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…..
YES INDEED, SHUKRAN SISTER DANA, GIVE IT TO EM
Thanks, Terrell. Lots more to come, thanks to Jahdey.
Very smart demonstration sister..if you allow me, are you an historian?
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. : ).
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 🙂
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.com 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.”
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).
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