Who can be considered to be true Arabs, I know that the northern Arabs of Northern Yemen Saudi Arabia etc with the high amount of J haplotype consider themselves to be the original Arabs.
Therefore where do these people come from? and who are they related to genetically?
Arabs speak an afro-asiatic language of the semitic stock. These languages are also spoken by Africans, and yet they are of a different race, so does any 1 have any explanations as to where Arabs came from and who they are related to genetically.
Most of the so called pure Arabs have an extremely light complexion ranging from nearly white to olive skin. They also tend to have curly, wavy or straight black hair.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Perhaps Arabs are best understood as and amalgam of Neolithic Africans and indigenous SouthWest Asians.
Here is and interesting [though somewhat biased "jewish?"] look at the history of the Arabs:
The term "Arab" in modern times is applied to a large group of different peoples that share in common the Arabic language, which for the overwhelming majority of them is not their original one but the tongue imposed to their forefathers by the Arabian conquerors.
Such a definition is ethnically unsuitable, in the same way as it would be inappropriate to call "Spaniards" to all Spanish-speaking peoples or "English" to all those non-British folks whose primary language is English.
It is true that the Arab countries have not only language in common but also most cultural features as well, yet, this is the result of the colonization and subsequent annihilation of the original pre-Arabic culture.
Therefore, it is more correct to speak of them as "Arabized" peoples rather than Arabs. From the ethnic viewpoint, the term "Arab" is roughly equivalent to "Arabian", namely, in reference to the only people considered to be Arab since the beginning and identified as such by themselves and by their neighbours.
It happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population, and 2) in a quite improper way, by calling "Arab" to ancient peoples that existed in the Middle East in order to claim historic rights and legitimate the Arab occupation. So, it is necessary to reach a clear definition in two directions: which peoples are Arabs and which are not. Concerning the origin, the most widespread myth is that Arabs are Ishmaelites, what in the case of all the Arabized peoples is not true at all, and regarding Arabians is only partially true.
The original Arab culture has been lost and the most reliable information we have about it comes from external sources, because Islamic revisionism has produced a legendary account in replacement of the scientific truth, and so one of the most fascinating cultures of the past is now missing.
The Arabian myths have been created in order to legitimate the "pre-existence" of Islam by ascribing fanciful tales allegedly happened in Arabia to Hebrew Patriarchs and Prophets. Through these legends turned into "history", Arabs claim an Avrahamic origin through Yishmael, who was only the forefather of some tribes that intermarried with many other peoples that were already settled in Arabia much earlier than him and within which the Ishmaelite lineage was largely assimilated.
Therefore, the equation Arab = Ishmaelite is a myth, because Ishmael was not an Arab, nor the forefather of all Arabs; actually, his descent contributed to the formation of the peoples that came to be known as Arabs some centuries later. Connected with the alleged Ishmaelite identification, the Semitic identity is taken for granted, yet, this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ishmaelites were a mixed group with a strong Hamitic component*, as we will see in this essay.
What is true from the above, is that the early semites were Africans who intermixed with native Levantines in the Levant. Thru this, and subsequent interactions we get both Arabs and Jews.
The article above 'picks on' the Arabs, but it is equally true of the Jews.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Don't know much about the genetics of Arabs but their own oral legends say that the purest Arabs are the Qahtan. The Arabized Arabs from Ishmael are known as the Adnan. Arabs trace their origins mostly through clan and family based systems. Technically the original Proto-Semitic speakers probably originated from Ethiopia or the Sahara. Some linguist argue a Western Asian origin in the Levant region. The latter theory has not trumped the proto-Semitic speakers coming from Ethiopia or the Sahara.
Lots of modern Arabs probably have mixture from white concubines or other groups that migrated or was taken forcefully into Arabia.
When I say Arabs by ethnic group I mean primarily people from the Arabian peninsula.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Which is why it is ridiculous to attribute certain features of Africans to admixture from "dark-skinned Arabs", [as some ignorant folks do in this board] because Arabs of Arabia are a mixed people themselves of diverse lineages, especially African!
The main male lineage in Southwest Asia is J and so many people tend to use that as the defining Arab or Jewish lineage, but Arabs are strictly patrilineal and rarely if at all allow foreign men marry their women but is totally the opposite with women. Which is why so many Arabs even in Saudi royal families have African maternal ancestry.
Martin Richards, Chiara Rengo, Fulvio Cruciani, Fiona Gratrix, James F. Wilson, Rosaria Scozzari, Vincent Macaulay, and Antonio Torroni
We have analyzed and compared mitochondrial DNA variation of populations from the Near East and Africa and found a very high frequency of African lineages present in the Yemen Hadramawt: more than a third were of clear sub-Saharan origin. Other Arab populations carried ∼10% lineages of sub-Saharan origin, whereas non-Arab Near Eastern populations, by contrast, carried few or no such lineages, suggesting that gene flow has been preferentially into Arab populations. Several lines of evidence suggest that most of this gene flow probably occurred within the past ∼2,500 years. In contrast, there is little evidence for male-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa in Y-chromosome haplotypes in Arab populations, including the Hadramawt. Taken together, these results are consistent with substantial migration from eastern Africa into Arabia, at least in part as a result of the Arab slave trade, and mainly female assimilation into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission.
The article is interesting in that it cites historical interactions between Africa, especially the Horn and Arabia such as Axum and Adal.
But what about the African male lineages in Arabia?..
Haplogroup E is present both in Arab and Jewish populations throughout the Near East, as well as at high frequencies throughout most of Africa (Scozzari et al. 1999, 2001; Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). However, its distribution in the Near East suggests an ancient present in the region, rather than indicating recent gene: It is not only present in Near Eastern Arab populations, but also in several groups of Jews (12%-23%) and Turks (~10%), declining to <5% as one moves toward the Caucasus and Europe. Further supporting the suggestion of an ancient presence rather than recent gene flow from East Africa, haplogroup E only occurs at ~ 10% in the Yemen Hadramawt, substantially lower than most other Arab and Jewish groups in the Near East. Yet this is precisely the region in which female-mediated geneflow from Eastern Africa reaches its highest levels. Only ~ 4% of the Hadramawt sample is the derived sub-Saharan form, E3a, which indicates recent gene flow from Africa. This subclade is virtually absent from all other Near Eastern populations sampled. Moreover, haplogroup E is entirely absent from a second Yemen sample from Sena (Thomas et al. 200)...
Another question I have is about the male lineage F* (M89). F* is the ancestor of haplogroups G, H, I, J, and K. F* is said to have originated in Africa about 45,000 years ago which then spread to Asia. There seems to be a high frequency of F in Iran with decreasing frequencies in Arabia, until you get to Africa where there it exists in Sudan in an even smaller frequency.
So is the F* in Sudan a remnant of its in situ development or is it the result of back-migration??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Well one thing is for sure, these people below certainly aren't real Arabs:
Of course there are folks who could dream and fantasize.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by Ayazid (Member # 2768) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Well one thing is for sure, these people below certainly aren't real Arabs:
Well, they arenīt more or less Arabs than these people:
Basically, itīs a bunch of arabised Berbers, Copts and Nubians who speak Arabic and therefore consider themselves to Arabs. They have at most some distant Arabian bedouin ancestors, but the important thing is that since they speak Arabic, the "real" Arabs from Arabian Peninsula consider them to be Arabs as themselves.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Fellows,
We are using many degrees of definition here.
1.Yemeni and Saudis were the main carriers of Arab culture. 2. Your photo shows the Arab ethos encompassing mawali who were absorbed, and were within the fold of Islam. 3. I am sure also that the phenotype of Yememi and Saudis approximates that of Eqyptians, Libyans, ALgerians, etc. and many of this group wll look more 'Arab' (ethos) then the Yemeni and Saudis. 4. Before only tribal groups laid claim to a title but now regarding country and state, there are far more people who were once 'mawali' (general term only) but now under present definition, lay claim to being a descendant of the prophet from Punjabis, Turks (less so), Baluchi, Azeri, etc. 5. Even some mamluks, because they seized territory and had power in the name of Islam, came to regard themselves as descendants of the prophet! albeit in spirit only.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What does it matter that outsiders who are not Arab and have no understanding of Arabs or any day-to-day ongoing mutual relations with Arabs want to sit in judgement and pronounce such an entity as a "true Arab." Is that like the "true Negro" an artificial externally imposed identity based on the definer's ideal of a "pristine Arabian phenotype" that exists only in the mind?
Arabs are, who Arabs say, are Arab. The only reality in the "who are Arab" issue is how Arabs class themselves.
quote: Arab origin mythos name two distinct ancestors, Qahtaan (pure southerners) Adnan (mixed northerners) and a three way division of their society into:
al-'Arab ul-'Aribah (South "Arabian Kushites" of the oldest purest civilization and blood lines)
al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah (mixed in upon the southerners)
The vast majority of Arabs are al-'Arab ul-Musta'ribah or Mustaribes. Even the Adnani al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah boil down to being Mustarib.
Though Mustaribes, whether inside or outside the peninsula, may be without a trace of Adnan or Qahtaan ancestry they are nonetheless Arab.
This category includes Syrians and Iraqis just as much as it does Sudanis. Yet those who speak of "true Arabs" no doubt class Syrians and Iraqis as such because of their generally lighter skin and other phenotypical features. There's more phenotype variation in Adnan and Qahtaan blooded Arabs than you see on the filtered evening news.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Speaking of the Qahtaani a.k.a. al-'Arab ul-'Aribah [the original Arabs], here is what is known about them:
Here are the modern groups within Yemen that conform to the Southern Semetic type:
The three tribes that speak Mahra are known to other Arabs as the Ahl al Hadara. They are the Qarra, Mahra and Harasis with parts of other tribes (WT p47). The language is derived from the language of the Sabaeans, Minaeans and Himyarites.
The Mahra with other Southern Arabian peoples seem aligned to the Hamitic race of north-east Africa.
The Mahra are believed to be descended from the Habasha, who colonised Ethiopia in the first millennium BC (WT p198). Many Bait Kathir understand the Mahri language. The Qarra and Mahra have almost beardless faces, fuzzy hair and dark pigmentation (WT p171). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family. The members of this family have a recorded history going bak thousands of years--one of the most extensive continuous archives of documents belonging to any human language group.
The Semitic languages eventually took root and flourished in the Mediterranean Basin area, especially in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin and in the coastal areas of the Levant, but where the home of area of "proto-Semitic" was located is still the object of dispute among scholars, Once, the Arabian Peninsula was thought to have been the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in East Africa, probably in the area of Somalia/Ethiopia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated lingustically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Amharic, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century C.E. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu Tuesday May 28th, 2002 by Laura Spinney Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab- Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade. Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa. mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro- Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended. "This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago," Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu. "We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them. The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population. <http://news.bmn.com/join>
Journal of World Prehistory 12 (1): 55-119, March 1998 Southwest Arabia During the Holocene: Recent Archaeological Developments Christopher Edens, T.J. Wilkinson Abstract Recent fieldwork has considerably increased our knowledge of early Holocene settlement in Southwest Arabia. Neolithic settlement occured within an environmental context of increased monsoonal moisture that continued during the mid-Holocene. A now well-attested Bronze Age exemplified by village and town settlements occupied by sedentary farmers developed toward the end of the mid-Holocene moist interval. The high plateau of Yemen was an early focus for the development of Bronze Age complex society, the economy of which relied upon terrace rain fed and runoff agriculture. On the fringes of the Arabian Desert, the precursors of the Sabaean literate civilization have been traced back to between 3600 and 2800 B.P., and even earlier, so that a virtually continuous archaeological record can now be desribe for parts of Yemen. In contrast to the highlands these societies relied upon food production from large scale irrigation systems dependent upon capricious wadi floods. Bronze Age settlement, while showing some links with the southern Levant, now shows equal or stronger linkages with the Horn of Africa across the Red Sea. Although some regions of Yemen show breaks in occupation, others show continuity into the Sabaean period when a series of major towns grew up in response to the increased incense trade with the north. It is now clear that these civilizations grew up on the foundations of earlier Bronze Age complex societies.
Finally, Nicolas Faraclas suggests that the roots of Semitic languages, which are classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, lie in the Dorfur-Kordofan region on the eastern edge of the Chad-Sudan border. He uses linguistic, archaeological, and climatic evidence to trace the routes by which Afro-Asiatic languages seem to have spread. The Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic languages all seem to have diverged in a migration that began with the Last Major Wet Spell of the Sahara, which ran from 10,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C. I am not qualified to judge the linguistic evidence he summarizes, but the maps he draws from that evidence and on which he bases his conclusions are persuasive. Expect to see the article cited regularly in world history literature.
Of course before the appearance of Proto-Semites to the south Arabian area, there existed aboriginal populations of "negrito" and "veddoid" type people.
Posted by Hikuptah (Member # 11131) on :
I lived in Yemen Saudi Arabia and Oman for many years and the oldest arabs are the Yemenis but when u see Yemenis they look no different than Somalias Ethiopians ERtireans the arabs are just a mixture of Horn of Africans and whites Middle East is the Meeting point and mixing point of whites and blacks. Most arabs always try to give the Habashi/Ethiopians a arab background claiming that the Ethiopians are arabs but it is actually the other way around arabs look like Horn of Africans. The arabs claim there lineage from the Ad, Thamud, & Sabeans ancient Kushite people who are really from Ethiopia these people are even in The quran these are the ancestors of the arabs.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Perhaps Arabs are best understood as and amalgam of Neolithic Africans and indigenous SouthWest Asians.
Here is and interesting [though somewhat biased "jewish?"] look at the history of the Arabs:
The term "Arab" in modern times is applied to a large group of different peoples that share in common the Arabic language, which for the overwhelming majority of them is not their original one but the tongue imposed to their forefathers by the Arabian conquerors.
Such a definition is ethnically unsuitable, in the same way as it would be inappropriate to call "Spaniards" to all Spanish-speaking peoples or "English" to all those non-British folks whose primary language is English.
It is true that the Arab countries have not only language in common but also most cultural features as well, yet, this is the result of the colonization and subsequent annihilation of the original pre-Arabic culture.
Therefore, it is more correct to speak of them as "Arabized" peoples rather than Arabs. From the ethnic viewpoint, the term "Arab" is roughly equivalent to "Arabian", namely, in reference to the only people considered to be Arab since the beginning and identified as such by themselves and by their neighbours.
It happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population, and 2) in a quite improper way, by calling "Arab" to ancient peoples that existed in the Middle East in order to claim historic rights and legitimate the Arab occupation. So, it is necessary to reach a clear definition in two directions: which peoples are Arabs and which are not. Concerning the origin, the most widespread myth is that Arabs are Ishmaelites, what in the case of all the Arabized peoples is not true at all, and regarding Arabians is only partially true.
The original Arab culture has been lost and the most reliable information we have about it comes from external sources, because Islamic revisionism has produced a legendary account in replacement of the scientific truth, and so one of the most fascinating cultures of the past is now missing.
The Arabian myths have been created in order to legitimate the "pre-existence" of Islam by ascribing fanciful tales allegedly happened in Arabia to Hebrew Patriarchs and Prophets. Through these legends turned into "history", Arabs claim an Avrahamic origin through Yishmael, who was only the forefather of some tribes that intermarried with many other peoples that were already settled in Arabia much earlier than him and within which the Ishmaelite lineage was largely assimilated.
Therefore, the equation Arab = Ishmaelite is a myth, because Ishmael was not an Arab, nor the forefather of all Arabs; actually, his descent contributed to the formation of the peoples that came to be known as Arabs some centuries later. Connected with the alleged Ishmaelite identification, the Semitic identity is taken for granted, yet, this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ishmaelites were a mixed group with a strong Hamitic component*, as we will see in this essay.
What is true from the above, is that the early semites were Africans who intermixed with native Levantines in the Levant. Thru this, and subsequent interactions we get both Arabs and Jews.
The article above 'picks on' the Arabs, but it is equally true of the Jews.
I AGREE WITH THIS,I KNOW THE SEMITE LANGUAGE is african in origin with later influences.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Rasol,
thanks for the article. Also, thanks Hikuptah and Prince of Punt. But I got a question for you Rasol: I liked the article: I even printed it! However,the person(s) that wrote this didn't even leave a name, and they didn't give any sources to prove the facts. So I like the article, but how do we know that this stuff is on point, know what I mean? I mean if this is the truth, IT BETTER BE THE TRUTH, KNOW WHAT I MEAN? So hollar at me. If you got some more sources that prove the Kushite influnence upon the pre-Islamic Arabs, I would love to check it out. Not that I doubt it, but we gotta be correct, know what I mean? Salaam
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: I lived in Yemen Saudi Arabia and Oman for many years and the oldest arabs are the Yemenis but when u see Yemenis they look no different than Somalias Ethiopians ERtireans the arabs are just a mixture of Horn of Africans and whites Middle East is the Meeting point and mixing point of whites and blacks...
Arabia and the rest of the Middle East was indeed a meeting point where many peoples mixed, however it depends on what you mean by "whites". There is no evidence of white people as in Europeans being present in the Near-East in early or ancient times, but I assume you speak of the 'light-skinned' Arab peoples who inhabit mainly the northern part the Middle-East are are said to be the ancestors of the Adnani (Arabized-Arabs).
quote:..Most arabs always try to give the Habashi/Ethiopians a arab background claiming that the Ethiopians are arabs but it is actually the other way around arabs look like Horn of Africans. The arabs claim there lineage from the Ad, Thamud, & Sabeans ancient Kushite people who are really from Ethiopia these people are even in The quran these are the ancestors of the arabs.
You are very right about this Hikuptah. Many scholars now believe the ancestors of southern Semitic people of Yemen (original Arabs) to originally come from Eritrea and Ethiopia. Such people like the Mahra not only spoke different languages from Northern 'Arabs' but had different physical (racial) appearances and even had a different culture from northern Arabs. The ancient Sabeans of Yemen were even matrilineal meaning that they traced lineage through the mother and not the father, which is totally the opposite of the patriarchal northern Arabs!
Here are the modern groups within Yemen that conform to the Southern Semetic type:
The three tribes that speak Mahra are known to other Arabs as the Ahl al Hadara. They are the Qarra, Mahra and Harasis with parts of other tribes (WT p47). The language is derived from the language of the Sabaeans, Minaeans and Himyarites.
The Mahra with other Southern Arabian peoples seem aligned to the Hamitic race of north-east Africa.
The Mahra are believed to be descended from the Habasha, who colonised Ethiopia in the first millennium BC (WT p198). Many Bait Kathir understand the Mahri language. The Qarra and Mahra have almost beardless faces, fuzzy hair and dark pigmentation (WT p171). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family. The members of this family have a recorded history going bak thousands of years--one of the most extensive continuous archives of documents belonging to any human language group.
The Semitic languages eventually took root and flourished in the Mediterranean Basin area, especially in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin and in the coastal areas of the Levant, but where the home of area of "proto-Semitic" was located is still the object of dispute among scholars, Once, the Arabian Peninsula was thought to have been the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in East Africa, probably in the area of Somalia/Ethiopia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated lingustically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Amharic, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century C.E.
Posted by Hikuptah (Member # 11131) on :
Djehuti i know this is off the subject but your name sounds close to djbouti maybe that is an ancient egyptian name for the Kurrupt version of Thoth u think?
I have been all over the arab world but the place that shocked me the most was off the yemen coast were the Mahra live in Socotra this place is amazing the people are yemeni but look Ethiopian they dont speak arabic they dont even follow Islam there culture amazed me so much because it reminded me of ancient arabia from the quran about the sabians ad and thamud people i returned to egypt and there i started to study these people and i came upon a book written by a white historian who claims that the people of Socotra speak a language that is related to Oromia in ethiopia and ancient babylonian the historian used the language of the Mahra and Oromo people of southern Ethiopia to decipher the babylonian texts. Actually there is more semitic languages spoken in Ethiopia than there is any place in this entire world. The Semitic tongue originated in Ethiopia/Sudan.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Rasol,
thanks for the article. Also, thanks Hikuptah and Prince of Punt. But I got a question for you Rasol: I liked the article: I even printed it! However,the person(s) that wrote this didn't even leave a name, and they didn't give any sources to prove the facts. So I like the article, but how do we know that this stuff is on point, know what I mean? I mean if this is the truth, IT BETTER BE THE TRUTH, KNOW WHAT I MEAN? So hollar at me. If you got some more sources that prove the Kushite influnence upon the pre-Islamic Arabs, I would love to check it out. Not that I doubt it, but we gotta be correct, know what I mean? Salaam
You're welcome. I would say read Djehuti's posts concerning the origins of the Semetic languages.
Also here is and interview with UCLA linguist, Christopher Ehret:
In Southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group- They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family.
The early Semites were Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Afrasan divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages.
So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. We can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. http://worldhistoryconnected.press.uiuc.edu/2.1/ehret.html Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hikuptah: Djehuti i know this is off the subject but your name sounds close to djbouti maybe that is an ancient egyptian name for the Kurrupt version of Thoth u think?
I don't know what the name Djbouti means, but Djehuti is the accurate name for the Egyptian god "Thoth" (Thoth being Greek).
quote:I have been all over the arab world but the place that shocked me the most was off the yemen coast were the Mahra live in Socotra this place is amazing the people are yemeni but look Ethiopian they dont speak arabic they dont even follow Islam there culture amazed me so much because it reminded me of ancient arabia from the quran about the sabians ad and thamud people i returned to egypt and there i started to study these people and i came upon a book written by a white historian who claims that the people of Socotra speak a language that is related to Oromia in ethiopia and ancient babylonian the historian used the language of the Mahra and Oromo people of southern Ethiopia to decipher the babylonian texts. Actually there is more semitic languages spoken in Ethiopia than there is any place in this entire world. The Semitic tongue originated in Ethiopia/Sudan.
Read my post citing the source about the Mahra people. The early South Arabians descend from proto-Semitic speakers. Their brand of Arabic is quite different from the kind spoken by northern Arabs and yes even their culture is very different.
There is even evidence that shows the ancestors of the Mahra, the ancient Sabeans were matrilineal which means they trace their lineage and ancestry through their mothers.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
It's greatly ironic and tragically unfortunate that many black Africans' cultural identity, heritage, and in some cases their very lives are threatened by Arabization when Arab culture itself was originally spawned by black Africans!! Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Yeah I agree Djehuti. I am VERY interested in the Kushite origin of Arabic civilization and culture. Man, even the Bible talks about the sons of Kush being, amongst others, Sheba and Dedan. These two and others(I believe- I'm going off the top of my head) are the founders of Ethiopian civilization(in Ethiopia) and spread to South Arabia. I have read somewhere...... I don't remember the details well at all. But it was something written by an Arab scholar back in the 9th century or something. He said that the first written language in the world was Syriac(he's, of course, a little off, but there's more...), and that even Adam(first man) spoke that language. But I think it was put in written form by one of the sons of Cush in South Arabia(Yemen or whatever)......... I'll try to find the source online.......
Posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE (Member # 9831) on :
Your article made a mistake in saying that the Mahra represent the origins of Ethiopians. It's the other way around, the Mahra came from Ethiopia. They've often been ascribed to leftover Aksumites from Kaleb's invasion of Yemen or the wars of the 3rd century when Aksum controlled much of the Tihama and S. Saudi Arabia (also I think sometimes of the southern al-Ma`afir...), but that they are beardless makes this unlikely since Ethiopians tend to have beards.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
Babylon is present day Iraq. Babylon may have been a larger area but Iraq happened to be last know physical geography of said place. Similat to the US/Mexican border where it was a larger native American territory but with European colonization it shrinked to between Canada, Russia, Spain and England over the cernturies! just thinking out aloud, mi gente
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yom: @Djehuti:
Your article made a mistake in saying that the Mahra represent the origins of Ethiopians. It's the other way around, the Mahra came from Ethiopia. They've often been ascribed to leftover Aksumites from Kaleb's invasion of Yemen or the wars of the 3rd century when Aksum controlled much of the Tihama and S. Saudi Arabia (also I think sometimes of the southern al-Ma`afir...), but that they are beardless makes this unlikely since Ethiopians tend to have beards.
You are right Yom, but the purpose of that particular article was to show that there exist physically distinct populations in southern Arabia and not just the light-skinned Arabs people are used to seeing. If you noticed, the article also described the Mahra as being "Hamitic" and I'm sure you know the historic fallacy behind that term.
That article on the Mahra was just one of several articles I presented in an earlier post if you scroll up and look.
Arabic belongs to the Semitic language family. The members of this family have a recorded history going bak thousands of years--one of the most extensive continuous archives of documents belonging to any human language group.
The Semitic languages eventually took root and flourished in the Mediterranean Basin area, especially in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin and in the coastal areas of the Levant, but where the home of area of "proto-Semitic" was located is still the object of dispute among scholars, Once, the Arabian Peninsula was thought to have been the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in East Africa, probably in the area of Somalia/Ethiopia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated lingustically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Amharic, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Yeah I agree Djehuti. I am VERY interested in the Kushite origin of Arabic civilization and culture. Man, even the Bible talks about the sons of Kush being, amongst others, Sheba and Dedan. These two and others(I believe- I'm going off the top of my head) are the founders of Ethiopian civilization(in Ethiopia) and spread to South Arabia. I have read somewhere...... I don't remember the details well at all. But it was something written by an Arab scholar back in the 9th century or something. He said that the first written language in the world was Syriac(he's, of course, a little off, but there's more...), and that even Adam(first man) spoke that language. But I think it was put in written form by one of the sons of Cush in South Arabia(Yemen or whatever)......... I'll try to find the source online.......
Yes, the Bible does give references to southern Semitic people being related to 'Kush'.
I don't know about Syriac language, but there is evidence of early Semitic speakers being present in the Levant which may be descendants of the Natufians of the Neolithic.
As for what language Adam spoke, I doubt it was that.
I presume that the article you posted was posted for me. Well, I hope we ain't getting caught up in words, know what I mean? I read some time ago, "The history of Nubia and Ethiopia" by Wallis Budge(somewhat of a chump, but he is a good scholar depending on his degree of objectivity). In that book, he got hold of Ethiopian traditions about their ancestral pasts. Well, from what I remember, I think that they had a man named "Ithiopia" listed as being the founder of ancient Ethiopia. This man, according to them, was a son of Kush, which, or course, was a son of Ham. So when I say "Kush", I meant the areas of ancient Nubia(modern Sudan) and Aksum(Modern Ethiopia). In other words, I believe that "Kush" extends beyond ancient Nubia. Remember, there is a place in/near India called Hindu Kush.........according to the Bible, the ancient founder of Babylon was named Nimrod, who was the son of Cush(Kush).......etc. Salaam
Queen is right that there is alot of unnecessary confusion over the the words 'kushite' 'cushitic' etc. These words are all derived from the Biblical (Hebrew) word kushi, which simply means black. There were various populations of black peoples from Africa (Egypt, Sudan etc) to the Near East (Midiantes, Sabeans others) to Iran (Elamites) all the way to India.
The modern linguistic term 'Cushitic' is used solely in reference to a language group indigenous to the Horn region of Africa.
Unless you want to make the common mistake of folks like Clyde Winters and presume a "Kushitic Empire" that stretches from Africa, through Arabia, to India simply on the account that all these peoples were black?! Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Well Jehuti,
If there is evidence of a great "Kushitic Empire", I am all for it. But we don't have the solid proof YET concerning the truth of it. However, there is alot of stuff out there to consider. Consider the "Book of Jasher", a Jewish book that recounts the history of not only Ancient Babylon(Nimrod of course being the founder), but even the Kushite subjugation of Syria(something like that) during the time of Moses........I'm not saying it is a fact, but you do have to wonder..........You have to wonder why the Sumerians called themselves the "Black-headed" people...... If they weren't Black, why call themselves "Black", know what I mean? Then the Black-looking Buddhas from Thailand and other places............. But don't get me wrong: I am not over the top with all this. I believe in balance, cause the whole universe is supposed to be based on balance. But with all this type of stuff out there, it makes you wonder, know what I mean? Salaam
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Well my friend, again for the hundredth time (since we had this discussion on this board many times), I don't doubt that any of these people were black but that they were all related because of such is something which HAS been proven NOT to be the case.
We already have all the evidence we need and it shows that a "Black Kushitic Empire" never existed. Ethiopians, Sumerians, Elamites, and Dravidians are all different peoples who speak different languages and have different cultures. Sure there might be some similarities here and there but NON which suggest that all of these peoples were tied together somehow. Such a belief falls purely in the realm of Winters pseudo-science.
Posted by Israel (Member # 11221) on :
Well, what you are saying is true at this time. But I wouldn't call it pseudo-science. All scholars, philosophers, scientists, have a thesis about whatever. But the thesis needs to be proven. And some things are more obvious than others, know what I mean?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^Well this "thesis" that you speak of is very recent since no other scholar has forumalated such a thesis, since there is no evidence to speak of for such a thing.
Mainstream scholarship has since had a hard time admitting that peoples from all these areas were black despite all the evidence.
But to point out some silly black empire that spanned from Africa to India is just absurd, plain and simple and falls purely in the realm of pseudo-scholarship. Posted by Meskel (Member # 11979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Which is why it is ridiculous to attribute certain features of Africans to admixture from "dark-skinned Arabs", [as some ignorant folks do in this board] because Arabs of Arabia are a mixed people themselves of diverse lineages, especially African!
The African admixture is exagerated. We mostly see Afican admixture in Oman and hadramawt region of southern Yemen or other coastal areas in the Arabian peninsula. Other than that "Brown Arabs" are pure.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The article is interesting in that it cites historical interactions between Africa, especially the Horn and Arabia such as Axum and Adal.
I have no idea how Axum fits into all this because all of the admixture in Yemen was Bantu or Congoid or Negroid or West Africa, whichever one you choose.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meskel: The African admixture is exagerated. We mostly see Afican admixture in Oman and hadramawt region of southern Yemen or other coastal areas in the Arabian peninsula. Other than that "Brown Arabs" are pure.
Since when have I ever "exaggerated" the African admixture in Arabia?? I have always said that it was southern Arabs of Yemen that were of African ancestry.
Also, what is meant by "Brown Arabs"? You should be aware that you cannot tell someone's ancestry by their physical appearance, let alone color. Are you aware that there peoples in the Levant (Israel-Palestine-Syrian) area with African ancestry, yet they are much lighter than southern Arabs??
quote:I have no idea how Axum fits into all this because all of the admixture in Yemen was Bantu or Congoid or Negroid or West Africa, whichever one you choose.
^I don't choose any of those terms because they are all subjective and bias. You are right that some African admixture in southern Arabia is due to so-called 'Bantu' slaves but some is not and is due to more ancient migrations of Africans.
Are you aware that the Semitic languages originated from Africa?
Posted by Meskel (Member # 11979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Meskel:
The African admixture is exagerated. We mostly see Afican admixture in Oman and hadramawt region of southern Yemen or other coastal areas in the Arabian peninsula. Other than that "Brown Arabs" are pure.
Since when have I ever "exaggerated" the African admixture in Arabia?? I have always said that it was southern Arabs of Yemen that were of African ancestry.
I was NOT directing it at you but the general idea or prespective of african admixture in arabia. And about the south arabs being more mixed than "northern" ones, it is close to being false. It is usually the same and admixture in yemen is also exagerated. I wouldn't say the same about oman though. In yemen, the admixture is mostly in isolated areas and the COAST and NOT in the higlands.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, what is meant by "Brown Arabs"? You should be aware that you cannot tell someone's ancestry by their physical appearance, let alone color. Are you aware that there peoples in the Levant (Israel-Palestine-Syrian) area with African ancestry, yet they are much lighter than southern Arabs??
By brown arab i meant the ones that are viewed as african mixed. Some people tend to say that "real" Saudi arabs are light skinned or "dairy" skinned as someone explained it on ES.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Are you aware that the Semitic languages originated from Africa?
Hey, I am new to ES. I would love it if you got more into that. Thanks
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:I have no idea how Axum fits into all this because all of the admixture in Yemen was Bantu or Congoid or Negroid or West Africa, whichever one you choose.
^I don't choose any of those terms because they are all subjective and bias.
What should we call them then?
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Meskel: I was NOT directing it at you but the general idea or prespective of african admixture in arabia. And about the south arabs being more mixed than "northern" ones, it is close to being false. It is usually the same and admixture in yemen is also exagerated. I wouldn't say the same about oman though. In yemen, the admixture is mostly in isolated areas and the COAST and NOT in the higlands.
No one said they're more mixed. In fact we're saying that any so-called "Aboriginal Arabs" (usually attributed to the south) would have been dark in skin color, unlike their Northern Arab counterparts (e.g. the Arabu of the late Assyrians and `Ariba of the Hebrew Bible). Admixture is higher on the coast, true, but that doesn't account for all of the admixture when you take into account ancient population movements.
quote: What should we call them then?
By their place of origin: e.g., "West African genes," "Central African genes," "Southeast African genes," etc.
Posted by Meskel (Member # 11979) on :
^^^ LOL they don't cluster? They are all seperate now?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
up..
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
If the original Arabs were Black, then shouldn't you say that the Eurasian admixture is underestimated?
quote:Originally posted by Meskel:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Which is why it is ridiculous to attribute certain features of Africans to admixture from "dark-skinned Arabs", [as some ignorant folks do in this board] because Arabs of Arabia are a mixed people themselves of diverse lineages, especially African!
The African admixture is exagerated. We mostly see Afican admixture in Oman and hadramawt region of southern Yemen or other coastal areas in the Arabian peninsula. Other than that "Brown Arabs" are pure.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The article is interesting in that it cites historical interactions between Africa, especially the Horn and Arabia such as Axum and Adal.
I have no idea how Axum fits into all this because all of the admixture in Yemen was Bantu or Congoid or Negroid or West Africa, whichever one you choose.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
It seems that the mawali overtime (today) carry more of the Arab ethos than the Saudi or Yemenite! It is the non-Arab (Arabized Berbers, North Africans (magrehbin) who carries said ethos into the future.
Posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh* (Member # 13372) on :
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: If the original Arabs were Black, then shouldn't you say that the Eurasian admixture is underestimated?
quote:Originally posted by Meskel:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Which is why it is ridiculous to attribute certain features of Africans to admixture from "dark-skinned Arabs", [as some ignorant folks do in this board] because Arabs of Arabia are a mixed people themselves of diverse lineages, especially African!
The African admixture is exagerated. We mostly see Afican admixture in Oman and hadramawt region of southern Yemen or other coastal areas in the Arabian peninsula. Other than that "Brown Arabs" are pure.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The article is interesting in that it cites historical interactions between Africa, especially the Horn and Arabia such as Axum and Adal.
I have no idea how Axum fits into all this because all of the admixture in Yemen was Bantu or Congoid or Negroid or West Africa, whichever one you choose.
Who told you the original Arabs were black?!?!?!
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Calm down, Vida. 'Tis not the end of the world. I may have misunderstood this, but I quote from above:
" . . . the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ishmaelites were a mixed group with a strong Hamitic component*, as we will see in this essay."
Posted by Neith-Athena (Member # 10040) on :
Also, Vida, I drew my conclusion from the quote below. I may be wrong. I welcome anyone to enlighten me.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote: Arab origin mythos name two distinct ancestors, Qahtaan (pure southerners) Adnan (mixed northerners) and a three way division of their society into:
al-'Arab ul-'Aribah (South "Arabian Kushites" of the oldest purest civilization and blood lines)
al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah (mixed in upon the southerners)
The vast majority of Arabs are al-'Arab ul-Musta'ribah or Mustaribes. Even the Adnani al-'Arab ul-Muta'aribah boil down to being Mustarib.
Though Mustaribes, whether inside or outside the peninsula, may be without a trace of Adnan or Qahtaan ancestry they are nonetheless Arab.
[/QB]
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Queen is right that there is alot of unnecessary confusion over the the words 'kushite' 'cushitic' etc. These words are all derived from the Biblical (Hebrew) word kushi, which simply means black. There were various populations of black peoples from Africa (Egypt, Sudan etc) to the Near East (Midiantes, Sabeans others) to Iran (Elamites) all the way to India.
^I'm quite sure there were, but for instance, if "Kushi/Kush" literally meant Black, or Black people, then are there any references to Egyptians (and others) being referred to as "Kushi", if not, why? It seems that given this ancient nomenclature, "blacks" (Aethiopian/Kushi) south of Egypt were the most easy to identify, while everyone else seems to have been illusive(did they have names for "white" person or red person?).. Also this would obviously mean that Kush' sons such as Sheba, were also "Black"(?)...
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
Arabs "were" those from the southern part of the "Arabian Peninsula". If you came from a land area in modern day Jordan, Parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Oman, Qatar, etc... you weren't an Arab. Many nations (tribes) who came from land areas of Yemen were Arabs and that's it. In todays world, Arab means some of everything.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
K-W-SH is a loan word in Hebrew ultimately deriving from QEVS a self-applied identity of middle and upper ancient Sudanis (per Hansberry). Therefore it has no strictly Semitic originated meaning, black or otherwise.
The Hebrews used this word in reference not only to ancient Sudanis but each and every people or persons just as dark as was the proverbial black Kushite.
Thus we have even Israelites themselves named or nicknamed Kushi, including their prophet Zephaniah (Ss*phan*yah ben Kushi).
To this day Kushi remains the identifier in the Hebrew language for people the west call blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: if "Kushi/Kush" literally meant Black, or Black people, then are there any references to Egyptians (and others) being referred to as "Kushi", if not, why? It seems that given this ancient nomenclature, "blacks" (Aethiopian/Kushi) south of Egypt were the most easy to identify, while everyone else seems to have been illusive (did they have names for "white" person or red person?).. Also this would obviously mean that Kush' sons such as Sheba, were also "Black"(?)...
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: K-W-SH is a loan word in Hebrew ultimately deriving from QEVS a self-applied identity of middle and upper ancient Sudanis (per Hansberry). Therefore it has no strictly Semitic originated meaning, black or otherwise.
The Hebrews used this word in reference not only to ancient Sudanis but each and every people or persons just as dark as was the proverbial black Kushite.
Thus we have even Israelites themselves named or nicknamed Kushi, including their prophet Zephaniah (Ss*phan*yah ben Kushi).
To this day Kushi remains the identifier in the Hebrew language for people the west call blacks.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: if "Kushi/Kush" literally meant Black, or Black people, then are there any references to Egyptians (and others) being referred to as "Kushi", if not, why? It seems that given this ancient nomenclature, "blacks" (Aethiopian/Kushi) south of Egypt were the most easy to identify, while everyone else seems to have been illusive (did they have names for "white" person or red person?).. Also this would obviously mean that Kush' sons such as Sheba, were also "Black"(?)...
Thanx alTakruri, you definitely cleared that up for me. I'm still trying to grasp the different etymologies of these ancient words/meanings as it concerns such references...
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)