptians began to migrate into Kushite, to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large numbers of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These foreign people began to take over many Egyptian settlements. In response, Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other political and military conflicts erupted after the Assyrians defeated the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. These incidents led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. For example, Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deserters moved into Kush.
The archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testify to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush. In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we have evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). Rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC. These conflicts led to many Egyptians migrating into Nubia and the Sudan. By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled in the Meroitic Sudan.
Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule . This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt, and the migration of Egyptians into Kush.
During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.As more and more Egyptians, fled to Kush as it came under foreign domination . Egyptians became a large minority in the Meroitic Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
The textual and historical evidence is clear. There was a large migration of Egyptian speaking nationals into Kush. This made Egyptian a major language spoken by Meroitic citizens. The change in demographics in the Meroitic Empire probably led to the shift from Egyptian to Tocharian, which would have been see as a neutral language because only a few Indians and native Buddhists were probably living in the empire at the time.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 19:57:18 GMT -5
“It would seem that Buddha was an Egyptian priest, chased from Memphis by the persecution of Cambyses. This tradition would justify the portrayal of Buddha with woolly hair. Historical documents do not invalidate this tradition…There is general agreement today on placing in the sixth century not only Buddha but the whole religious and philosophical movement in Asia with Confucius in China, Zoroaster in Iran. This would confirm the hypothesis of a dispersion of Egyptian priests at that time spreading their doctrine in Asia. (p.287)”
Anta Diop in The African Origin of Civilization .
Diop's mention of Memphis is quite interested because it is here that Petrie (1908) found evidence of Buddhist colonist in Egypt. Petrie claimed the iconography dated back to the Persian period of Egyptian rule (c 525-405BC). he wrote:
"on the right side, at the top is the Tibetan Mongolian, below that the Aryan woman of the Punjab, and at the base a seated figure in Indian attitude with the scarf over the left shoulder. These are the first remains of Indians known on the Mediterranean. Hitherto there have been no material evidences for that connection which is stated to have existed, both by embassies from Egypt and Syria to India, and by the great Buddist mission sent by Asoka as far west as Greece and Cyrene. We seem now to have touched the Indian colony in Memphis, and we may hope for more light on that connection which seems to have been so momentous for Western thought" (p.129).
If Petrie's dating is correct this puts Buddhists in Egypt two hundred years before Asoka, sent Buddhist missionaries to Egypt.The Classical writers report on Indian sages in the region. This makes it clear that Buddhist had probably been living in Meroitic Empire and Egypt for 600 years before the Meroites invented Meroitic writing.
.
Reference:
W. M. Flinders Petrie, The peoples of the Persian Empire, Man (1908) No.71:pp.129-130.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 19:58:46 GMT -5
This is not surprising because the Classical literature makes it clear that Indian scholars settled in the Meroitic Empire ( Corybeare,1950) .If Indian scholars were living in the Meroitic Sudan, these scholars probably introduced the Tocharian language and Kharosthi script to the Meroites. I used the Kushana hypothesis as the foundation of my decipherment of Meroitic. Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol. 1,claimed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (Conybeare, 1950). According to the Life of Apollonius,the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, 1950 Vol.1:273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed. The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka, which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (Kulke & Rothermund, 1990 :73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius. Confirmation of the Ganges story, confirms the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized-Meroites that could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites. There were other Indians in North Africa besides Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community ( Salomon, 1991,1993) that left us many inscriptions written in their native script.. These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics and Demotic to the Meroitic writing system. The Classical literature makes it clear that Indians physically settled in the Meroitic Empire. It was these Indians who probably introduced Kharosthi writing and the Tocharian A language. The direct transfer of Tocharian A to the Meroites by Indian scholars would explain why the language of the Meroitic inscriptions is Tocharian A . References: Conybeare, F.C. (1950). Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana . H. Kulke, H. & D. Rothermund. (1990). History of India London: Routledge. Salomon,R.(1991)."Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society: 731-736. Salomon,R.(1993). Addenda, Journal of the American Oriental Society :593. Special Correspondent.(21 November 2007).Tamil Brahmi script in Egypt. TheHindu:pg1. www.hindu.com/2007/11/21/stories/2007112158412400.htm
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 20:06:34 GMT -5
Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana makes it clear that the Gymnosophist lived in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Empire. The historical evidence makes it clear that there was probably two migrations of Buddhist Gymnosophists to Egypt and the Meroitic Empire.
Asoka was a supporter of Buddhism. Zacharias P. Thundy, in Buddha and Christ make it clear that the edits of Asoka (c.274-236 BC) indicate that this ruler sent missionaries to Egypt to preach the Buddhist Dharma(pp.242-243).
Thundy maintains that archaeological evidence exist for a community of Indian sages living in Memphis as early as 200 BC (p.243).
We know that decendents of these missionaries were still in Egypt over two hundred years later because they were visited by Apollonius of Tyana.
Asoka used Kharosthi to write his edits. The Buddhist also used this writing system to record their scriptures. This means that the Gymnosophists would have had a long tradition of employing Kharosthi to communicate their ideas. The Gymnosophists were probably well respected by the Meroites and some Meroites probably had knowledge of Buddhist teachings and literacy.
Some Meroites may have played an important role in Buddhist because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka (see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474). Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " we have a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465).
The Buddhist text where Blemmya were mentioned are very old. The Vinaya pitaka, is dated to the 4th century B.C.E.
If Blemmya are mentioned in Buddhists text we can be sure that Meroites were not ignorant of Kharosthi. This would explain why many of the Meroitic symbols agree with Kharosthi. They agree because some Meroites were probably already literate in Kharosthi due to the influence of Buddhism in the Meroitic Empire.
.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 20:22:07 GMT -5
Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana makes it clear that the Gymnosophist lived in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Empire. The Gymnosophists were Buddhists.
There were Gymnosophist communities in Upper Egypt and the Meroitic Sudan. The Gymnosophists used Tocharian and the Kharosthi script to write their scriptures. This makes it clear that Tocharian and Kharosthi were important means of communication for this Meroite population. Tocharian was therefore probably a major language in the Meroitic Sudan.
The historical evidence makes it clear that there was probably two migrations of Buddhist Gymnosophists to Egypt and the Meroitic Empire.Asoka was a supporter of Buddhism. Zacharias P. Thundy, in Buddha and Christ make it clear that the edits of Asoka (c.274-236 BC) indicate that this ruler sent missionaries to Egypt to preach the Buddhist Dharma(pp.242-243).
Thundy maintains that archaeological evidence exist for a community of Indian sages living in Memphis as early as 200 BC (p.243).We know that decendents of these missionaries were still in Egypt over two hundred years later because they were visited by Apollonius of Tyana.
Asoka used Kharosthi to write his edits. The Buddhist also used this writing system to record their scriptures. This means that the Gymnosophists would have had a long tradition of employing Kharosthi to communicate their ideas. The Gymnosophists were probably well respected by the Meroites and some Meroites probably had knowledge of Buddhist teachings and literacy.
Some Meroites may have played an important role in Buddhist because Blemmyae, a prominent group in the Meroitic Sudan are mentioned in Pali text Tipitaka (see:JDM Derrett, (2002) A Blemmya in India, Numen 49:460-474). Dr.Derrett wrote that in early Pali text " wehave a Blemmya (an African) in front rank Buddhist texts of very respectable age (p.465).The Buddhist text where Blemmya were mentioned are very old. The Vinaya pitaka, is dated to the 4th century B.C.E.
If Blemmya are mentioned in Buddhists text we can be sure that Meroites were not ignorant of Kharosthi. This would explain why many of the Meroitic symbols agree with Kharosthi. They agree because some Meroites were probably already literate in Kharosthi due to the influence of Buddhism in the Meroitic Empire.
There seems to have been a second migration of Buddhists to the Meroitic Empire many years after Asoka sent missionaries to Egypt. These migrants came to the Meroitic Empire after their king was murdered.
Flavius Philostratus, the writer of the Vita Apollonii, Vol.1 , claimed that the Gymnosophists of Meroe originally came from India (see F.C. Conybeare, Philostratus:The Life of Apollonius of Tyana(p.45),1950). Given the fact that the Kushana had formerly ruled India around the time that the Meroitic writing was introduced to the Kushite civilization, led to the hypothesis that the ancestors of the Gymnosophist may have been Kushana philosophers. The historical evidence of the Kushana having ruled India made the Classical references to Indians, the Gymnosophists in Meroe, an important source for the construction of alternative theories about the possible location of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There is external evidence, which supports my theory. A theory explains observed phenomena and has predictive power. I have theorized that due to the claims of the Classical writers that some of the Meroites came from India (F.C Conybeare (Trans.), Philostratus: The life of Apollonius of Tyana Vol.2, (1950) pg.271).According to the Life of Apollonius, the Indian Meroites were formerly led by a King Ganges, who had "repulsed the Scythians who invaded this land [India from] across the Caucasus" (Conybeare, Vol.1, Pg.273). Pilostratus also made it clear that the Indians of Meroe came to this country after their king was killed. </div><div>
The presence of this tradition of an Indian King of the Indian-Meroites conquering the Scythians predicts that the Indian literature should record this historical episode. This prediction is supported by a Jaina text called the <strong>Kalakeharya-Kathanaka</strong> , which reports that when the Scythians invaded Malwa, the King of Malwa, called Vikramaditya defeated the Scythians (H. Kulke & D. Rothermund, History of India(London, Routledge: 1990, pg.73). This king Vikramaditya may be the Ganges mentioned in the Life of Apollonius.Confirmation of the Ganges story,supports the Classical literary evidence that their were Indianized -Meroites that could have introduced the Tocharian trade language to the Meroites.
In addition to the classical mention of the Indians settling Meroë, and Asoka's edit sending missionaries to Egypt, we also have a horde of Kushana coins that were found on the floor of a cave at the present monastery-shine at Debra Demo in modern Ethiopia in 1940.
Moreover, there were other Indians in Egypt in addition Gymnosophist/Buddhist communities in Upper Egypt and Kush/Meroe. For example, at Quseir al-Qadim there was a large Indian speaking community (see: R. Salomon, "Epigraphic remains of Indian traders in Egypt", Journal of the American oriental Society, (1991) pp.731-736; and R. Salomon, Addenda,Journal of the American Oriental Society, (1993) pg.593). These Indians were in Egypt writing messages in their own language, around the time we see a switch from Egyptian hieroglyphics to the Meroitic writing system. All of this supported the traditions of the Meroites that speak of a knowledge of the Kushana/Indians among the Meroites.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian-Meroite King who conquered the Scythians is supported by the Indian literature, provides external corroboration of the tradition that some of the Meroites were of Indian origin. </div><div> </div><div>The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tokharian trade languagedid not introduce this writing to the Meroites who needed a neutral language to unify the diverse ethnic groups who made up the Meroite state. In relation to the history of linguistic change and bilingualism, itis a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tokharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics.
In summary the classical literature makes it clear that there was a connection between the Gymnosophists (of Meroe) and the Indians. The fact that historical events mentioned in the classical sources are found in the Indian literature confirm the view that there were Indian-Meroites who could have introduced the Tokharian trade language to the Meroites. The fact that the Nubians who were probably not part of the"Meroitic state", used hieroglyphics and Coptic to write their language without abandoning their native language support the view that the Meroites could have also used Tokharian to write Meroitic. And that eventhough the Kushites wrote Meroitic inscriptions in Tokharian, theywould not have had to abandon their own language.
My decipherment of Meroitic is based on the Kushana theory.The Kushana theory is that a group of “East Indian” scholars introduced the Meroitic writing system to the Meroites. The Kushana hypothesis was based on the following evidence, 1) no African language has been found to be a cognate language of Meroitic 2) the Classical literature says that the Kushites lived in Asia and Africa; 3) the Gymnosophists, or "naked sages" of Meroe came from India.
Before I began work on Meroitic, other researchers had already falsified the African theory for Meroitic's cognate language. Meroitic is not related to languages spoken in this area. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian and failed. K.H. Priese tried to read the Meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; he also failed.The fact that not even Nubian, a language spoken by a people who were engaged in constantly conflict with the Meroites , failed to be the cognate language of Meroitic made it clear that we must look elsewhere for the cognate language spoken by the Meroites.
The evidence presented above provides internal and external validity for my theory based upon the sources I have cited previously. The sources I have used are impartial, to disconfirm my hypothesis someone needs to show that my propositions are not fully informed[i.e., there were no Indians North Africa and Kush when the Classical writers maintained they were] and present rival explanations based on the evidence.
The fact that the claims made by the Classical writers issupported by the Indians themselves if further strong confirmation of the Kushana hypothesis. The hypothesis based on the classical literature, was enough to support the original Kushana Hypothesis. The predicting power of the original theory, matches the observed natural phenomena which was confirmed elsewhere by cognate place names, ethononyms, lexical items and grammatical features, indicate that my theory has not be falsified.
The ability to reliably predict a linguistic relationship between Kushana and Meroitic, was further confirmation of the Kushana Hypothesis, because the linguistic connections were deducible from prediction. I controlled the Kushana Hypothesis by comparing the statements of the classical writers, with historical, linguistic anthropological and toponymic evidence found not only in Africa, but also India and Central Asia [where the people also used Tokharian as a trade language to unify the various people in Central Asia].
I constructed three testable hypotheses in support of the Kushana theory, and it seems only fair that these variables must be disconfirmed, to falsify the Kushana Hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: If the meroites used a writing system of non-African origin a tradition mentioning this fact will exist. (Hypothesis confirmed. Classical literature mentions Indian scholars in ancient Meroe.)
Hypothesis: 2. If the classical literature mentions Indians who lived in Egypt influencing the Meroites their should be historical evidence relating to this tradition. (Hypothesis confirmed .Classical literature mentions a King who left his country is mentioned in the Jaina text called the Kalakeharya-Kathanaka.
Hypothesis: 3. If Classical literature is true about the Indian origin of the Gymnosophists Indians will be found living near the Meroites around the time the Meroitic inscriptions appear. (Hypothesis confirmed. Artifacts and coins with Indian inscriptions have been found in Egypt and Ethiopia.) Failure to disconfirm this theorem, implies validity of my prediction.
My confirmation of the above , and 1) the presence of Kushites in Africa and Asia; 2) Asoka sent many Buddhist missionaries to Egypt who wrote their scriptures in Kharosthi and Tocharian; 3) a Blemmya--native to the Meroitic empire, is mentioned in numerous Buddhist Pali text; 4)the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;5) cognate lexical items; 6)cognate verbs and 7) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Kushana representing the Meroitic cognate language. As a result of these facts we can now use Tocharian or Kushana to read the Meroitic text. The historical evidence make it clear that the Meroites were probably not strangers to Kharosthi literacy since the Gymnosophists had been in Upper Egypt and Meroitic Empires hundreds of years.
The evidence is clear Tocharian and Kharosthi was a popular media among Upper Egyptians and Meroites. As a result, it was a nativized Meroitic language spoken by a major group of Meroites.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 20:40:07 GMT -5
The Tocharian language was written in Kharosthi script. This script was used to write the Gandhararan Buddist Text. According to Glass (2000) the Kharosthi script appears fully developed in the Asokan inscriptions of Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra. These inscriptions date back to 3rd Century BC (Glass, 2000 p.20). It continued to be used in Gandhara, Kushan and Sogdian. Glass provides evidence that Kharosthi writing dates back to the first Brahmi inscriptions of India (Glass, 2000 pp.20-21). The fact the writing was used in India by Asoka to produce the rock edicts (Glass, 2000) , demonstrates that Khasrothi was in use long before the introduction of the Meroitic script to Kush. The Meroitic script resembles many Khaorsthi signs. Some researchers argue that the Meroites did not adopt the writing system of the Kushana/Tocharian people which was Kharosthi. Although this is their opinion a comparison of the Meroitic and Kharosthi symbols make it clear that both writing systems share many cognate signs. Aubin (2003) did a comparison of Meroitic and Kharothi and discovered that 34 out of 42 signs or 81% matched. Figure 1 : Aubin (2003) Comparison of Meroitic and Kharosthi Signs Since Tocharian was written is Kharosthi the cognition between Kharosthi and Meroitic is quite interesting and shows some connection between these scripts. It also offers additional support to the Tocharian origin of Meroitic writing given the analogy between the signs. Let's not forget that Welsby in The Kingdom of Kush, notes that "only four of the [Meroitic] letters resemble the equivalent Egyptian demotic signs" (p.193) But as you can see from the above there are more than four Kharosthi signs that match Meroitic, and even more of these signs match Kharosthi. The summary , Kharosthi script dates back to the 3rd Century BC. It was used to write Tocharian inscriptions. This makes it clear that Kharosthi was in use long before the Meroitic script was created. References: Aubin,P. (2003). Evidence for an Early Nubian Dialect in Meroitic Inscriptions: Phonological and Epigraphic Considerations. Meroitic Newsletter, pp.16-39. Glass, A. (2000). A Preliminary Study of Kharosthi Manuscript Paleography. M.A. Thesis. University of Washington.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 21:43:17 GMT -5
The most interesting Meroitic text concerning Apedemak is found on the votive tablet of Tañyidamani which is now found in the Paris Museum. On this votive tablet Tañyidamani is depicted on the obverse side , and the god Apedemak on the reverse side. On the reverse side of the Tañyidamani votive tablet the god Apedemak is depicted wearing a short apron and hemhem crown. On this votive tablet Apedemak also wears armlets, bracelets, a collar and pectoral. Inside a panel in front of Apedemak we find a cursive Meroitic inscription. The inscriptions in the panel on the reverse side of the votive tablet of King Tañyidamani make it clear that the king acknowledged the important role the god Apedemak played in his life. These inscriptions can be read either from right to left or top to bottom. Reading from right to left we read: TRANSLITERATION OF REVERSE SIDE OF VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI 1. w e to
2. q tel
3. w to si
4.tone m-k
5. d.[l]..r-i
6.te i
TRANSLATION 1. You (it is Apedemak who) gives guidance.
2. Revitalize support (for me King Tañyidamani).
3. You guide (me) to satisfaction.
4. (And ) much reverence (for your patron).
5. Give (it) amicably (to me).
6. May (it go forth). Reading this same inscription top to bottom we find the following: TRANSLITERATION OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI 1. w q b-to d-te.
2. e te to m ne l.
3. toe i skr-i. TRANSLATION 1. (Oh Apedemak) Guide and Make Honor (for your patron).
2. Give here your (full) measure of Good indeed.
3. (It is) thou (Apedemak who) give(s) leave to eminence (for your patron).
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 24, 2010 21:46:22 GMT -5
King Tanyidamani [Tanwetamani] Meroitic Period 110-90 BC . [/qb][/QUOTE]Reading this same inscription right to left we find the following: TRANSLITERATION OF THE VOTIVE TABLET OF KING TAÑYIDAMANI 1…….. 2. d lm……. 3. tñyi[dmni]…… 4. d h ni 5. lw r i n 6. p e ĥ n 7. d qr i 8. to….wi 9. to…..no 10. qo…. l e 11. W-ne lw kl 12. Mo k-i* nea 13. tb d tm k-i* Translation 1.[ ………]
2. Leave a legacy firmly established……..
3. Tañyidamani………
4. Bequeath a radiant offering.
5. Indeed send out glory and Good.
6. Vouchsafe Blessings and Good.
7.Leave this legacy Monarch (as is the) tradition.
8.To ignite[……] honor
9. To ignite[……] anew.
10. The Renewer[Apedemak]….to grant a blessing.
11. The Commander bears Glory.
12.Initiate (this) great obligation at this moment.
13.Announce out loud/in a lofty voice this lasting legacy to produce (this) duty.. Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Stela of Queen Amanishaketo Stela of queen Amanishaketo. Reverse
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 15:16:47 GMT -5
Hello! Could you please provide side by side linguistic features common to Tokharian and Meroitic that would outnumber those found between Nubian and Meroitic. Plus I don't understand how you can assert that Meroitic is both related to Beja and Tokharian. First of all there are no linguistic features that connect Nubian and Meroitic. Meroitic can be related to Tocharian and Beja, because Tocharian was a original a trade language. Since it was a linguua franca it already included many elements of Dravidian and Mande languages which were formerly spoken in Central asia. As a result, when it became a lingua franca in Meroitic empire it would have added new terms to Meroitic lexicon.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 15:17:15 GMT -5
Egyptian, Black African Languages and Meroitic
The Kushites and Egyptians had a close relationship for millennia. As a result the Egyptians had a tremendous influence on the culture of the Kushites, especially in the area of religion.
As early as the 12th dynasty the Egyptians controlled Nubia. After 1674 BC, the Kerma rulers regained control of Nubia until the raise of the New Kingdom. Pharaohs of the New Kingdom ruled Egypt for 500 years.
Nubia gained independence after the decline of Egypt in 1085 B.C. During this period the Kushites developed a highly developed civilization at Napata and Meroe (880 B.C.-A. D. 350). Over time the Kushites became strong enough to conqueror Egypt and found the 25th Dynasty.
The long association of Egypt and Nubia suggest that the Egyptians may have influenced more than the culture of the Kushites. In this paper we will review the affinities between the Egyptian and Meroitic languages.
Ll. Griffith during his decipherment of Meroitic (M.) found many Egyptian (E.) terms . These terms were especially used in the political culture area e.g., E. p-sy-n-nsw 'son of king' >M. pesto 'king's foothold/foundation of light' .
Now that we have more evidence about the Meroitic language we can now compare Egyptian and Meroitic to determine if there are any other similarities between these languages. Below are some Meroitic terms that illustrate the influence of Egyptian on Meroitic.
Egyptian Meroitic m 'do not' ma not, no nd 'homage' net 'bow in reverence' r 'to, into' r id. se 'son' s id. s y 'satisfaction' se-ne 'to be satisfied' ss 'writing, scribe' ssor 'scribe' s w 'to protect' s 'to protect' di 'give' d id. t ' thou' t id. t 'earth' te 'land' k i 'high' kha 'great' hc'w 'body' khe 'spirit, body' rc 'likewise' r 'like' bi 'good deed' bli 'right, order' b 'soul' b, be id. ssmt 'stewart' ssimte id. p-mr-msc 'general, stategus' pelmos id. p-sy-n-nsw 'son of the king' pesto st "Isis' Wos id. Wsir 'Osiris Sore id. nfr 'good' na, n ti 'here' t
Several aspects of Demotic grammar agree with Meroitic structure. This is especially true in relation to the formation of the adjective case and the use of pronouns.
The Meroitic funerary tablets are written in the third or second person. Meroitic words are usually formed by the addition of post-positions or suffixes. The Meroitic pronouns are suffixed to Meroitic words. They include, -te 'you, thou'; -t 'her, he'; ne 'his'; -to 'your'; and the -n and a third person singular suffixes. For example:
-n s/he, it, her, his i "go", i-n 'he goes' de 'bequeathal', de-n 'his bequeathal' qe 'make' , qe-n 'he makes'
In Demotic we see use of suffixial pronouns. For example: sdm 'hear' sdmy 'I hear' sdm .f 'he hear' sdm hr-f 'he will hear'
In Meroitic the adjective is placed behind the noun. For example,
e 'complete' ŝ on tene 'The king commence(s) the rebirth'. ŝ on tene-e 'The king commence(s) the complete rebirth'.
Adjectives in Demotic are also placed behind the noun. For example: rmt hm ' small man' ŝy nfr ' good fate' ssw sbk ' few days'
The -m suffix was used in Meroitic to denote the negative effect. The negative particle -m, is often joined to verbs along with the pronoun. For example:
mi-n 'injure him', mi-m-n 'injure him not'.
In Meroitic tablets the negative suffix rarely appears.
The Egyptian negative particle m, agrees with Meroitic. In Demotic the negative particle mn-, is prefixed, e.g.,
mn lh gm hw 'no fool finds profit'.
In the short review above of Egyptian and Meroitic cognates we can see the obvious influence of Egyptian, especially Demotic on Meroitic. This influence was shown not only in vocabulary but also grammatical features.
This linguistic material discussed above clearly suggest some Egyptian substrata influence on Meroitic. It indicates Egyptian influence on both the structure and vocabulary of Meroitic.
It is very interesting to note that much of the affinity between Meroitic and Egyptian is based on Demotic examples. This may be explained by the fact that Demotic was used by the Kushites during the 25th Dynasty, and forms the foundation for the Meroitic writing.
Meroitic Relationships to African Languages
The great savant Cheikh Anta Diop (1974,1981) was convinced that many West African groups had formerly lived in the Egypto-Nubian region before they migrated to West Africa(Diop,1974). He supported this hypothesis with a discussion of the cognation between the names for gods in Egypt-Nubia and West Africa (Diop,1974), Egypto-Nubian and West African ethnomyns and toponyms common to both regions (Diop,1981)[1] and West African and Egyptian languages.
There are many relationships between Meroitic and other African languages. For example, In Oromo/Galla, the term for queen is 'gifti'; and both 'naaga-ta" in Somali and Wolof 'jigen' mean woman. These terms appear to be related to Kdi > gti/e.
Yet even though we find cognition between some Cushitic and Nubian we can not use these languages to completely decipher Meroitic as proven by many past researchers. The Tocharian language on the otherhand, does allow us to read Meroitic and show its relationship with other African languages.
A comparison of Meroitic to African langauges indicate that Meroitic is closely related to langauges spoken in West Africa. Like Meroitic, the pronoun is often a suffix in other African languages. This suffix of the third person singular is usually n-, in other African languages. For example:
Bambara: no p r i 'his house' Kpelle: nyin 'his tooth' Akan: ni dan 'his house'
The Meroitic a- third person singular affix is also found in other African languages. For example:
Swahili: (1) a-ta kwenda 'he's going to go' (2) a-li-kwenda 'he is here' Manding: (1) ya zo 'he has come' (2) ya shirya mana 'he prepared (it) for us'.
The use of -i particle to form nouns in Meroitic correspond to the use of the -it and -ayy suffixes to form nouns in Wolof. The Wolof abstract noun formative suffix is -it, -itt, e.g., dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'.
In Wolof abstract nouns are also formed by the addition of the suffix -ayy, and in Dyolo -ay, e.g.,
baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'.
Prefixes are rarely used in Meroitic. The most common prefixes include the prefix of reinforcement -p, the intensive prefix -a and the imperfect prefix -b. The p-, can be either the prefix of reinforcement e.g., ŝ 'patron', p-ŝ 'the patron' ; or the imperfect prefix e.g.,ŝiñ'satisfaction', p-ŝiñ "continuous satisfaction'.
The Meroitic p- affix, means ‘the’. This Meroitic grammatical element corresponds to the Egyptian demonstrative pi 'the'.
In Meroitic, the –o element is used to change a noun into an adjective. The Meroitic –o suffix, agrees with the use affix –u, joined to a vowel, in other African languages to form adjectives. In Swahili, many adjectives are formed by the k- consonant plus the vowel -u : Ku. For example:
(1) imba 'sing' ; zuri 'fine' Kuimba kuzuri 'Fine singing' (2) -bivu 'ripe' Kuiva 'to ripen' (3) -bovu 'rotten' Kuoza 'to rot'.
In Meroitic the plural case was made by the suffix -b, or reduplication. Reduplication was also used as a plural effect in Meroitic, e.g., d'donations',d-d 'considerable donations'.
Reduplication is also used in other African languages to express the idea of abundance and diversity. For example, Swahili: Chungu kikavunjika vipande vipnade. "The cooking pot broke into pieces".
The Meroitic use of the -b suffix to make the plural number, corresponds to the use of the -ba- affix in African languages. In the Bantu languages the plural is formed by the ba- affix. In the Manding group of languages we see use of the -ba suffix. In Manding, the -ba affix is joined to nouns to denote the idea of physical or moral greatness. For example:
(1) na-folo 'good, rich' na-folo-ba 'great fortune' (2) so-kalo 'piece' so-kalo-ba 'considerable quarter of a village'.
In the Meroitic inscriptions there is constant mention of the khi 'body, spirit', the kha 'the abstract personality', the kho 'a shinning or translucent spirit soul'; and the Ba 'soul'. In many African languages the term Ba, is used to denote the terms 'soul or to be'. For example:
Egyptian: Ba Mbachi : Ba Coptic : Bai Bambara : Be Fang : Be.
The kha, existed within and without the human body. It would remain with the body until its flesh decayed, then it would either leave the tomb or hunt it. The Meroitic idea of Kha, as a spirit corresponds to Ka, in many African languages. For example:
Egyptian : Ka Manding : Ka Banda : Ka.
The linguistic evidence makes it clear that some of the Meroites may have spoken languages that belonged to the Niger-Congo-Mande family of languages. This is supported by the linguistic evidence of shared grammatical forms and lexical items between Meroitic and Niger-Congo-Mande discussed in this chapter.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 15:36:03 GMT -5
Below is a chart made by Wally of possible Niger-Congo speaking people living in Egypt The evidence that Meroitic is related to Niger Congo should not be surprising because Niger-Congo speakers lived in Egypt and the Meroitic empire. The majority of West Africans formerly lived just below Egypt in Nubia, before they moved westward into Cameroon, the Niger Valley and Senegambian regions. The traditional view of the dispersal of the Niger-Congo speakers would place their original home in the woodland savanna zone of West Africa, in the area of the Niger Basin (Ehret and Posnansky 1982:242 ). This is a most attractive theory but it does not conform to the archaeological data collected over the past decade. This material illustrates that until the second millennium BC the Inland Niger Delta was sparsely populated (McIntosh & McIntosh 1981 ,1986). Wm. E. Welmers (1971),explained that the Niger-Congo homeland was in the vicinity of the upper Nile valley. He believes that the Westward migration began 5000 years ago. This was the center of the C-Group civilization. In support of this theory he discusses the dogs of the Niger-Congo speakers. This is the unique barkless Basenji dogs which live in the Sudan and Uganda today, but were formerly recorded on Egyptian monuments (Welmers,1971). The Basanji dog is the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for dog. According to Welmers the Basanji, is related to the Liberian Basenji breed of the Kpelle and Loma people of Liberia. Welmers believes that the Mande took these dogs with them on their migration westward. The Kpelle and Loma speak Mande languages. Welmers (1971) believes that the Niger Valley region and other regions of West Africa may have been unoccupied when the Mande migrated westward Nubia. In support of this theory Welmers' notes that the Liberian Banji dogs ,show no cross-breeding with dogs kept by other African groups in West Africa, and point to the early introduction of this cannine population after the separation of the Mande from the other Niger-Congo speakers in the original upper Nile homeland for this population. As a result, he claims that the Mande migration occured before these groups entered the region. Linguistic research make it clear that there is a close relationship between the Niger-Congo Superlanguage family and the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken in the Sudan. Heine and Nurse (2000), discuss the Nilo-Saharan connection. They note that when Westerman described African languages he used lexical evidence to include the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages into a Superfamily he called "Sudanic" (Heine & Nurse, 2000). Using Morphological and lexical similarities Gregerson indicated that these languages belonged to a macrophylum he named " Kongo-Saharan" (Heine and Nurse, 2000). Research by Blench reached the same conclusion, and he named this Superfamily: "Niger-Saharan" (Heine & Nurse, 2000). Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile origin for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in Y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau (2007), noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many people in the Sudan. In addition to haplogroup E3, we also find some carriers of R1*-M173 in Egypt and the Sudan. In Figure 1 we observe that 34% of the carriers of y-chromosome M173 in Africa speak Niger-Congo languages. This genetic evidence makes it clear that R1*-M173 was probably carried by some C-Group speakers. Coia et al (2005) provides substantial data that the presence of R1*-M173 did not follow the spread of the spread of mtDNA haplogroup U6 in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is found in North Africa (Coia et al, 2005). This suggest that R1*-M173 may not be the result of back migration from Asia if this theory depends on the spread of haplogroup U6 in areas where R1*-M173 is found. Welmers proposed an upper Nile (Sudan-Uganda) homeland for the Niger-Congo speakers. He claims that they remained intact until 5000 years ago. This view is supported by linguistic and genetics evidence. The linguistic evidence makes it clear that the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo languages are related. The genetic evidence indicates that Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers carry the y-chromosomes M3b*-M35 and R1*-M173, an indicator for the earlier presence of speakers of this languages in an original Nile Valley homeland. The Nile Valley origin of the Niger Congo speakers explains the close relationship between Meroitic, Egyptian, Beja and Niger-Congo languages. Reference: Coia V. , G Destro-Bisol, F Verginelli, C Battaggia, I Boschi, F Cruciani, G Spedini, D Comas and F Calafell, 2005. Brief communication: mtDNA variation in North Cameroon: lack of Asian lineages and implications for back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa, Am J Phys Anthropol (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/110495269/PDFSTART) (electronically published May 13, 2005; accessed August 5, 2005). Heine,B. and Nurse,D. (Eds.).2002. African languages: An introduction , Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-666295. Cruciani,F., Trombetta,B., Sellitto, D., Massaia,A. destroy-Bisol,G., Watson, E., Colomb, E.B. 2010. Eur J. Hum Genet.,(6 January 2010) doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.231: 1-8. Ehret,C. & Posnansky,M. 1982. The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History. Berkeley. McIntosh,S.K. & McIntosh,R.J.1981. "West African Prehistory". American Scientist ,69:602-613. _____________.1986. "Archaeological Research and dates from West Africa". Journal of African History, 27:413-42. Rosa A, Ornelas C, Jobling MA, Brehm A, Villems R. Y-chromosome diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective, BMC Evol Biology 2007; 7, 124. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976131/?tool=pubmedWelmers, Wm E .1971. "Niger-Congo Mande", Cur trends in Ling 7:113-140.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 16:24:50 GMT -5
The Meroitic writing was deciphered in 1910, by the British Egyptologist F. Ll. Griffith (1911). This made it possible to read Meroitic texts. Griffith discovered that this writing was an alphabetic script , made up of 23 signs. For over 80 years researchers were unable to fully decipher Meroitic because they found that it was not related to any known African language spoken in contemporary Sudan. Dr. Nicholas Millet, came close to finding a key to Meroitic in 1963 when he discovered the Adda stone. The Adda stone had both Meroitic and Egyptian writing, but there was not enough text for Millet to fully understand the Meroitic language.
Researchers working on the Meroitic language do not believe that the Meroitic language was a member of the Afro-Asian group. Griffith and Haycock tried to read Meroitic using Nubian. K.H. Priese, tried to read the meroitic text using Eastern Sudani; and F. Hintze, attempted to compare Meroitic with the Ural-Altaic group. Recently Siegbert Hummel, compared the "known" Meroitic words to words in the Altaic family which he believed was a substrate language of Meroitic. All of these attempts to read Meroitic failed. Claude Rilly believes that he can decipher the Meroitic language using the Proto-Northeastern Sudanic, which he has reconstructed. According to Rilly, since the people presently living in the Sudan today speak languages associated with the Nilo- Saharan Superfamily of languages, the Meroites probably spoke a language associated with this family. This was a radical decision, because research has shown that none of the attested Meroitic terms accepted by mainstream scholars are related to any living language in the Sudan (there are some Meroitic terms borrowed from Egyptian). Because there are no cognate Meroitic terms and lexical items in the Eastern Sudanic Languages, Rilly has begun to reconstruct Proto-Eastern Sudanic, and attempt to read Meroitic text using his Proto-Eastern Sudanic vocabulary. You can never decipher the Meroitic writing this method would never lead to the decipherment of this or any other language.
The basic problem with using a proto-language to read a dead language results from the fact that the proto-language has been reconstructed by linguist who have no knowledge or textual evidence of the alleged proto-language. Secondly, there are subgroups in any family of languages. This means that you must first establish the intermediate proto-language (IPL) of the subgroup languages in the target language family. Once the IPLs have been reconstructed, you can then reconstruct the superordinate proto-language (SPL).
You can only reconstruct the SPL on the basis of attested languages. In addition, before you can reconstruct the IPLs and SPL a genetic relationship must be established for the languages within the Superfamily of languages, e.g., Nilo Saharan.
The problem with Rilly’s method is that there is no way he can really establish the IPLs in Eastern Sudanic because we have no textual evidence or lexical items spoken by people who lived in the Sudan in Meroitic times. As a result, the languages spoken by people in this area today may not reflect the linguistic geography of the Sudan in the Meroitic period. This is most evident when we look at modern Egypt. Today the dominant language is Arabic, and yet Arabic has no relationship to Egyptian. If we accept Rilly’s method for deciphering Egyptian we would assume that once me reconstructed proto-Arabic [since Arabic is the dominant language in Egypt], we would be able to read Egyptian---but as you know Egyptian is not a Semitic language. Secondly, researchers have compared the “attested Meroitic” terms to all the Nilo-Saharan languages. The results were negative, they do not relate to any Eastern Sudanic language. If the lexical items attested in Meroitic are not cognate to Eastern Sudanic terms; there is no way to establish a genetic relationship between these languages. Absence of a genetic relationship means that we can not reconstruct the imagined IPLs of Meroitic sister languages, since these researchers failed to find a connection between Meroitic and the Eastern Sudanic. As a result, Rilly’s reconstructions of Nilo-Saharan can offer no insight into the language spoken by the Meroites.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 22:03:05 GMT -5
In the comparative method the structures of two or more languages are compared to determine the relationship between languages. Hintze's (1979) discussion of the Meroitic affixes provided us with the linguistic material to compare Meroitic successfully with Tocharian.The comparative method is used by linguist to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist looks for patterns of correspondence, i.e., the isolation of words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regard for location and/or type of vowel. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain locations in words having analogous meanings. Using the comparative methods proposed by Hintze we have found that the Meroitic inscriptions are written in Tocharian, a language used as a lingua franca in Central Asia by the Kushana or Kush people. The Kushana people ruled Central Asia and India. Linguist prefer to call the Kushana language Tocharian, after the Sanskrit term for Kushana: Tu-kara.(Winters 1984,1989) The discovery that Tocharian is cognate to Meroitic has led to the full decipherment of the Meroitic script. We can now translate Meroitic using Tokharian. This allows us to obtain new information about the Meroitic civilization. Meroitic is an agglutinative language. The language includes both prefixes and suffixes--but suffixes are used extensively in the writing. The basic constituents of Meroitic is subject (S), verb (V) and object (O) in a simple declarative sentences. This agglutination and SVO order agree with other African languages. The grammar of Meroitic determined by Hintze (1979) allowed us to make comparisons with Tocharian that proved to show the cognition between this language and Meroitic. Hintze was sure that there were number of affixes including: p ye -te -to -o B.G. Trigger in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned several other possible Meroitic affixes including: -n -te -b In addition , A. M. Abdalla in his "Commentary" (Hintze 1979) mentioned three possible verbal suffixes , including: -n -t -y All of these affixes existed in Tocharian. Discovery of cognate Tocharian and Meroitic affixes allowed me to read Meroitic. Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including: hr, th, tk, we, pl, do, mde and yi mde. These verbs are found in Tocharian. He was absolutely right. We can interpret these verbs in The Meroitic script is a syllabic writing system. Each Meroitic consonant, except when followed by the vowel sign /i/, /o/ and /e/ represents the consonant sound plus the vowel /a/. There are four syllables in Meroitic ne, se, te, and to are represented by separate sounds. Below are a few Tocharian and Meroitic lexical items
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Jul 25, 2010 22:44:12 GMT -5
To test this hypothesis I attepted to decipher an inscription from Mussawarat es-Sufra. The inscription included several Meroitic signs. The picture associated with this inscription is a graphic depiction of a sexual experience. Reading for right to left we have the following Meroitic words Nem pkh ote Kushana these words had the following meaning in Kushana Nam = tendency Pak = to aim Ote = Wonderment This allows us to read the Musawwarat es-Sufra inscription as follows: "The tendency (is) to aim for the Wonderment of (sex). Once I had made this breakthrough in the decipherment of Meroitic I began to decipher Meroitic inscriptions.
|
|