The Meroitic script is almost identical to many of the Kharosthi signs used to write Tocharian. It is interesting to note that over seven of the Kharosthi and Meroitic signs have not only similar shape, but also the same sound.
Griffith (1911a) has divided the Meroitic writing into two different forms according to the shape of Meroitic signs at various points in history. The two stages of Meroitic writing were called Archaic and late. In deciphering Meroitic inscriptions it is important that you refer to Giffith (1911a) so you can learn how each Meroitic symbol appeared at various stages in the evolution of the Meroitic writing.
Archaic Meroitic dates from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. The Meroitic writing dating from the 1st century AD to the end of the Meroitic Empire is called late Meroitic.
The Meroitic script is almost identical to many of the Kharosthi signs used to write Tocharian. It is interesting to note that over seven of the Kharosthi and Meroitic signs have not only similar shape, but also the same sound.
Griffith (1911a) has divided the Meroitic writing into two different forms according to the shape of Meroitic signs at various points in history. The two stages of Meroitic writing were called Archaic and late. In deciphering Meroitic inscriptions it is important that you refer to Giffith (1911a) so you can learn how each Meroitic symbol appeared at various stages in the evolution of the Meroitic writing.
Archaic Meroitic dates from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. The Meroitic writing from the 1st century AD to the end of the Meroitic Empire is called late Meroitic.
Most of the sounds of the Meroitic and Kharosthi symbols have the same sound. Those Tocharian symbols with different sounds are used to interpret the following Meroitic signs.
Tocharian Meroitic
Ç, s = s
Ş, ś = š
K = q
Ne = :
In this examination of Meroitic we used the transliteration of many Meroitic phonemes proposed by Hintze (1974, 1979) , rather than the entire transliteration system for Meroitic proposed by Griffith (1911). Each Meroitic consonant except when followed by the vowel sign /i/, /o/ and /e/ represents the consonant sound plus the schwa (the
PRONUNCIATION
Front Central
Back
close i (y) (w)
close mid e o
open a
The Meroitic vowels are distinguished by individual signs for i , e , a , o .
There are four Meroitic vowels
/a/, /e/, /i/, and /o/ . There is a neutral vowel sound attached to the Meroitic consonants except for the te and to signs.
The Meroitic vowel sounds are as follows:
e long e sound as in make
a long a sound as in father
i long i sound as in see
o long o sound as in sock
stands for a in asleep
I believe that Meroitic may have two additional vowel sounds. These sounds may be the open mid vowels è and ò. In many African languages we find these vowels.
It therefore stands to reason that they might also occur in Meroitic. I believe that this is proven by the Meroitic script.
In Meroitic we have the /t/ sound represented by . Eventhough we have the /t/ sound and the vowel /e/ and /o/, we also have the signs /to/ and /te/. This suggest that the vowels attached to t-, must have a different sound than the regular /o/ and /e/ sound. If the sounds were not different the Meroites could have just used the signs /to/ and /te/
to write these sounds instead of (to) and (te). I would therefore venture to say the should be pronounced $ tò # and should be pronounced $ tè # in Meroitic
CONSONANTS
There are five syllables in Meroitic ñ , se, te , to and the so-called divider sign (:) -ne represented by separate sounds (Hintze 1974). In this translation of Meroitic each Meroitic syllable without a vowel attached to it is written as a single consonant .
The consonants of Meroitic are as follows:
h kh like the rasping ch: Scottish loch and Bach in German
h ch ich breathy ch, ç
a pronounched like /a/ in father
b as in English
d as in English
i pronounced like /i/ in machine
k pronounced like the /k/ in King
l as in English
m "
n "
p "
r "
s pronounced like /z/ in zoo or /s/ as in rose
s pronounced like the sh in share
t as in English
to pronounced like the to in stole
te pronounced like the te in tea
w pronounced like the /w/ in water
y as in English
q
ñ pronounced like ng as in sing
Meroitic Consonants
Plosive p, b t,d h(kh) k,q h(ch)
Nasal m n ñ
Lateral l
Rolled r
Fricative s s(sh) h(ch)
Semi-vowel w y
I read the Meroitic inscriptions using the lexical items and grammar of the Kushana/Tocharian. To decipher Meroitic I found and read every article I could find in English and French on the Tocharian language. Much of the contempory work on Tocharian is in German, my German is poor so I have concentrated on French and English publications.
Once I learned the Tocharian grammar , I began to collect vocabulary items. These vocabulary items were used to read Meroitic text.
I have been working on Meroitic for a number of years so I have collected many Meroitic terms and published a dictionary of Late Meroitic on-line. A dictionary of Early Meroitic is part of my article on the Incriptions of Tanyidamani.
Showing posts with label meroitic language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meroitic language. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Part 3:Winters' Response to Burlak's Meroitic and Tocharian: The length of Meroitic words
Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian Part3 Winters length of Meroitic Words is too short
S.A. Burlak, in Meroitic and Tocharian: From the point of View of a Tocharianists (Sudan & Nubia, Bulletin 12: 99-103) disputes my decipherment of Meroitic: Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388. Herein, I will discuss Dr. Burlak’s propositions and evidence.
Burlak (2008) argues that a basic problem of my decipherment is the word length. Whereas I have found that the average length of Meroitic words is one-to-three characters in length . Burlak (2008) maintains that the average length of Meroitic words is not one –to- three charaters, but five to eight characters in length based on Meroitic proper names.
Using Meroitic names to determine the length of Meroitic words fails to accurately describe Meroitic lexemes, because names usually are compound words e.g., Kasta/ Kushto ‘the Kushite’ (Abdalla, 1989 p.876; Trigger, 1964 p. 193; Welsby, 1996). For example many Meroitic names include the names of deities: Tamwetamani ; Arqamani; Anlamani ; and Takideamani.
Welsby (1996 p.190) noted that other Meroitic names include the words mak (god), malo (good) and mote (child). Many Meroitic words are only two-three characters e.g., mk (god), Wos (Isis), mn (Aman) and nob (Nubian). A common place name element in Meroitic place-names is –te, e.g., Np-te (Napata), and ph rs-te (Faras). The majority of Meroitic ethnonyms are also two-three characters lk (Lak), šq (Shaqa), and nob (Nubian).
A comparison of Meroitic and Tocharian grammatical features also indicates that in many cases Meroitic words average one- three characters. In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
Hintze (1979) grammar of Meroitic provided the necessary material to compare Meroitic with other languages to find its cognate language. Hintze (1979) recognized three approaches to the study of Meroitic: 1) philological, 2) comparative, and 3) structural (i.e., the morphological-syntactical).
The philological methods of Hintze (1979) was informed guesses based upon context.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.
Hintze (1979) was sure that there were a number of Meroitic 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:
-ñ
-t
-y
These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes.
Researchers working on Meroitic determined several possible prefixes:
p,
-s
y.
These proposed affixes for Meroitic are one character in length. Given the fact that experts in Meroitic like Abdalla and Hintze recognized that Meroitic had a number of single character lexemes makes it clear that when I found that many Meroitic terms were one-to-three character in length illustrates that I was only following the linguistic findings of other Meroitists who are the foundation of this decipherment of Meroitic.
Winters took these suggested Meroitic lexemes and compared them to Tocharian to discover if similar affixes existed in Kushana. In Tocharian we find these prefixes: p(ä), the imperfect prefix and imperative, y- the Tocharian element are joined to demonstratives , e.g., yopsa ‘in between’.
There are other affixes that relate to the Meroitic suffixes proposed by Abdalla and Hintze (1979) that are explained by Tocharian including –te, the demonstrative ‘this, etc.’; -o, the suffix used to change nouns into adjectives. For example: aiśamñe ‘knowledge’, asimo ‘knowing; klyomñ ’nobility’, klyomo ‘noble’.
Other Tocharian affixes which provide insight into Meroitic affixes include –te and -l. The Tocharian locative suffix is –te. The ending particle in Tocharian is –l. The Meroitic –t, corresponds to the –t ‘you’. In Tocharian the pronouns are placed at the end of words: nas-a-m ‘I am’, träkä-s ‘he says’, träkä-t ‘you say’.
The –t element in Tocharian can also be used to represent the third person singular e.g., kälpa-t ‘he found’.The p-, element used to form the imperative and imperfect in Tocharian . This affix is used in both Tocharian A and B. For example,Tokh.A klyos "to hear, to listen"p(a)klyos "You listen"p(a)klyossu "s/he listens"Tokh. B klyausp(a)klyaus 'you listen"A. ta, tas, "to lay, to put"ptas 'you lay'B. tes, tas 'to put, to lay'ptes 'you put'.
The Tocharian -n-, has many uses . It can be used to form the subjuntive, e.g., yam 'to do', yaman 's/he do(es). It is also used to form the plural se 'son', pl. sewan 'sons; ri 'city', pl. rin 'cities'.The plural in Tocharian is formed by the –ñ. For example,are ‘plough’, pl. areñ ‘ploughs’ ri ‘city’ , pl. riñ ‘cities.
Recognition of analogous structural elements in relation to Kushana/ Tocharian and Meroitic allowed us to divide the Meroitic phonemes into words. Griffith (1911a,1911b,1912) provided us with evidence for selected Meroitic nouns.
These examples of Meroitic names and lexical items make it clear that the average length of characters for Meroitic words is less than 5-8 characters. It also illustrates that Winters based his ideas on the possible length of some Meroitic words on the research of Abdalla and Hintze (1979). This makes Burlak’s (2008) claim that the length of Meroitic terms is generally five-seven characters as he alle
S.A. Burlak, in Meroitic and Tocharian: From the point of View of a Tocharianists (Sudan & Nubia, Bulletin 12: 99-103) disputes my decipherment of Meroitic: Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388. Herein, I will discuss Dr. Burlak’s propositions and evidence.
Burlak (2008) argues that a basic problem of my decipherment is the word length. Whereas I have found that the average length of Meroitic words is one-to-three characters in length . Burlak (2008) maintains that the average length of Meroitic words is not one –to- three charaters, but five to eight characters in length based on Meroitic proper names.
Using Meroitic names to determine the length of Meroitic words fails to accurately describe Meroitic lexemes, because names usually are compound words e.g., Kasta/ Kushto ‘the Kushite’ (Abdalla, 1989 p.876; Trigger, 1964 p. 193; Welsby, 1996). For example many Meroitic names include the names of deities: Tamwetamani ; Arqamani; Anlamani ; and Takideamani.
Welsby (1996 p.190) noted that other Meroitic names include the words mak (god), malo (good) and mote (child). Many Meroitic words are only two-three characters e.g., mk (god), Wos (Isis), mn (Aman) and nob (Nubian). A common place name element in Meroitic place-names is –te, e.g., Np-te (Napata), and ph rs-te (Faras). The majority of Meroitic ethnonyms are also two-three characters lk (Lak), šq (Shaqa), and nob (Nubian).
A comparison of Meroitic and Tocharian grammatical features also indicates that in many cases Meroitic words average one- three characters. In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
Hintze (1979) grammar of Meroitic provided the necessary material to compare Meroitic with other languages to find its cognate language. Hintze (1979) recognized three approaches to the study of Meroitic: 1) philological, 2) comparative, and 3) structural (i.e., the morphological-syntactical).
The philological methods of Hintze (1979) was informed guesses based upon context.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.
Hintze (1979) was sure that there were a number of Meroitic 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:
-ñ
-t
-y
These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes.
Researchers working on Meroitic determined several possible prefixes:
p,
-s
y.
These proposed affixes for Meroitic are one character in length. Given the fact that experts in Meroitic like Abdalla and Hintze recognized that Meroitic had a number of single character lexemes makes it clear that when I found that many Meroitic terms were one-to-three character in length illustrates that I was only following the linguistic findings of other Meroitists who are the foundation of this decipherment of Meroitic.
Winters took these suggested Meroitic lexemes and compared them to Tocharian to discover if similar affixes existed in Kushana. In Tocharian we find these prefixes: p(ä), the imperfect prefix and imperative, y- the Tocharian element are joined to demonstratives , e.g., yopsa ‘in between’.
There are other affixes that relate to the Meroitic suffixes proposed by Abdalla and Hintze (1979) that are explained by Tocharian including –te, the demonstrative ‘this, etc.’; -o, the suffix used to change nouns into adjectives. For example: aiśamñe ‘knowledge’, asimo ‘knowing; klyomñ ’nobility’, klyomo ‘noble’.
Other Tocharian affixes which provide insight into Meroitic affixes include –te and -l. The Tocharian locative suffix is –te. The ending particle in Tocharian is –l. The Meroitic –t, corresponds to the –t ‘you’. In Tocharian the pronouns are placed at the end of words: nas-a-m ‘I am’, träkä-s ‘he says’, träkä-t ‘you say’.
The –t element in Tocharian can also be used to represent the third person singular e.g., kälpa-t ‘he found’.The p-, element used to form the imperative and imperfect in Tocharian . This affix is used in both Tocharian A and B. For example,Tokh.A klyos "to hear, to listen"p(a)klyos "You listen"p(a)klyossu "s/he listens"Tokh. B klyausp(a)klyaus 'you listen"A. ta, tas, "to lay, to put"ptas 'you lay'B. tes, tas 'to put, to lay'ptes 'you put'.
The Tocharian -n-, has many uses . It can be used to form the subjuntive, e.g., yam 'to do', yaman 's/he do(es). It is also used to form the plural se 'son', pl. sewan 'sons; ri 'city', pl. rin 'cities'.The plural in Tocharian is formed by the –ñ. For example,are ‘plough’, pl. areñ ‘ploughs’ ri ‘city’ , pl. riñ ‘cities.
Recognition of analogous structural elements in relation to Kushana/ Tocharian and Meroitic allowed us to divide the Meroitic phonemes into words. Griffith (1911a,1911b,1912) provided us with evidence for selected Meroitic nouns.
These examples of Meroitic names and lexical items make it clear that the average length of characters for Meroitic words is less than 5-8 characters. It also illustrates that Winters based his ideas on the possible length of some Meroitic words on the research of Abdalla and Hintze (1979). This makes Burlak’s (2008) claim that the length of Meroitic terms is generally five-seven characters as he alle
Part 4:Winters' Response to Burlak's Meroitic and Tocharian: Meroitic Verbs
Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian Part 4: Length of Meroitic Verbs are too short.
S.A. Burlak, in Meroitic and Tocharian: From the point of View of a Tocharianists (Sudan & Nubia, Bulletin 12: 99-103) disputes my decipherment of Meroitic: Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388. Herein, I will discuss Dr. Burlak’s propositions and evidence.
3. Burlak (2008 p.99) claims that there are too many verbs that are only one character in length.
This is an unjustified criticism of my decipherment. Many verbs in Tocharian are a single character in length. Since Tocharian is the cognate language of Meroitic it is only natural that Meroitic would have a number of verbs of one character in length. Moreover, this is not surprising because Abdalla and Hintze (1979) had already noted the existence of Meroitic lexemes of one character in length.
The nature of Tocharian as the cognate language of Meroitic allowed me to translate many Meroitic verbs. Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including:
hr,
the,
tk,
we,
pl,
do,
mde
yi mde.
Following this lead I searched the Tocharian language to determine if it possessed any verbs that might match the proposed hypothetical verbs of Abdalla in his “Commentary” (Hintze, 1979). A comparison of Kushan and Meroitic proved to be successful. We now know that he was absolutely right about his interpretation of possible Meroitic verbs.
Below is the interpretation of these Meroitic verbs based on Tocharian cognates. Many of these verbs were discussed by Burlak (2008) as part of the Tocharian language.
hr , to have dignity
the , to move
tk , to set in motion, to investigate
w-e , to give escort
pl , to boast, to praise
m-de , measure the offering
y i m-de , go make (full) measure of the offering
Recognition of these Meroitic terms as verbs gave us even more confirmation that Kushana was probably the Meroitic cognate language. This discovery of Meroitic verbs and nouns, and cognate toponomies in Central Asia and Upper-Nubia-Sudan (see Appendix) proved that Meroitic could be read using Kushana lexical items.
The Egyptian writing does not have vowel notations. The reality that Tocharian verbs and affixes are vowels may explain why the Meroitic script has vowel notations. They may have these vowel notations to indicate the fact that they represent lexemes.
S.A. Burlak, in Meroitic and Tocharian: From the point of View of a Tocharianists (Sudan & Nubia, Bulletin 12: 99-103) disputes my decipherment of Meroitic: Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388. Herein, I will discuss Dr. Burlak’s propositions and evidence.
3. Burlak (2008 p.99) claims that there are too many verbs that are only one character in length.
This is an unjustified criticism of my decipherment. Many verbs in Tocharian are a single character in length. Since Tocharian is the cognate language of Meroitic it is only natural that Meroitic would have a number of verbs of one character in length. Moreover, this is not surprising because Abdalla and Hintze (1979) had already noted the existence of Meroitic lexemes of one character in length.
The nature of Tocharian as the cognate language of Meroitic allowed me to translate many Meroitic verbs. Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including:
hr,
the,
tk,
we,
pl,
do,
mde
yi mde.
Following this lead I searched the Tocharian language to determine if it possessed any verbs that might match the proposed hypothetical verbs of Abdalla in his “Commentary” (Hintze, 1979). A comparison of Kushan and Meroitic proved to be successful. We now know that he was absolutely right about his interpretation of possible Meroitic verbs.
Below is the interpretation of these Meroitic verbs based on Tocharian cognates. Many of these verbs were discussed by Burlak (2008) as part of the Tocharian language.
hr , to have dignity
the , to move
tk , to set in motion, to investigate
w-e , to give escort
pl , to boast, to praise
m-de , measure the offering
y i m-de , go make (full) measure of the offering
Recognition of these Meroitic terms as verbs gave us even more confirmation that Kushana was probably the Meroitic cognate language. This discovery of Meroitic verbs and nouns, and cognate toponomies in Central Asia and Upper-Nubia-Sudan (see Appendix) proved that Meroitic could be read using Kushana lexical items.
The Egyptian writing does not have vowel notations. The reality that Tocharian verbs and affixes are vowels may explain why the Meroitic script has vowel notations. They may have these vowel notations to indicate the fact that they represent lexemes.
Part 5:Winters' Response to Burlak's Meroitic and Tocharian :Tocharian & Kharosthi dates back to 2nd Century
Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian Part 5: Tocharian text do not date back to the 2nd Century BC.
4. Burlak argues that Tocharian text do not date back to the 2nd Century BC.
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.
4. Burlak argues that Tocharian text do not date back to the 2nd Century BC.
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.
Part 6: Winters' Response to Burlak,s Meroitic and Tocharian : Meroitic should not be compared to Proto-Tocharian or Proto-Sudani
Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian Part 6: Burlak claims Meroitic should be compared to Proto-Tocharian
Burlak (2008) claims that Meroitic terms should be compared to Proto-Tocharian and that Winters’ did not compare Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian (p.101).
Comparing Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian was unnecessary for two reasons. First, the Kushana Hypothesis makes it clear that there was no need to compare Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian because , Kharosthi and Tocharian A was probably physically taken to Meroitic Sudan by the Indian scholars mentioned in the Classical Literature. Secondly, you can not decipher an ancient script using a proto-language because a proto-language can not be verified as having ever existed, because it is reconstructed from living languages, but lack any textual material to document its former existence.
You can not decipher a dead language using a Proto- language. This was attempted in the case of Olmec and proved to be a failure.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Claude Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term from Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology and Proto- Northern eastern Nilo-Saharan allows him to read Meroitic. This idea does not correspond to linguistic reality. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor through examination of the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use a Proto-Language to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god.
Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic cultural words languages separated in time and space. Rilly, can not use this method to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates save one, the term for god.
Rilly has found only 1 cognate shared between Nubian and Meroitic there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages.
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of actual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the construct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This linguistic material fails to meet the standard because there is no textual or documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language Rilly hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documented evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Claude Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Empire.H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568). If a proto-language is factually incorrect there is no way it can be used to represent a dead language.
First, it must be stated that no “dead “ language has been deciphered using a proto-language. These languages were deciphered using living languages, Coptic in the case of Egyptian, Oromo and(Ethiopian) Semitic was used to decipher the Mesopotamian Cuneiform scripts. 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 anyfamily 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 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 during the Meroitic period.
This is most evident when we look at modern Egypt. Today the dominant spoken language in the country is Arabic, Arabic has no relationship to ancient Egyptian. If we accept Rilly’s method for deciphering Egyptian we would assume that once me reconstructed proto-Semitic , we could 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.
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic.
Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
Burlak (2008) claims that Meroitic terms should be compared to Proto-Tocharian and that Winters’ did not compare Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian (p.101).
Comparing Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian was unnecessary for two reasons. First, the Kushana Hypothesis makes it clear that there was no need to compare Meroitic to Proto-Tocharian because , Kharosthi and Tocharian A was probably physically taken to Meroitic Sudan by the Indian scholars mentioned in the Classical Literature. Secondly, you can not decipher an ancient script using a proto-language because a proto-language can not be verified as having ever existed, because it is reconstructed from living languages, but lack any textual material to document its former existence.
You can not decipher a dead language using a Proto- language. This was attempted in the case of Olmec and proved to be a failure.
Before my decipherment of Meroitic the attested vocabulary of Meroitic was only 26 terms. Researchers proved decades ago that none of these terms have Nubian and Nilo-Saharan cognates. This makes Claude Rilly's ideas about deciphering Meroitic using Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani a farce.
This is a farce because we do have document evidence of Meroitic, but none for the Nilo-Saharan languages. As a result, any proto-term from Northern Eastern Sudani Rilly compares with Meroitic will be conjecture since there is no documented evidence of Nilo-Saharan languages being spoken in the Meroitic
Rilly claims that lexicostatistics or glottochronology and Proto- Northern eastern Nilo-Saharan allows him to read Meroitic. This idea does not correspond to linguistic reality. Lexicostatistics is used to fit datable events among languages that theoretically are descendant from a common ancestor through examination of the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary is that part of the lexicon that shows slow change. These terms relate to basic cultural practices and universal human experiences.
Rilly can not use a Proto-Language to read Meroitic because there are only 26 attested Meroitic terms accepted by the establishment. None of these terms are cognate to Nubian or Taman terms except the name for a Meroitic god.
Rilly claims to be able to decipher Meroitic using a method that compares basic cultural words languages separated in time and space. Rilly, can not use this method to read Meroitic, because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nilo-Saharan cognates save one, the term for god.
Rilly has found only 1 cognate shared between Nubian and Meroitic there is no way you can date the time Meroitic speakers and Nilo-Saharan speakers spoke a common ancestral language. The absence of Meroitic and Nubian cognates prevents any fruitful comparisons between these languages.
There are three ways to verify a protolanguage is congruent with reality 1) there is documentary evidence of the ancestor or near ancestor of the target language that allows comparison of actual terms and grammars to the construct (i.e., reconstructed lexical items and grammars); 2) written evidence in the form of inscriptions exist from systematic excavation that compare favorably to the construct; and 3) the power of prediction that this or that construct will conforms to objective reality.
Rilly's ideas that he can read Meroitic based on Kushite names from Kerma, which he calls proto-Meroitic names (even though he knows full well that a protolanguage is artificial and comes from reconstruction); and a list of Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani terms from the Nubian, Nara, Taman and Nyima languages meets none of these standards. This linguistic material fails to meet the standard because there is no textual or documentary evidence for Northern Proto-Eastern Sudani dating to the Meroitic period. Moreover, the principle language Rilly hopes to use to read Meroitic text: Nubian, was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire. A fact Rilly admits in his own paper where he notes that Nubians invaded the Meroitic Empire during the declining days of the empire.
Theodora Bynon, Historical Linguistics, wrote that ,"a protolanguage is no more than a theorectical construct designed to link by means of rules the systems of historically related languages in the most economical way. It thus summarizes the present state of our knowledge regarding the systematic relationships of grammars of the related languages....When dealing with past language states it is possible to assess the distance between construct and reality only in cases where we possess documented evidence regarding an ancestor or a near ancestor, such as is provided by Latin, in the case of the Romance languages"(p.71).
We can reject Claude Rilly's claim he can use this protolanguage to read Meroitic because there is no documented evidence of Northern Eastern Sudani speakers ever living in the historic Meroitic Empire, until after the Meroitic Empire was in decline. The absence of documentary evidence of any Nilo-Saharan language spoken in the Meroitic Empire during the Meroitic period precludes any possibility that Rilly's alleged Proto-Northern Eastern Sudani has any relationship to Meroitic or reality for that matter.
Empire.H.H. Hock, in Principles of Historical Linguistics (1986), observed that there are two major arguments against the idea that comparative reconstructions recover the "prehistoric reality" of a language.The first principle, is that languages change over time. This makes it almost impossible to "fully" reconstruct the lexcical items and grammar of the ancestral language. Secondly, there are few, if any dialect free languages. Constructs resulting from comparing lexical items and grammars from an available set of languages,produce a dialect free protolanguage, that is unnatural and "factually incorrect as shown by the insights of the wave theory" (p.568). If a proto-language is factually incorrect there is no way it can be used to represent a dead language.
First, it must be stated that no “dead “ language has been deciphered using a proto-language. These languages were deciphered using living languages, Coptic in the case of Egyptian, Oromo and(Ethiopian) Semitic was used to decipher the Mesopotamian Cuneiform scripts. 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 anyfamily 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 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 during the Meroitic period.
This is most evident when we look at modern Egypt. Today the dominant spoken language in the country is Arabic, Arabic has no relationship to ancient Egyptian. If we accept Rilly’s method for deciphering Egyptian we would assume that once me reconstructed proto-Semitic , we could 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.
Granted, by comparing languages and associating them with a particular time period you can make comparative reconstructions that may eliminate dialectal diversity. But Rilly can not do this because none of the attested Meroitic terms have Nubian cognates. This along with the fact that we have no textual evidence of Nilo-Saharan during the Meroitic period demonstrating that Nilo-Saharan languages were spoken in the Meroitic Empire, especially Nubian,precludes using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic.
Using proto-Northern Eastern Sudani terms to read Meroitic will fail to provide a linguistically realistic situation in Nubia 2000 years ago. This is especially true for Nubian, which was not spoken in the Meroitic Empire.
Conclusion: Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian: Conclusion
Clyde Winters response to Burlak’s Meroitic & Tocharian Part 9: Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear from this review that Tocharian is the cognate language to Meroitic. It has been explained that Tocharian was probably a trade language and it was adopted by the Meroites to serve as a means of communication—a lingua franca-- for the diverse populations living in the Meroitic empire.
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 (see Appendix).
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 these theorem, implies validity of my prediction. Burbak (2008) attempted to deny a relationship between Meroitic and Tocharian by making claims that were not supported by the evidence. His claims that the length of words was too short, and selected elements associated with Tocharian was not evident in Meroitic have proven to be false, and did not reflect the significant in roads into reading Meroitic made by Abdalla and Hintze (1979).
My confirmation of the above variables in the Kushana Hypothesis: 1) the presence of Indians in Africa writing in their own scripts; 2) the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;3) cognate lexical items; 4)cognate verbs and 5) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Tocharian representing the Meroitic cognate language.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian 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. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tocharian trade language did 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, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tocharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics for hundreds of years.
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 are written in Tocharian A .
Burbak (2008) failed to illustrate that Tocharian and Meroitic were not related because he did not know that textual and archaeological material indicated that the Classical literature made it clear that Indians lived in the Meroitic empire. This provided evidence that Indians physically introduced Tocharian and the Kharosthi script to the Meroites. The physical transfer of Tocharian and Kharosthi by the Gymnosophists would explain why a specific Kushana language: Tocharian A was used to write Meroitic.
My research into Kushana or Tocharian has led me to recognize that this language was probably used as a lingua franca or trade language in Central Asia by the diverse peoples living there in an intense bilingual environment (Winters 1996a, 1996b). Winters (1991,1998) has illustrated how the Greek and Slavic terms in Tocharian were loanwords, absorbed by Tocharian after the Greek conquest of Bactria.
This borrowing pattern was consistent with the spread of the Greek language into Bactria by a small elite group of warriors.The classical and Egyptian sources make it clear that Upper Nubia and the Sudan was inhabited by numerous tribes. The possible early use of Kushan\Tocharian as a trade language made it an ideal candidate for use by the Meroitic elites who ruled an empire that was made up of many diverse ethnic groups as the language for literate Meroites
The evidence is clear Meroitic was a lingua franca that allowed the diverse people of the Meroitic Empire to communicate in a common language. I have never argued that the Kushites abandoned their native language or that Meroitic was spoken anywhere except in the Meroitic Sudan.
I have argued, and supported with evidence the fact that the Kushites. never wrote their inscriptions in a Kushite language. They used lingua francas to unite the diverse speakers in the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations first Egyptian and later Meroitic.
This is supported by the abundance of Kushite documents written in Egyptian before the introduction of Meroitic. the Napatans and Meroites wrote their inscriptions in Egyptian until the Egyptians became a sizable minority in the Meroitic Empire.
The Kushites had a tradition of using a non-Kushite language to record their administrative and political religious activities due to the numerous and diverse subjects from different tribes they ruled. Since the Meroitic and Napatan documents were written in Egyptian there is no lexical evidence of the languages spoken by the Kushites and other groups in the inscriptions left by these people.
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 Tocharian trade language to the Meroites. And that since Meroitic was probably a lingua franca, the Kushites would not have had to abandon their own native language while using Meroitic for purposes of communication.
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.
In conclusion, it is clear from this review that Tocharian is the cognate language to Meroitic. It has been explained that Tocharian was probably a trade language and it was adopted by the Meroites to serve as a means of communication—a lingua franca-- for the diverse populations living in the Meroitic empire.
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 (see Appendix).
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 these theorem, implies validity of my prediction. Burbak (2008) attempted to deny a relationship between Meroitic and Tocharian by making claims that were not supported by the evidence. His claims that the length of words was too short, and selected elements associated with Tocharian was not evident in Meroitic have proven to be false, and did not reflect the significant in roads into reading Meroitic made by Abdalla and Hintze (1979).
My confirmation of the above variables in the Kushana Hypothesis: 1) the presence of Indians in Africa writing in their own scripts; 2) the presence of Kushana sages in India who may have migrated to Meroe;3) cognate lexical items; 4)cognate verbs and 5) cognate grammatical features; indicates systematic controlled, critical and empirical investigation of the question of Tocharian representing the Meroitic cognate language.
The evidence that the Classical references to an Indian 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. The presence of Indian traders and settlers in Meroe (and Egypt), makes it almost impossible to deny the possibility that Indians, familiar with the Tocharian trade language did 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, it is a mistake to believe that linguistic transfer had to take place for the Meroites to have used Tocharian, when it did not take place when they wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics for hundreds of years.
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 are written in Tocharian A .
Burbak (2008) failed to illustrate that Tocharian and Meroitic were not related because he did not know that textual and archaeological material indicated that the Classical literature made it clear that Indians lived in the Meroitic empire. This provided evidence that Indians physically introduced Tocharian and the Kharosthi script to the Meroites. The physical transfer of Tocharian and Kharosthi by the Gymnosophists would explain why a specific Kushana language: Tocharian A was used to write Meroitic.
My research into Kushana or Tocharian has led me to recognize that this language was probably used as a lingua franca or trade language in Central Asia by the diverse peoples living there in an intense bilingual environment (Winters 1996a, 1996b). Winters (1991,1998) has illustrated how the Greek and Slavic terms in Tocharian were loanwords, absorbed by Tocharian after the Greek conquest of Bactria.
This borrowing pattern was consistent with the spread of the Greek language into Bactria by a small elite group of warriors.The classical and Egyptian sources make it clear that Upper Nubia and the Sudan was inhabited by numerous tribes. The possible early use of Kushan\Tocharian as a trade language made it an ideal candidate for use by the Meroitic elites who ruled an empire that was made up of many diverse ethnic groups as the language for literate Meroites
The evidence is clear Meroitic was a lingua franca that allowed the diverse people of the Meroitic Empire to communicate in a common language. I have never argued that the Kushites abandoned their native language or that Meroitic was spoken anywhere except in the Meroitic Sudan.
I have argued, and supported with evidence the fact that the Kushites. never wrote their inscriptions in a Kushite language. They used lingua francas to unite the diverse speakers in the Napatan and Meroitic civilizations first Egyptian and later Meroitic.
This is supported by the abundance of Kushite documents written in Egyptian before the introduction of Meroitic. the Napatans and Meroites wrote their inscriptions in Egyptian until the Egyptians became a sizable minority in the Meroitic Empire.
The Kushites had a tradition of using a non-Kushite language to record their administrative and political religious activities due to the numerous and diverse subjects from different tribes they ruled. Since the Meroitic and Napatan documents were written in Egyptian there is no lexical evidence of the languages spoken by the Kushites and other groups in the inscriptions left by these people.
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 Tocharian trade language to the Meroites. And that since Meroitic was probably a lingua franca, the Kushites would not have had to abandon their own native language while using Meroitic for purposes of communication.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Meroitic Inscriptions
I will attempt to read the broken tablet. First of all it is hard to make out some of the signs on this piece, especially parts of line three(3) and five (5), but I will attempt to read the piece. Reading the piece from right to left we have the following:
Transliteration
1. m...e-ne...ap. ...
2. [s]....mlo.. nea...š... ..
3. m...p....b.. .ye..... s
4. e.....q....b. ...p...nea. ...
5. [o]...lo... n-ne...ml... .ne...s.. .mš....
Translation
"...(1)The great Commander and ancestor.... (2)[prop up] the inner heart at this time (of) the King....(3) m entreat the Ba to travel (and) prop up...(4)Register the wish (of) the Ba to solicit at this time....(5)[ Begin] to dispatch Goodness and the good spirit (of) the son of Mash.....
Vocabulary
ap, ancestor, father
m , great
e-ne, commander
e, register; vouchsafe; grant a boon
b, Ba
ml, spirit
mlo, innerheart, soul
s, son;to protect; to prop up
ye, to make; travel, voyage
nea, at this time;
ne, good
n-ne, Goodness
mš, Mash
lo, dispatch
o, begin
The so called word divider sign : equals -ne. The : is used to change verbs into nouns, or means good.
At the lion temple of Naqa, we find Natakamani on the left façade and Amanitore on the right. Under the feet of the ruling pair we find friezes of their defeated enemies.
There are a number of Meroitic hieroglyphics on the front of the Naqa Lion Temple. There are three columns of hieroglyphic inscriptions on under the falcon of King Natakamani. Reading from left to right we see the following
Transliteration
1. ter tel i ne
2. …ni-ne b-q r
3. ikh iy kh te b d r te
Translation
"1….the erection (of this structure) elevates (our) tradition [of building].2…brillian ce (is) also desired indeed.3…this spot bring Great light (and) also leave a legacy (of) unity." We can interpret the inscriptions and engraving from this part of the temple as follows:"King Natakamani smites the enemies of Meroe. The royalty "...[has made] the erection (of this structure) to elevate (as is our) tradition.2…Brillian ce (is) also indeed desired.3…This spot to bring Great light (to many and) also leave (to the Meroites) a legacy (of) unity."
Funerary Stela of MeteyeThis Stela dates back to the 2nd to 3rd Centuries. It is has a reddish-white undercoat. It comes from Grave 275, Karanog. The stela is located in Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE40229.
The couple Meteye and Abakharta stand under the inner wings of the sun disk. Meteye wares her hair with a topknot and cornrows. This man may be either Meteye's husband or father. (I am uncertain because the words ab-a can be interpreted as `[her] father'.
If this is the correct reading aba Kharta would mean `her father Kharta'.)The grave was excavated by Woolley-Randall- MacIver at Karanog.
The skeleton in the grave was of a woman. The pointed breast on the figure indicate that she was a young women. Standing side by side suggest that this man was her husband. Since the grave contained only one skeleton we can imagine that Abakharta was depicted on this stela to show his devotion to his wife.There are three sets of inscription on this stela.
There are inscriptions in front of Meteye and Abakharta, and an inscription between the legs of Abakharta.Reading from right to left beginning with the inscription between the legs of Abakharta, then the inscription before Abakharta and finally the one in front of Meteye we have the following:Inscription between Abakharta's legs.
P .. š ….o …."Pray for the patron to commence……"
Inscription in front of the man:
Wosi .. ne. Sore… yi-ne. Abkharta… ke ….lo …..wi-ne... a…kh…m…še.."
Translation
Isis the Good. Osiris the eternal. Abakharta gives permission (for) the offering of this Object of Respect (Meteye) to acquire greatness (and) protection."
Inscription in front of the woman:
Woš..i-ne…šore.. yi-ne..Meteye… qo …wi…ato ….mh…ene… š.. o-a….tene
Translation
"Isis the good. Osiris the eternal. Meteye , renew (her) honor down the path (to) abundant alms giving. The patron [Meteye] has commenced the Rebirth".
Funerary stelae of Prince Tedeqen, circa 100-200 B.C.
TransliterationWoš-i-ne …Tdeqen …ne …^h …ml …. ol … ho ….lk …tene ..at …mlo …ne… p … rem … eš …. d …. o … tl … wi-ne … el …^h …tene ….ete …. eš …. d…. ot …. el … ^h … tene …^he …. ra …. Ke-ne-l ….l …d …tene.
Translation
[Oh] Good Isis (give) Tedeqen kha, grand inner heart (and) soul to behold the path of rebirth. The good inner heart prays to witness (its) manifestation. (This) bequeathal to open (and) elevate the Object of Respect (i.e., Tedeqen) gift (of the) Kha's rebirth (Oh Isis). You give the manifestation of the bequeathal prestige. The gift (of) the Kha's (and the) external body's rebirth . Indeed [Tedeqen] revitalization (will) be the rebirth of the bequeathal (of the Kha).
Offering Stela of Tablet of Tedeqen
Offering Stela of Tablet of Tedeqen
Inscription under the gods:
[………] lo…. wi-ne ….šo ….tk ….te
Translation:
"Dispatch (this) Object of Respect [Tedeqen] to live and to reflect (on good)—may (it go forth)."
Inscription on the funerary tablet reading from left to right and around the tablet :
Wosi …i-ne …a…. šore ….. yi-ne ….tedeqen ….qo-ne …ah ..d …s-ne-l …. d …h … lo-ne… me …n …tone …e ….ri-ne …..ke …. li-ne …..e … ri …ke …lo… ne … atom … lo ..ne ….el … h …..tene ….al …ml …ol
Translation
"Isis the Good, Osiris the eternal. Tedeqen to live good (and) to acquire a lasting legacy (of Good). The patron's legacy (is for) the Kha's transmigration , measure the Good Rebirth (now). Give withdrawal (to the Kha) for revitalization (and) exaltation. Register the sendoff (of the Kha) to invigorate the good offering (of Tedeqen). He is to be (re)born to transmit Good (as his) gift (to mankind). The Kha's noble (re)birth (of a) grand soul."
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
Transliteration
1. w e to2. q tel3. w to si4.tone m-k5. d.[l]..r-i6.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).
References:
References:
I have written a detailed grammar of Meroitic but it is being considered for publication so I can not give you a copy of this text.You can find out more about my decipherment at the following sites:
Below is a paper that explains my decipherment.
Below is a paper that discuss the origin of writing in Africa.
Is Meroitic related to Afro-Asiatic Languages?
Recently K. Rowan has discussed a theory that Meroitic may be related to the Afro Asiatic (AA) languages.
It is interesting, to note that Rowan discusses Meroitic within 6 pages, while the paper is 38 pages long. Rowan attempts to imply that a typological relationship exists between Meroitic and Afro-Asiatic due to alleged consonantal compatibility restrictions.
Although this is her opinion I don't believe that it is supported by the evidence, since she uses imagined Meroitic terms as her data. Since the terms Rowan uses in her analysis are "made up" she can say they have any feature she chooses and be "right".
Moreover, finding only one feature common to Meroitic and AA languages does not support a connection.The major problem with the thesis is that Rowan failed to discuss Meroitic based upon the agreed upon vocabulary of Meroitic. Failure to do this has led her to make conclusions that can not be supported by the evidence since some words she uses as examples in her paper are based on conjecture or are hypothectical/imagined Merotic terms.
Secondly, the failure to acknowledge that most Meroitic consonants are probably associated with a schwa, except when a Meroitic vowel is joined to a consonant e.g., -i.-e, - a, makes any discussion of Meroitic phonology suspect. Failure of K. Rowan to present examples from agreed upon Meroitic lexical items, especially given the clear Meroitic examples of Egyptian loan words in Meroitic is quite strange since Egyptian is a Meroitic languages.
This is further compounded by the fact that Rowan fails to provide a cognate language to read the script and therefore provide a firm foundation for her spurious conclusions.In general the paper is a good discussion of the state of research relating to Afro-Asiatic. But in my opinion it offers little support for the posibility that Meroitic is related to Afro-Asiatic, or Nilo-Saharan for that matter, given the phantom/imagined words Rowan provides as Meroitic lexical items.
Publication of this article, given its flaws make it clear that Rowan has a powerful advisor, given the fact that the abstract makes it clear that she is not providing any direction on a possible candidate for relatedness with Meroitic. Publication of this article adds little to the previous scholarship on Meroitic, eventhough its publication will probably make Rowan a new "expert" on Meroitic.
It is interesting, to note that Rowan discusses Meroitic within 6 pages, while the paper is 38 pages long. Rowan attempts to imply that a typological relationship exists between Meroitic and Afro-Asiatic due to alleged consonantal compatibility restrictions.
Although this is her opinion I don't believe that it is supported by the evidence, since she uses imagined Meroitic terms as her data. Since the terms Rowan uses in her analysis are "made up" she can say they have any feature she chooses and be "right".
Moreover, finding only one feature common to Meroitic and AA languages does not support a connection.The major problem with the thesis is that Rowan failed to discuss Meroitic based upon the agreed upon vocabulary of Meroitic. Failure to do this has led her to make conclusions that can not be supported by the evidence since some words she uses as examples in her paper are based on conjecture or are hypothectical/imagined Merotic terms.
Secondly, the failure to acknowledge that most Meroitic consonants are probably associated with a schwa, except when a Meroitic vowel is joined to a consonant e.g., -i.-e, - a, makes any discussion of Meroitic phonology suspect. Failure of K. Rowan to present examples from agreed upon Meroitic lexical items, especially given the clear Meroitic examples of Egyptian loan words in Meroitic is quite strange since Egyptian is a Meroitic languages.
This is further compounded by the fact that Rowan fails to provide a cognate language to read the script and therefore provide a firm foundation for her spurious conclusions.In general the paper is a good discussion of the state of research relating to Afro-Asiatic. But in my opinion it offers little support for the posibility that Meroitic is related to Afro-Asiatic, or Nilo-Saharan for that matter, given the phantom/imagined words Rowan provides as Meroitic lexical items.
Publication of this article, given its flaws make it clear that Rowan has a powerful advisor, given the fact that the abstract makes it clear that she is not providing any direction on a possible candidate for relatedness with Meroitic. Publication of this article adds little to the previous scholarship on Meroitic, eventhough its publication will probably make Rowan a new "expert" on Meroitic.
Linguistic Support for Extra-Nubian Origin of Meroitic
There are many mysteries concerning the Meroites of the Meroitic civilization of Nubia and the Sudan. This ancient civilization lasted for hundreds of years and has left us many wonderful monuments. In addition to many grand monuments the Meroites left us a written language.
Although scholars have been able to read the letters of this ancient Kushite writing for many years up to now the full meaning of the Meroitic texts had alluded us.Today we can read the Meroitic text in their entirety using the cognate language for Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984,1989, 1996a, 1996b,1996c).
Although linguist call this language Tokharian in Central Asia (Winters 1988b, 1991, 1996b).The people of Meroe, the Kushites had their own alphabet of 23 signs. This was a wonderful improvement over hieroglyphic writing which was made up of numerous ideographic and phonetic signs. Prior to the introduction of Meroitic, the Meroites used Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Francis Llewellyn Griffith, an Egyptologist was able to decipher the Meroitic script over 60 years ago. Although Griffith deciphered Meroitic, we were unable to read this writing because we did not know the cognate language.Using the comparative method I was able to discover that Tokharian is cognate to Meroitic. This led to the full decipherment of the Meroitic script. We can now read Meroitic using Tokharian ( Krause,1952 ; Windekens 1941, 1979).
Maurice Pope in THE STORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DECIPHERMENT , has made it clear that before an unknown language can be deciphered you must have the right theoretical structure to base your inquiry upon (p.191).
Pope found that in the historical decipherments of ancient languages three preliminary conditions must be met:
1) confidence that a script can be deciphered;
2) location of proper names must be determined;
3) the grammatical rules of the target language/script must be found (pp.186-187).
We were able to read Meroitic because these preliminary conditions were met, and we were able to develop new hypothesis based on historical evidence to determine the cognate language of Meroitic. Conditions number one and two were met by Griffith when he deciphered the Meroitic script in 1910, and his discovery of the proper names of the Meroitic gods and individuals in Meroitic text.
Griffith also discovered the direction the Meroitic writing was written. This recognition by Griffith of the solubility of the Meroitic text was reinforced in 1978, with publication of UNESCO's The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of the Meroitic Script. This was an important publication because it provided researchers with up-to-date information on the status of Meroitic.
Condition number three for the decipherment of Meroitic was met in 1979 when Fritz Hintze published his Beitrage zur meroitischen Grammatik . The research of F. Hintze (1979) and I. Hoffmann (1981) have made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
The work of Griffith and Hintze fulfilled all the requirements for the decipherment of the Meroitic writing.The classical literature supported the view that we might be able to find the Meroitic cognate language through a comparison of the Meroitic terms and Kushan lexical items.
To test the Kushana hypothesis we had to then:
1) find agreement between Kushana and Meroitic terms;
2) compare Central Asian and Egypto-Sudanese toponomies;
3) compare Kushana and Meroitic grammatical forms.
In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
Hintze (1979) grammar of Meroitic provided the necessary material to compare Meroitic with other languages to find its cognate language. Hintze (1979) recognized three approaches to the study of Meroitic: 1) philological, 2) comparative, and 3) structural (i.e., the morphological-syntactical).
The philological methods of Hintze (1979) was informed guesses based upon context.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, 1996a, 1996b).
There is structural, morphological and toponymic evidence which support the view that Tokharian is cognate to Meroitic(Winters 1984,1989). There are many Central Asian place names that agree with toponomies in Nubia/ Sudan. Below we list a few of these common toponomies:
CentralAsia……………….Sudan
Pap………………………………………….Pap
Karnak…………………………………Karnak
Kukushka…………………………..Kurush
Shaur ……………………………………Sarur
Kandi………………………………………….Kandi
Urban……………………………………….Borgan
Khara ……………………………………….Kara-
Kupuri………………………………………….Gabur, Capur
These placenames can be compared with the maps of Central Asia and the Sudan supplied published by Dr. Vamos-Toth Bator in his Tamana studies .
My decipherment of Meroitic indicates that many terms alleged to be Meroitic by Griffith and others must be discarded. I am forced to ignore the proposed meaning for some proposed Meroitic lexical items because they do not agree with my research into Meroitic. But I accept some of the alleged Meroitic terms as being verified by my decipherment both due to their Egyptian origin, or affinity to Tokharian terms.
It must be remembered that most of the alleged Meroitic lexical items were simply guesses by the researchers. These terms become valid only when they can be read in all the Meroitic text and have consistent meaning. I found that some of these terms are homonyms, while other terms "discovered " by Griffith and others were good guesses that do not prove valid given our discovery of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There are several recognized Meroitic words (Hintze 1979).The following words correspond to Tokharian words:
Meroitic..................... Tokharian
Ø kadke / ktke # queen……………… Ø katak # master of the house
Ø ato # water ……………………………………… Ø ap
#Ø s # 'race'……………………………………………………… Ø sah # 'man'
Ø wide # youth ……………………………………………… Ø wir #
Ø qor # monarch ……………………………………………. Ø oroce # 'the grand king'
Ø parite # agent……………………………………………… Ø parwe # 'first'
Ø apote # 'envoy'………………………………………………..Ø ap # 'father'
It is obvious that apote and parite do not relate to Tokharian because these are Egyptian loan words adopted by the Meroites. But around 57% of these terms show agreement. This made it highly probable that Meroitic and Tokharian were cognate languages.
The grammar of Meroitic determined by Hintze (1979) allowed us to also make comparisons with Tocharian to test the Kushana hypothesis for reading Meroitic. This comparison of grammatical structures showed cognition between this language and Meroitic.
Hintze was sure that there were a number of Meroitic 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:
-ñ
-t
-y
These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes.
Researchers working on Meroitic determined several possible prefixes:
p,
p
-s
y.
In Tokharian we find these prefixes: p(ä), the imperfect prefix and imperative, y- the Tokharian element joined to demonstratives, and yopsa ‘in between’.
There are other affixes that relate to the Meroitic suffixes including –te, the demonstrative ‘this, etc.’; -o, the suffix used to change nouns into adjectives. For example: aiśamñe ‘knowledge’, asimo ‘knowing; klyomñ ’nobility’, klyomo ‘noble’.
Other Tokharian affixes which agree with Meroitic include –te and -l. The Tokharian locative suffix is –te. The ending particle in Tokharian is –l.
The Meroitic –t, corresponds to the –t ‘you’. In Tokharian the pronouns are placed at the end of words: nas-a-m ‘I am’, träkä-s ‘he says’, träkä-t ‘you say’.
The –t element in Tokharian can also be used to represent the third person singular e.g., kälpa-t ‘he found’.The p-, element used to form the imperative in Tokharian and imperfect . This affix is used in both Tokharian A and B. For example,Tokh.A klyos "to hear, to listen"p(a)klyos "You listen"p(a)klyossu "s/he listens"Tokh. B klyausp(a)klyaus 'you listen"A. ta, tas, "to lay, to put"ptas 'you lay'B. tes, tas 'to put, to lay'ptes 'you put'.
The Tokharian -n-, has many uses in Tokharian. It can be used to form the subjuntive, e.g., yam 'to do', yaman 's/he do(es). It is also used to form the plural se 'son', pl. sewan 'sons; ri 'city', pl. rin 'cities'.The plural in Tokharian is formed by the –ñ. For example,are ‘plough’, pl. areñ ‘ploughs’ ri ‘city’ , pl. riñ ‘cities.
Recognition of analogous structural elements in relation to Kushana and Meroitic allowed us to divide the Meroitic phonemes into words. Griffith provided us with evidenec for selected Meroitic nouns.
Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including:
hr,
the,
tk,
we,
pl,
do,
mde
yi mde.
Following this lead we searched the Kushan language to determine if it possessed any verbs that might match the proposed hypothetical verbs of Abdalla. A comparison of Kushan and Meroitic proved to be successful. We now know that he was absolutely right about his interpretation of possible Meroitic verbs.
Below is the interpretation of these Meroitic verbs:
hr , to have dignity
the , suggested posssible to move
tk , to set in motion, to investigate
w-e , to give escort
pl , to boast, to praise
m-de , measure the offering
y i m-de go make (full) measure of the offering
Recognition of these Meroitic terms as verbs gave us any more confirmation that Kushana was probably the Meroitic cognate language. This discovery of Meroitic verbs and nouns, and cognate toponomies in Central Asia and Upper-Nubia-Sudan proved that Meroitic could be read using Kushana lexical items.
The discovery that Tokharian 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.
My research into Kushana or Tokharian has led me to recognize that this language was probably used as a lingua franca or trade language in Central Asia by the diverse peoples living there in an intense bilingual environment (Winters 1996a, 1996b). C. A. Winters (1991) has illustrated how the Greek and Slavic terms in Tokharian were loanwords, absorbed by Tokharian after the Greek conquest of Bactria.
This borrowing pattern was consistent with the spread of the Greek language into Bactria by a small elite group of warriors.The classical and Egyptian sources make it clear that Upper Nubia and the Sudan was inhabited by numerous tribes. The possible early use of Kushan\Tokharian as a trade language made it an ideal candidate for use by the Meroitic elites who ruled an empire that was made up of many diverse ethnic groups as the language for literate Meroites
REFERENCES
Abdalla, A.M. 1994. Personal Descriptions in Meroitic Funerary inscriptions. In Hommages a Jean Leclant, (ed.) by C. Berger, G. Clerc & N. Grimal, (Institute Francais d'Archeologie Orientale: Bibliotheque d' Etudes 106/2) pp.1-15.
Abdalla, A.M. 1978. The Meroitic Civilization:Its Mediterranean Contacts and Africaness. In Afrique Noire et monde mediterranean dans L'Antiquité Colloque de Dakar. (Dakar: Université de Senegal) 89-114.
Adams, W.Y. 1977. Nubia:Corridor to Africa. London: Penguin Ltd.
Adams, W.Y. 1975. "Meroitic North and South". Meroitica 2,Berlin:Akademie-Verlag.
Arkell, A.J. 1961. A History of the Sudan from earliest times to 1821. London: University of London Press.
Bakr, M. 1964. Drei Meroitische opfertafeln aus Qustul, Kush,12 , 293-296.
Bakr, M. 1966. Meroitische inschriften aus der umgebung von Aniba, Kush, 14, 336-346.
Griffith, F.Ll. 1909. Meroitic inscriptions. In Areika, (ed) by MacIver, D.R. & Woolley, C.L. Vol.1. Philadelphia.
Griffith, F.L.1911a. Karanog. The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablul and Karanog. Philadelphia: Eckley B. Coxe Jr Expedition to Nubia. Vol.VI.
Griffith, F. Ll. 1911b. Meroitic Inscriptions: Part I. London: The Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund.
Griffith, F. Ll. 1912. Meroitic Inscriptions: Part II. London: The Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund.
Hakem,A.M.A. 1981. The civilization of Napata and Meroe. In General History of Africa, (London: Heinemann) 278-297.
Hakem, A.M.A. 1984. "Napatan-Meroitic Continuity", Meroitica, 19, 875-883.
Hakem, A.M.A. 1988. Meroitic Architecture. Khartoum: University of Khartoum.
Haycock, B.G. 1978. "The Problem of the Meroitic Language",Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning, no.5: 50-81.
Haynes, J.L. 1992. Nubia:Ancient Kingdoms of Africa. Boston:Museum of Fine Arts.
Hinkel, F.W. 1994. Les pyramides de méroé. Les Dossiers D'Archeologie, no. 196, 60-63.
Hintze, F. 1959. Studien zur Meroitischen chronologie und zu den opfertafeln aus den pyramides von Meroe. Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. 1962. Die inschriften,des lowentempel von Mussawwarat es Sufra. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. 1971. Mussawwarat es Sufra. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. (1974). "Some problems of Meroitic philology". In Studies in Ancient Langugaes of the Sudan, (ed.) by A.M. Abdalla, (Khartoum: Khartoum University Press) pp. 73-78.
Hintze,F. 1978. The Meroitic Period. In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan Vol.I. (Brooklyn, N. Y. : Brooklyn Museum) 89-105.
Hintze, F. 1979. "Beltrage zur Meroitishen Grammatik",Meroitica 3, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hoffmann, I 1991. Steine fur die ewigkeit meroitische opferlafeln und totenstelen. Beitrage zur Sudanforschung Beiheft, 6. Wien: Modling.
Hoffmann, I. 1981. Material fur eine Meroitische Grammatik.Veroffenthchungen der Institute fur Afrikanistik und Agyptologie der Universitat Wien, No. 16. Wien.
Hummel, S. 1992. Die Meroitische Sprache und das protoaltaische Spachsubstrat als Medium zu ihrer Deutung. Febri Verlag.Karanog, Wealthy Capital of a Lower Nubian Province . 1993.Expedition, 35(2), 62-63.
Kendal, T. 1982. Kush:Lost Kingdom of the Nile. Boston,Mass :Brockton Art Museum.
Kormysheva,E. 1990. Egyptian religion in Nubia: Some considerations. Etudes Nubiennes, Vol. II. 187-191.
Leclant,J. 1981. The Empire of Kush: Napata and Meroe. In General History of Africa II, G. Mokhtar (Ed.), (Heinemann:University of California Press) 298-325.
Lepsius, C.R. 1897-1913. Denkmäleraus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Leipzig. 5 Volumes.Lewczuk, J. 1990. Studies on the decoration of the West walls of the chapels at the pyramids in Meroe and Barkal. In Etudes Nubiennes ,Vol. IV, Ch. Bonnet (ed.). (Conference de Geneve Actes der V111e Congress International. Marquette: J. G. Ceconi) 157-158.
MacAdam,M.F.L. 1949. The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions. London: Oxford University Press.
MacAdam,M.F.L. 1950. Four Meroitic inscriptions, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36, 42-46.
MacIver, D.R. and Wooley, C.L. 1909. Areika. PhiladelphiaUniversity Museum. Philadelphia.
Millet,N.B.1969. Meroitic Nubia. Yale University, Ph.D. Dissertation.
Millet, N.B. 1974. Writing and literacy in the ancient Sudan. In Studies in ancient Languages of the Sudan, (ed.) by A. M. Abdalla ,(Khartoum: Khartoum University Press, 1974) pp.49-57.
Millet,N.B. 1984. Meroitic Religion, Meroitica 7,8,pp.111-121.
O'Connor, D. 1993. Ancient Nubia:Egypt's Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Pope, M. 1975. The Story of Archaeological Decipherment, New York Charles Scribner & Sons.
Reisner,A. 1922. Historical Inscriptions from Gebel Barkal, Sudan Notes and Records , 4(2), pp.59-71.
Shinnie, P.L.1967. Meroe:A Civilization of the Sudan. London: Thames & Hudson.
Taylor,J.H. 1991. Egypt and Nubia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Torok, L. 1990. Ambulatory Kingship and settlement history: a study on the contribution of archaeology to Meroitic history. Etudes Nubiennes, Vol.I, 11-126.
Torok, L. 1984. Meroitic Religion: Three Contributions in a Positivistic Manner", Meroitica 7,8, pp.156-182.
Trigger, B.G. 1970. The Meroitic Funerary Inscriptions from Armina West. New Haven, Philadelphia.
UNESCO. 1978. The peopling of ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of Meroitic Script. Paris: Unesco.
Villard, Ugo Monneret de.1960. Incrizioni della Regione di Meroe.Kush, 8, 93-113.
__________________.1959. Testi Meroitica della Nubia Settentrionale, Kush 7, 88-124.
Vychile, W. 1957. Le pays de kousch dans une inscription Ethiopiénne. Annales d'Ethiopie, 2, 177-179.
Williams, B.B. 1987. Meroitic Remains from Qustul cemetery Q Ballana Cemetery B, and A Ballana Settlement. Chicago,Il.:The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Windekens van, A.J. 1941. Lexique etymologique des dialectes.Louvain.
------------------.1979. Le Tokhrien confronte avec les autre Langues Indo-Europeenes. 2 vols. Louvain.
Winters, Clyde A. 1984. "A note on Tokharian and Meroitic".MeroiticNewsletter, no. 23: 18-21.
____________.1988. "The Dravidian and Manding substratum in Tokharian". Central Asiatic Journal, 32 (1-2): 131-141.
------------.1989. "Chiekh Anta Diop at le Dechiffrement de l'ecriture Meroitique", Revue Martiniguaise de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature, no.8: 149-153.
------------.1990. "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34 (1-2):120-144.
-----------.1991. "Linguistic Evidence for Dravidian influence on Trade and Animal Domestication in Central and East Asia", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20 (2): 91-102
________________1999a. The inscription of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V.
_____________.(nd). The Meroitic Chamber Inscription. Nubica IV und Nubica V.
____________. n.d. Meroitic Inscriptions from Karanog. forth- coming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
___________.1996a. Meroitic Decipherment.Ancient Near East Digest 3 (179). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 4 June . [On Line] http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
________.1996b. Meroitic Decipherment. Ancient Near East Journal 3 (180). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 8 June.[On Line] http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
________.1996c. Meroitic Texts. Ancient Near East Digest 3 (182). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 14 June. [On Line]http://www-i.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.
You can read more about my decipherment at thefollowing web site:http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/mero.htm
I have written a short dictionary of Meroiticterms that you can find at the following web site:http://geocities.com/olmec982000/meroitic.pdf
My most recent article discussing Meroitic history and deciphering Meroitic documents titled theMeroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in theDodekaschoinos can be found at the following site:http://arkamani.org/meroitic_studies/Kalabsha.htm
Yellin, J. 1982. The role of Anubis in Meroitic religion. In Nubian Studies, J.M. Plumley (ed.), (Cambridge: Selwyn College), 227-234..........
Although scholars have been able to read the letters of this ancient Kushite writing for many years up to now the full meaning of the Meroitic texts had alluded us.Today we can read the Meroitic text in their entirety using the cognate language for Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984,1989, 1996a, 1996b,1996c).
Although linguist call this language Tokharian in Central Asia (Winters 1988b, 1991, 1996b).The people of Meroe, the Kushites had their own alphabet of 23 signs. This was a wonderful improvement over hieroglyphic writing which was made up of numerous ideographic and phonetic signs. Prior to the introduction of Meroitic, the Meroites used Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Francis Llewellyn Griffith, an Egyptologist was able to decipher the Meroitic script over 60 years ago. Although Griffith deciphered Meroitic, we were unable to read this writing because we did not know the cognate language.Using the comparative method I was able to discover that Tokharian is cognate to Meroitic. This led to the full decipherment of the Meroitic script. We can now read Meroitic using Tokharian ( Krause,1952 ; Windekens 1941, 1979).
Maurice Pope in THE STORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DECIPHERMENT , has made it clear that before an unknown language can be deciphered you must have the right theoretical structure to base your inquiry upon (p.191).
Pope found that in the historical decipherments of ancient languages three preliminary conditions must be met:
1) confidence that a script can be deciphered;
2) location of proper names must be determined;
3) the grammatical rules of the target language/script must be found (pp.186-187).
We were able to read Meroitic because these preliminary conditions were met, and we were able to develop new hypothesis based on historical evidence to determine the cognate language of Meroitic. Conditions number one and two were met by Griffith when he deciphered the Meroitic script in 1910, and his discovery of the proper names of the Meroitic gods and individuals in Meroitic text.
Griffith also discovered the direction the Meroitic writing was written. This recognition by Griffith of the solubility of the Meroitic text was reinforced in 1978, with publication of UNESCO's The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of the Meroitic Script. This was an important publication because it provided researchers with up-to-date information on the status of Meroitic.
Condition number three for the decipherment of Meroitic was met in 1979 when Fritz Hintze published his Beitrage zur meroitischen Grammatik . The research of F. Hintze (1979) and I. Hoffmann (1981) have made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
The work of Griffith and Hintze fulfilled all the requirements for the decipherment of the Meroitic writing.The classical literature supported the view that we might be able to find the Meroitic cognate language through a comparison of the Meroitic terms and Kushan lexical items.
To test the Kushana hypothesis we had to then:
1) find agreement between Kushana and Meroitic terms;
2) compare Central Asian and Egypto-Sudanese toponomies;
3) compare Kushana and Meroitic grammatical forms.
In recent years researchers were able to develop a grammar of Meroitic, without being able to read Meroitic. The research of Hintze (1979) and Hoffman (1981) made it possible for us to find the cognate language of Meroitic: Tokharian (Winters 1984 ,1989).
Hintze (1979) grammar of Meroitic provided the necessary material to compare Meroitic with other languages to find its cognate language. Hintze (1979) recognized three approaches to the study of Meroitic: 1) philological, 2) comparative, and 3) structural (i.e., the morphological-syntactical).
The philological methods of Hintze (1979) was informed guesses based upon context.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, 1996a, 1996b).
There is structural, morphological and toponymic evidence which support the view that Tokharian is cognate to Meroitic(Winters 1984,1989). There are many Central Asian place names that agree with toponomies in Nubia/ Sudan. Below we list a few of these common toponomies:
CentralAsia……………….Sudan
Pap………………………………………….Pap
Karnak…………………………………Karnak
Kukushka…………………………..Kurush
Shaur ……………………………………Sarur
Kandi………………………………………….Kandi
Urban……………………………………….Borgan
Khara ……………………………………….Kara-
Kupuri………………………………………….Gabur, Capur
These placenames can be compared with the maps of Central Asia and the Sudan supplied published by Dr. Vamos-Toth Bator in his Tamana studies .
My decipherment of Meroitic indicates that many terms alleged to be Meroitic by Griffith and others must be discarded. I am forced to ignore the proposed meaning for some proposed Meroitic lexical items because they do not agree with my research into Meroitic. But I accept some of the alleged Meroitic terms as being verified by my decipherment both due to their Egyptian origin, or affinity to Tokharian terms.
It must be remembered that most of the alleged Meroitic lexical items were simply guesses by the researchers. These terms become valid only when they can be read in all the Meroitic text and have consistent meaning. I found that some of these terms are homonyms, while other terms "discovered " by Griffith and others were good guesses that do not prove valid given our discovery of the cognate language of Meroitic.
There are several recognized Meroitic words (Hintze 1979).The following words correspond to Tokharian words:
Meroitic..................... Tokharian
Ø kadke / ktke # queen……………… Ø katak # master of the house
Ø ato # water ……………………………………… Ø ap
#Ø s # 'race'……………………………………………………… Ø sah # 'man'
Ø wide # youth ……………………………………………… Ø wir #
Ø qor # monarch ……………………………………………. Ø oroce # 'the grand king'
Ø parite # agent……………………………………………… Ø parwe # 'first'
Ø apote # 'envoy'………………………………………………..Ø ap # 'father'
It is obvious that apote and parite do not relate to Tokharian because these are Egyptian loan words adopted by the Meroites. But around 57% of these terms show agreement. This made it highly probable that Meroitic and Tokharian were cognate languages.
The grammar of Meroitic determined by Hintze (1979) allowed us to also make comparisons with Tocharian to test the Kushana hypothesis for reading Meroitic. This comparison of grammatical structures showed cognition between this language and Meroitic.
Hintze was sure that there were a number of Meroitic 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:
-ñ
-t
-y
These alleged Meroitic grammatical elements encouraged me to seek out a language that contained these typological features as the possible cognate language for Meroitic. The Kushana language includes all of these affixes.
Researchers working on Meroitic determined several possible prefixes:
p,
p
-s
y.
In Tokharian we find these prefixes: p(ä), the imperfect prefix and imperative, y- the Tokharian element joined to demonstratives, and yopsa ‘in between’.
There are other affixes that relate to the Meroitic suffixes including –te, the demonstrative ‘this, etc.’; -o, the suffix used to change nouns into adjectives. For example: aiśamñe ‘knowledge’, asimo ‘knowing; klyomñ ’nobility’, klyomo ‘noble’.
Other Tokharian affixes which agree with Meroitic include –te and -l. The Tokharian locative suffix is –te. The ending particle in Tokharian is –l.
The Meroitic –t, corresponds to the –t ‘you’. In Tokharian the pronouns are placed at the end of words: nas-a-m ‘I am’, träkä-s ‘he says’, träkä-t ‘you say’.
The –t element in Tokharian can also be used to represent the third person singular e.g., kälpa-t ‘he found’.The p-, element used to form the imperative in Tokharian and imperfect . This affix is used in both Tokharian A and B. For example,Tokh.A klyos "to hear, to listen"p(a)klyos "You listen"p(a)klyossu "s/he listens"Tokh. B klyausp(a)klyaus 'you listen"A. ta, tas, "to lay, to put"ptas 'you lay'B. tes, tas 'to put, to lay'ptes 'you put'.
The Tokharian -n-, has many uses in Tokharian. It can be used to form the subjuntive, e.g., yam 'to do', yaman 's/he do(es). It is also used to form the plural se 'son', pl. sewan 'sons; ri 'city', pl. rin 'cities'.The plural in Tokharian is formed by the –ñ. For example,are ‘plough’, pl. areñ ‘ploughs’ ri ‘city’ , pl. riñ ‘cities.
Recognition of analogous structural elements in relation to Kushana and Meroitic allowed us to divide the Meroitic phonemes into words. Griffith provided us with evidenec for selected Meroitic nouns.
Abdalla (Hintze 1979, 149) was sure that he detected several common verbs in Meroitic including:
hr,
the,
tk,
we,
pl,
do,
mde
yi mde.
Following this lead we searched the Kushan language to determine if it possessed any verbs that might match the proposed hypothetical verbs of Abdalla. A comparison of Kushan and Meroitic proved to be successful. We now know that he was absolutely right about his interpretation of possible Meroitic verbs.
Below is the interpretation of these Meroitic verbs:
hr , to have dignity
the , suggested posssible to move
tk , to set in motion, to investigate
w-e , to give escort
pl , to boast, to praise
m-de , measure the offering
y i m-de go make (full) measure of the offering
Recognition of these Meroitic terms as verbs gave us any more confirmation that Kushana was probably the Meroitic cognate language. This discovery of Meroitic verbs and nouns, and cognate toponomies in Central Asia and Upper-Nubia-Sudan proved that Meroitic could be read using Kushana lexical items.
The discovery that Tokharian 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.
My research into Kushana or Tokharian has led me to recognize that this language was probably used as a lingua franca or trade language in Central Asia by the diverse peoples living there in an intense bilingual environment (Winters 1996a, 1996b). C. A. Winters (1991) has illustrated how the Greek and Slavic terms in Tokharian were loanwords, absorbed by Tokharian after the Greek conquest of Bactria.
This borrowing pattern was consistent with the spread of the Greek language into Bactria by a small elite group of warriors.The classical and Egyptian sources make it clear that Upper Nubia and the Sudan was inhabited by numerous tribes. The possible early use of Kushan\Tokharian as a trade language made it an ideal candidate for use by the Meroitic elites who ruled an empire that was made up of many diverse ethnic groups as the language for literate Meroites
REFERENCES
Abdalla, A.M. 1994. Personal Descriptions in Meroitic Funerary inscriptions. In Hommages a Jean Leclant, (ed.) by C. Berger, G. Clerc & N. Grimal, (Institute Francais d'Archeologie Orientale: Bibliotheque d' Etudes 106/2) pp.1-15.
Abdalla, A.M. 1978. The Meroitic Civilization:Its Mediterranean Contacts and Africaness. In Afrique Noire et monde mediterranean dans L'Antiquité Colloque de Dakar. (Dakar: Université de Senegal) 89-114.
Adams, W.Y. 1977. Nubia:Corridor to Africa. London: Penguin Ltd.
Adams, W.Y. 1975. "Meroitic North and South". Meroitica 2,Berlin:Akademie-Verlag.
Arkell, A.J. 1961. A History of the Sudan from earliest times to 1821. London: University of London Press.
Bakr, M. 1964. Drei Meroitische opfertafeln aus Qustul, Kush,12 , 293-296.
Bakr, M. 1966. Meroitische inschriften aus der umgebung von Aniba, Kush, 14, 336-346.
Griffith, F.Ll. 1909. Meroitic inscriptions. In Areika, (ed) by MacIver, D.R. & Woolley, C.L. Vol.1. Philadelphia.
Griffith, F.L.1911a. Karanog. The Meroitic Inscriptions of Shablul and Karanog. Philadelphia: Eckley B. Coxe Jr Expedition to Nubia. Vol.VI.
Griffith, F. Ll. 1911b. Meroitic Inscriptions: Part I. London: The Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund.
Griffith, F. Ll. 1912. Meroitic Inscriptions: Part II. London: The Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund.
Hakem,A.M.A. 1981. The civilization of Napata and Meroe. In General History of Africa, (London: Heinemann) 278-297.
Hakem, A.M.A. 1984. "Napatan-Meroitic Continuity", Meroitica, 19, 875-883.
Hakem, A.M.A. 1988. Meroitic Architecture. Khartoum: University of Khartoum.
Haycock, B.G. 1978. "The Problem of the Meroitic Language",Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning, no.5: 50-81.
Haynes, J.L. 1992. Nubia:Ancient Kingdoms of Africa. Boston:Museum of Fine Arts.
Hinkel, F.W. 1994. Les pyramides de méroé. Les Dossiers D'Archeologie, no. 196, 60-63.
Hintze, F. 1959. Studien zur Meroitischen chronologie und zu den opfertafeln aus den pyramides von Meroe. Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. 1962. Die inschriften,des lowentempel von Mussawwarat es Sufra. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. 1971. Mussawwarat es Sufra. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hintze, F. (1974). "Some problems of Meroitic philology". In Studies in Ancient Langugaes of the Sudan, (ed.) by A.M. Abdalla, (Khartoum: Khartoum University Press) pp. 73-78.
Hintze,F. 1978. The Meroitic Period. In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan Vol.I. (Brooklyn, N. Y. : Brooklyn Museum) 89-105.
Hintze, F. 1979. "Beltrage zur Meroitishen Grammatik",Meroitica 3, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Hoffmann, I 1991. Steine fur die ewigkeit meroitische opferlafeln und totenstelen. Beitrage zur Sudanforschung Beiheft, 6. Wien: Modling.
Hoffmann, I. 1981. Material fur eine Meroitische Grammatik.Veroffenthchungen der Institute fur Afrikanistik und Agyptologie der Universitat Wien, No. 16. Wien.
Hummel, S. 1992. Die Meroitische Sprache und das protoaltaische Spachsubstrat als Medium zu ihrer Deutung. Febri Verlag.Karanog, Wealthy Capital of a Lower Nubian Province . 1993.Expedition, 35(2), 62-63.
Kendal, T. 1982. Kush:Lost Kingdom of the Nile. Boston,Mass :Brockton Art Museum.
Kormysheva,E. 1990. Egyptian religion in Nubia: Some considerations. Etudes Nubiennes, Vol. II. 187-191.
Leclant,J. 1981. The Empire of Kush: Napata and Meroe. In General History of Africa II, G. Mokhtar (Ed.), (Heinemann:University of California Press) 298-325.
Lepsius, C.R. 1897-1913. Denkmäleraus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Leipzig. 5 Volumes.Lewczuk, J. 1990. Studies on the decoration of the West walls of the chapels at the pyramids in Meroe and Barkal. In Etudes Nubiennes ,Vol. IV, Ch. Bonnet (ed.). (Conference de Geneve Actes der V111e Congress International. Marquette: J. G. Ceconi) 157-158.
MacAdam,M.F.L. 1949. The Temples of Kawa I. The Inscriptions. London: Oxford University Press.
MacAdam,M.F.L. 1950. Four Meroitic inscriptions, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36, 42-46.
MacIver, D.R. and Wooley, C.L. 1909. Areika. PhiladelphiaUniversity Museum. Philadelphia.
Millet,N.B.1969. Meroitic Nubia. Yale University, Ph.D. Dissertation.
Millet, N.B. 1974. Writing and literacy in the ancient Sudan. In Studies in ancient Languages of the Sudan, (ed.) by A. M. Abdalla ,(Khartoum: Khartoum University Press, 1974) pp.49-57.
Millet,N.B. 1984. Meroitic Religion, Meroitica 7,8,pp.111-121.
O'Connor, D. 1993. Ancient Nubia:Egypt's Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Pope, M. 1975. The Story of Archaeological Decipherment, New York Charles Scribner & Sons.
Reisner,A. 1922. Historical Inscriptions from Gebel Barkal, Sudan Notes and Records , 4(2), pp.59-71.
Shinnie, P.L.1967. Meroe:A Civilization of the Sudan. London: Thames & Hudson.
Taylor,J.H. 1991. Egypt and Nubia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Torok, L. 1990. Ambulatory Kingship and settlement history: a study on the contribution of archaeology to Meroitic history. Etudes Nubiennes, Vol.I, 11-126.
Torok, L. 1984. Meroitic Religion: Three Contributions in a Positivistic Manner", Meroitica 7,8, pp.156-182.
Trigger, B.G. 1970. The Meroitic Funerary Inscriptions from Armina West. New Haven, Philadelphia.
UNESCO. 1978. The peopling of ancient Egypt and the Decipherment of Meroitic Script. Paris: Unesco.
Villard, Ugo Monneret de.1960. Incrizioni della Regione di Meroe.Kush, 8, 93-113.
__________________.1959. Testi Meroitica della Nubia Settentrionale, Kush 7, 88-124.
Vychile, W. 1957. Le pays de kousch dans une inscription Ethiopiénne. Annales d'Ethiopie, 2, 177-179.
Williams, B.B. 1987. Meroitic Remains from Qustul cemetery Q Ballana Cemetery B, and A Ballana Settlement. Chicago,Il.:The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Windekens van, A.J. 1941. Lexique etymologique des dialectes.Louvain.
------------------.1979. Le Tokhrien confronte avec les autre Langues Indo-Europeenes. 2 vols. Louvain.
Winters, Clyde A. 1984. "A note on Tokharian and Meroitic".MeroiticNewsletter, no. 23: 18-21.
____________.1988. "The Dravidian and Manding substratum in Tokharian". Central Asiatic Journal, 32 (1-2): 131-141.
------------.1989. "Chiekh Anta Diop at le Dechiffrement de l'ecriture Meroitique", Revue Martiniguaise de Sciences Humaines et de Litterature, no.8: 149-153.
------------.1990. "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia". Central Asiatic Journal, 34 (1-2):120-144.
-----------.1991. "Linguistic Evidence for Dravidian influence on Trade and Animal Domestication in Central and East Asia", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 20 (2): 91-102
________________1999a. The inscription of Tanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V.
_____________.(nd). The Meroitic Chamber Inscription. Nubica IV und Nubica V.
____________. n.d. Meroitic Inscriptions from Karanog. forth- coming Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.
___________.1996a. Meroitic Decipherment.Ancient Near East Digest 3 (179). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 4 June . [On Line] http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
________.1996b. Meroitic Decipherment. Ancient Near East Journal 3 (180). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 8 June.[On Line] http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
________.1996c. Meroitic Texts. Ancient Near East Digest 3 (182). Chicago Oriental Institute. ANE Archive. 14 June. [On Line]http://www-i.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1999). The inscriptions ofTanyidamani. Nubica IV und Nubica V., pp.355-388.
You can read more about my decipherment at thefollowing web site:http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/mero.htm
I have written a short dictionary of Meroiticterms that you can find at the following web site:http://geocities.com/olmec982000/meroitic.pdf
My most recent article discussing Meroitic history and deciphering Meroitic documents titled theMeroitic Evidence for a Blemmy Empire in theDodekaschoinos can be found at the following site:http://arkamani.org/meroitic_studies/Kalabsha.htm
Yellin, J. 1982. The role of Anubis in Meroitic religion. In Nubian Studies, J.M. Plumley (ed.), (Cambridge: Selwyn College), 227-234..........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)