RASTAS WHEN ARABIA WAS “EASTERN ETHIOPIA” PART I – BY DANA MARNICHE NOVEMBER 9, 2008 DON JAIDE 13 COMMENTS WHEN ARABIA WAS “EASTERN ETHIOPIA” Part I By Dana Marniche The Indigenous Populations of Arabia The following quotes are from 19th and early 20th century Western historians, whom unlike today’s historians, understood the strong connection of the original Arabians with the Ethiopic peoples of Africa. 1869 “The Cushites. the first inhabitants of Arabia, arc known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham.” — The New Larned history for Ready Reference Reading and Research, 1922citing F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, bk. 7, ch. 2. published 1869. 1869 – “To the Cushite race belongs the oldest and purest Arabian blood, and also that great and very ancient civilization whose ruins abound in almost every district of the country. ..The south Arabs represent a residue of hamitic populations which at one time occupied the whole of Arabia. “ John Baldwin from Pre-historic nations or inquiries Concerning Some of the Great peoples and Civilizations of Antiquity. Harpers 1869 1881 “ A third body of the Cushites went to the north of the Egypt and founded, on the east of the Delta, the kingdom of the so-called Hyksos , whom tradition designated sometimes as Phoenicians sometimes as Arabians, and in both cases rightly…Lepsius has proved by excellent reasons the Cushite origins of the Hyksos statues from San (Tanis) now in the museum of Boulaq and has made more than merely probable the immigration of the Cushites into the region of the Delta…” p. 402 Heinrich Karl Brugsh in A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs Derived Entirely from the Monuments, published by John Murray 1881, Vol 2, 2nd edition. 1872 – “Mr. Baldwin draws a marked distinction between the modern Mahomedan Semitic population of Arabia and their great Cushite, Hamite, or Ethiopian predecessors. The former, he says, ‘are comparatively modern in Arabia,’ they have ‘appropriated the reputation of the old race,’ and have unduly occupied the chief attention of modern scholars.” Traditions Superstitions and Folklore, Charles Hardwick , Manchester A. Ireland and Company, 1872 1891 – …the Cushite Arabians and the Chaldeans, the founders of the first historic civilization in Babylonia being certainly Hamitic, though early mixed with Semitic tribes, long before Assyrian rule. Charles William Hutson , The Beginnings of Civilization, The Columbian Publishing Co., New York. 1891. 1902 – Modern Arabians are described thusly – “Among ‘these Negroid features which may be counted normal in Arabs are the full,rather everted lips, shortness and width of nose, certain blanks in the bearded areas of the face between the lower lip and chin and on the cheeks; large, luscious,gazelle-like eyes, a dark brown complexion, and a tendency for the hair to grow in ringlets. Often the features of the more Negroid Arabs are derivatives of Dravidian India rather than inheritances of Hamitic Africa. Although the Arab of today is sharply differentiated from the Negro of Africa, yet there must have been a time when both were represented by a single ancestral stock; in no other way can the prevalence of certain Negroid features be accounted for in the natives of Arabia.” by Henry Field Anthropology, Memoirs Field Museum Press Anthropology, Memoirs Arabs of Central Iraq; Their History, Ethnology and Physical C haracters, Anthropology Memoirs Volume 4, 1923 “There is a considerable mass of evidence to show that there was a very close resemblance between the proto-Egyptians and the Arabs before either became intermingled with Armenoid racial elements.” Elliot Smith p. 54 The Ancient Egyptians and the Origins of Civilization, p.61 2007, earliest publication 1923. 1948 – “In Arabia the first inhabitants were probably a dark-skinned, shortish population intermediate, between the African Hamites and the Dravidians of India and forming a single African Asiatic belt with these. From the Handbook of the Territories which form the Theatre of Operations of the Iraq Petroleum Company Limited and its Associated Companies, First Edition, Compiled in the Companies Head office at 214 Oxford Street London 1948. By the middle of the 20th century, whether due to corresponding the withdrawal of European colonialists from many lands or the establishment foundations of modern Europeans in the Levant and consequent flourishing of Biblical archeology, it appears that many historians became less acquainted or familiar with the early documented history and genealogical traditions of the Arabian peoples. The notion of a race of “black Caucasoids” had already been established in the late 19th century and the idea that developed in the 1st centuries after Christ in Neareastern Muslim and Judaeo-Christian tradition of different colored children of Noah had come to permeate the interpretation of Afro-Asiatic or Arabian genealogy. ……… To Be Continued….. Related Posts: The Indigenous Berbers of Africa – By Natural Mystics The Sumerians were Black: Dr Clyde Winters Black Presence in the Ancient British Isles Dr Clyde Ahmad Winters: African Muslims and Saudi Arabian… Caucasoid Features – By Tukuler Post navigation PREVIOUS POST Voodoo – The “Spirits” in the American White (Sepulchre) House – By – Mazi Omeife Jideofo NEXT POST WHEN ARABIA WAS “EASTERN ETHIOPIA” Part 2 – By – Dana Marniche 13 THOUGHTS ON “WHEN ARABIA WAS “EASTERN ETHIOPIA” PART I – BY DANA MARNICHE” terrell ali bey NOVEMBER 13, 2008 AT 5:24 PM YES INDEED, SHUKRAN SISTER DANA, GIVE IT TO EM REPLY Dana Marniche NOVEMBER 20, 2008 AT 7:05 PM Thanks, Terrell. Lots more to come, thanks to Jahdey. REPLY Sadi DECEMBER 11, 2011 AT 12:33 PM Very smart demonstration sister..if you allow me, are you an historian? REPLY Dana DECEMBER 23, 2011 AT 12:37 PM i don’t know if I can be called a historian. i do write about the past history of peoples though though according to historical documentation , archaeology and other things. : ). REPLY Sadi DECEMBER 24, 2011 AT 3:58 AM maybe you’ll seek or not one day for the title but for me you are already an historian …thanks & blessings for all the work you do REPLY Gregory MARCH 7, 2012 AT 2:07 PM The book Medes and Persians, Phoenicians, and Arabians by François Lenormant, Elisabeth Chevallier says, “1.The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more especially after the triumph and propagation of Islamism, became uniform throughout the peninsula; with the same civilization, same manners and customs, same religon, and the same language. But it was not always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia fused into one race. From the remotest antiquity the most striking ethnographic and linguistic differences separated the various nations who inhabited the various nations of this vast country. Several distinct races successively immigrated in to the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their distinctive characteristics, their manners and their civilization prove that these nations were not all of one blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism alone that gave predominance to that one amongst them now called Arabic. 2. The Arabian historians deserving of the name…Ibn Khaldun, for example…distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula. They divide these primitive, secondary and tertiary Arabs into three divisions called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba…The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of Arabia. They consisted of two great nations, the Adites(Kushites/Ethiopians), sprung from Ham, and the Amalika(Amalekites/Armenians) of the race of Aram, descendants of Shem…” The first quote on the page is only partially correct. The Kushites in fact werent the first but it was the Amalekites or modern day Armenians that were the first inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. The Kushites, also known as the Adites came from the Arabian prince Ad who was son of Amalek. Amalek was father of the Amalekites who are known today as Armenians. Therefore if the Kushites are the Adites then that means they descend from the Amalekites. “Armenia is also sometimes called Amalek in some sources, and Jews often referred to Armenians as Amalekites. This is the Byzantine term for the Armenians. It was adopted by the Jews from the Josippon chronicle (tenth century, ch. 64). According to Josippon, Amalek was conquered by Benjaminite noblemen under Saul (ibid., 26), and Benjaminites are already assumed to be the founders of Armenian Jewry in the time of the Judges (Judg. 19–21). Benjaminite origins are claimed by sectarian Kurds. The idea that Khazaria was originally Amalek helped to support the assumption that the Khazar Jews were descended from Simeon (I Chron. 4:42–43; Eldad ha-Dani, ed. by A. Epstein (1891), 52; cf. ?isdai ibn Shaprut, Iggeret)” The website Jewish-History also confirms the conenction of the Armenians to the Amalekites saying, “The Armenians are usually called by the Eastern Jews Amalekim, perhaps owing to a tradition that they settled in the north, where the present Armenians are found.” In an article about the Armenian Genocide at the hands of Ottoman-Donmeh Jews, the Hatzvi Newspaper apathetically states, “’A slight grimace on their lips, a short heartfelt sigh, and nothing more. The Armenians are not Jews, and according to folk tradition the Armenians are nothing more than Amaleks! Amaleks? We would give them help? To whom? To Amaleks? Heaven forbid!’Hatzvi Newspaper May 1909-[Quoted in English translation in Y. Auron, Zionism and the Armenian Genocide: The Banality of Indifference, Transaction Publishers, London, (2002), p. 126.] In his 2006 book Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World), Elliott Horowitz describes the Armenian relationship to the Jewish religion saying , “In1839…the British missionary Joseph Wolff found it “remarkable that the Armenians, who are detested by the Jews as the supposed descendants of the Amalekites, are the only Christian church who have interested themselves for the protection and conversion of Jews.”…Scottish Missionaries Bonar and McCheyne suggested that “the peculiar hatred which the Jews bear toward the Armenians may arise from a charge often brought against them, namely that Haman was an Armenian, and that the Armenians are the Amalekites of the Bible.”… Late in the nineteenth century Joseph Judah Chorny reported hearing from the Jews of Georgia, among whom he had traveled, of their ancestral tradition that the Armenians were descendants of the Amalekites, and another Jewish traveler reported a bizarre practice in eastern Galicia, whereby the Armenians that did business with the local Jews would mourn Haman’s death every Purim, and light candles in his memory.” Another passage from the same book explains, “When in late 15th century R. Obadiah of Bertinoro,a native of Umbria who emigrated to Jerusalem,described the city’s [Christian] sects in a letter to his father, he listed “the Latins, Greeks, Jacobites, Amalekites(Armenians),Abyssinians(Ethiopians).” The book Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation By Alice-Mary Talbot speaks about Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian who ruled from 813 AD to 820 AD until his assassination by one of his top generals, Michael the Amorian. When describing Emperor Leo the book claims, “He is called Amalekite, meaning Arab, because of his apparent approval of Islamic prohibition of the depiction of sacred images.” REPLY Necromancer AUGUST 14, 2012 AT 10:43 PM Armenians are Hayastanians. The Term Armenian is one adopted by Byzantines to refer to people who inhabited Syrian, the Aramaeans, or the people of Aram. The greater reference to incorporate the people Hayasa-Azzi came about due to a king named Arame of Urartu. Urartu is of course the same kingdom known as Van, which due to a Proto-Armenian group of people who lived in Van, the name Aram (originally referring to Syrians) transferred over to the people Hayasa-Azzi. Again, the people of Hayasa-Azzi are not actual Armenians (Aramaeans). They just incorporated the name due to history and association. Aram (Land of the Syriac Semites) -> Arame (King of Van, which had Proto-Hayastani people) -> Armenia (The Modern Hayastan population). REPLY greg MARCH 2, 2013 AT 12:02 AM It doesn’t matter what we call ourselves history proves we assimilated the amalekites. The armenian highlands was home to a federation of multiracial tribes that fused into one kingdom. One or more of these races was Nubian and or kushite or both. There are genetic studies that outline a kushite migration to eurasia REPLY greg MARCH 2, 2013 AT 12:25 AM “consideration of all facts will permit us to accept von Luschan’s view that the earliest population of Asia Minor was Armenoid. Evidence seems to point to the area between the Parmirs and the Hindu Kush as the original home of the Armenoid population… It is certain that they were in that region before the close of the fourth millennium B.C. for the Egyptians acquired Armenoid traits as direct result of their intercourse with North Syria, and we know that this commerce was in progress at the time of the Third Dynasty (2800 BC) and possibly earlier and the strongly Armenoid Semite represented upon the ivory of King Qas tomb takes us back before 3000 BC. Moreover, the old Babylonian sculptures demonstrate the fact that the earliest Semites to enter Mesopotamia and Babylonia had acquired the Armenoid type of nose and the characteristic flowing beard by the time they had intruded into the dominions of the Kings of Akkad and Sumer… The population of Arabia had certainly overflowed into Palestine by the time of the Third Egyptian Dynasty, and probably much earlier; and in this land they would have intermingled not only with the autochthonous “mediterranean” population there but also in Northern Syria, with the Armenoid people. This blend of arabs, **KINSMEN OF THE PROTO EGYPTIANS and ARMENOIDS**, would then form the big nosed, long bearded semites, so familiar not only on the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian monuments, but also in the modern Jews…It is curious to reflect how it could have come to pass that such a rude, untutored people, as the Arabs are supposed to have been at the time, impressed their language and customs on a sufficiently large proportion of the more highly endowed Armenoids….it is perhaps even more a subject for wonder that this Armeno-Arabian blend, at that time relatively uncultured, could have overcome the highly civilized Sumerian population established around the estuary common to the Tigris and Euphrates…Upon a priori grounds one would have expected the Sumerians to have assimilated the Semites; but the reverse actually happened” -The ancient Egyptians and their influence upon the civilization of Europe By Sir Grafton Elliot Smith There are two types of Armenians the armenoids type with the large hook nose and the Semitic type who mixed with the Nubians and kushites. This is why we are still in the oriental orthodox church with Egypt and Ethiopia. And for the record, because of some confusion out there with alot of africans about who came first, Armenia was the first Christian nation;not Aksum. St frumentius was an armenoid from syria and he brought Christianity to aksum REPLY Dana MAY 13, 2013 AT 5:58 PM Greg – I understand where you are coming from with your information, but we just have to be careful how we are saying it. Amalek or Al-Amluk is not a some legendary people of Armenia, but a historical tribe documented in the region of northwest Arabia (Melukka) and southern Arabia well into colonial times. They were a historical tribe – not a nation or nationality. Almost every group of people in the Near East get their names from the Ethiopic people of Arabia or black to near black Afro-Asiatics coming from the south and in fact from the rest of the Arabian peninsula in ancient times. That is where you get many peoples whose names such as Khazaras, Arman, Aram, Syria (or Assyria), and Chaldaeans who were traditionally said to have come from far to the south in Yaman. In fact the name and folk history of the hero Armen as found in early Arabic sources relating the genealogy is written both as Arman and Amran, an ancient leader or tribal chief from the Yemen of over 3,300 years ago settling in North Arabia (Hijaz). This Amran was said to have belonged to a group or clan of the Adites i.e. Amalekites of southern Arabia (which was then still considered Ethiopia). That is where your Armenian tradition originates! It is not unlikely that these people, whom archaeologists normally call “Amurru” “Amorites” or “Martu” did move into and settle in places such as what is now called Armenia or the land of Arman/Amran and Khazaria and even further north and east as early as the Bronze Age, as we know that the earliest Akkadian dynasties or semitic-speakers in Akkad were of “‘Amurru” or “Martu” stock. (The Ancient Near East: A History by Hallo and Simpson), But since the chronology of the Middle East is probably somewhat distorted it has been hard scholars to accept such a conclusion. Interestingly, according to many Arabic texts a tribe called the Khazaras or Khazraj (also written Ghazaras or Jazraj or Jazar depending on the text) who were in part descended from people of Amran or “Arman”, were said to have come from Aram or Iram in the vicinity of Sana’a before moving northward . They moved into Hijaz from the Yemen where tradition has them claiming descent from Amalekite and Azd people. Azd were people of the “Adites” who were the Amalekites in many sources, Thus we read ” The tribe of Amalek were descended from Amalek the son of Eliphaz, though some of the Oriental authors say Amalek was the son of Ham son of Noah, and others the son of Azd son of Shem.” Amalek and Azd were considered one Azd being a descendant of Amalek. It is not impossible that such people carried their traditions and names with them further to the north into Syria and Armenia mixing with the Eurasiatic and other proto-Mesopotamians already there. In fact it is highly likely that they did. As we can see from the paintings of Amorites of Mari they were still basically a dark brown-skinned people until a late period. Though obviously mixed with the non-black Syrians there they still resembled in complexion some of the African-affiliated peoples still present in Central and southern Arabia and Oman. It is also important to note that although in Syria and Central Asia such allegorical figures as Ham, Shem and Noah were claimed to be fathers of different “nations” of people in early in early AfroArabian tradition they are representative patriarchs of closely related peoples that spread from the Yemen and region of Aden (Eden). The early Arabian traditions say Amalek, Ad Aus (Uz) and Aram (Arram or Iram) were all people originated in Hadramaut and southern Arabia. Their ancestors are shem and ham and from them sprang the tribes of Japhet as well, long before they left the Yemen. Sometimes Amalek, Lud and Ad are said to be from Shem while others sources say they are Ham because and Ham and Shem after all were brothers. “The Arabians have a tradition, that Amalek was a son of Ham …” (See Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible). “Others, that Ad was the son of Amalek, the son of Ham …” (A Biblical and Theological Dictionary ). Of course the Syrian and Central Asian descriptions of all of these clans of Adite or Amalekites or Azd, Arabians as giants and blacks in numerous accounts obviously leaves the idea of Amalekites being the only or primary ancestors of modern Armenians and Khazars an impossibility, though as you say these Amorites/Aram were probably absorbed in ancient times by other populations. The Adites were supposed to have originated in Aram in the Hadramaut, not Syria. Lastly, the so- called Armenian type characterized by broad or brachycephalic crania and large nose was not a substantial element in the ancient Arab or Arabian population. Certainly not until long after islamic times did such people come to play even a minor role in the peninsula when one looks at all of the descriptions of the tribes there. This is why Ibn Khaldun and others before him had considered Central Arabia part of his 2nd zone in “Bilad es- Sudan’. Most of the Syrian types one sees on the ancient monuments are not Arabs, nor Canaanites, although both of these did come to play a part in populating Syria or the Levant at various times. REPLY Dana MAY 13, 2013 AT 6:26 PM Lastly – I forgot to mention but think it is important to remember Sumerians, Semites and Armenoid Semitic speakers were three different populations. The latter also had adopted also Hurrian from the Subarians either before or after they adopted Sumerian from the Dravidian like Sumerians, and the Semitic from the Afro-Arabian Akkad. They are represneted in the monuments in a far larger extent than were found human remains. Don’t ask me which language came first though. : ) On the other hand archaealogists recently have been redressing or setting right this problem of when the broad-headed “Armenoid” type (as they used to call it) really does become dominant in different parts of the Middle East. “this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally unaltered until the Parthian period as in southern Mesopotamia (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or after the Parthian period a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986). It has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians AFTER the Achaemenean domination, and more foreigners were settled and mixed with the native population in the Parthian period (Roux, 1992). The present results do not contradict this view. Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population. These results are consistent with the findings of Wada (1986), indicating that the present morphometric analysis successfully extracted the morphological characteristics derived from conventional craniometry.” It is safe to say this influx also influenced the Arabian peninsula beginning mainly in the Parthian period especially in the east and around the southern coasts when Arabs were trading with Central Asians. REPLY Dana MAY 13, 2013 AT 6:31 PM {Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq by Naomichi Ogihara, Haruyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida, Anthropological Science (2009) Volume: 117, Issue: 1, Pages: 9-17 “this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally unaltered until the Parthian period AS IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or after the Parthian period a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986). It has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians after the Achaemenean domination, and more foreigners were settled and mixed with the native population in the Parthian period (Roux, 1992). The present results do not contradict this view. Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population.” } REPLY Jay SEPTEMBER 28, 2013 AT 10:05 AM What an article Dana. Will you ever write a book? REPLY LEAVE A REPLY Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Name * Email * Website CAPTCHA Code * Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:53:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015