Usurping the name 'Ethiopia', Abyssinia provokes Islamic Terror

Leave it as it is, falsely named 'Ethiopia' - a barbaric realm of oppression, and you will have a domino effect throughout Northern – Northeastern Africa, leading to the final rise of Ossama bin Laden. The cultural – political equation is as simple as that.

Few know that if Afghanistan had been called Bactria, there would have been extremely few chances for that impoverished and unfortunate country to be the basis of Taliban and Ossama bin Laden.

If Iraq had been properly and wisely named Aram Nahrain – Mesopotamia in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there would never have been in Baghdad a murderous ruler named Saddam Hussein.

Positive reactions to earlier articles

Following two previous articles and hundreds of mails of Oromo, Ogadeni, Sidama and Afar support, plus some dozens of disreputable letters signed by quasi-illiterate and totally uncultured Amharas and Tigrays, and after repeated quotations and republications of the articles in dozens of portals, blogs and fora managed by representatives of the different oppressed peoples of Abyssinia, and taking into consideration the seminal importance of the thorny problem for global developments and the possible rise of an Islamic Terrorist state – supreme base for Al Qaeda in the vast Horn of Africa area, we intend in this article to focus on the epicenter of the problem: the ideological character and importance of the national name of a country.

Continuing our historical – political approach to the essence of a national name change, and to the need for obliteration of the usurped term ‘Ethiopia’, and for urgent rehabilitation of the correct national name of ‘Abyssinia’ – that should take place along with the secession of Oromo Ethiopia, Kushitic Sidama, Ogaden, and Afar provinces – states-to-be –, we reach a stage where History, Philosophy, Political Sciences and Sociology converge.

A. The importance of a correct and pertinent national name choice

In our global world, almost all the states are multinational, multicultural, multilingual and/or multi-religious entities encompassing all sorts of minorities and identities. Out of all this state-fabricating stuff the modern administrations tried to shape a central, centralized political and administrative power in many, various ways.

In this regard, Switzerland has been quite different than the USA but yet both have been democratic countries whereby the administrations respect the Human Rights and the Cultural Identity of the various groups that shaped the two countries.

In the same way, the Soviet Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran were very different one from another but yet both have been truly undemocratic regimes transgressing all principles of Freedom, Equity, and Justice.

With the existing numerous interpretational schemes of the past, almost any country can shape real or fictitious dogmas of historical identity, and subsequently impose or suggest them to its citizens. This situation resulted in a great number of choices as regards the national name of a country. Of course, the impact in every case is different.

Several times the national name choice is affected by political options and limits. In the early 90s, tiny 2 million people Macedonia, emanating from the cemetery of peoples called ‘Yugoslavia’, risked a war with Greece that intended to usurp the name of Macedonia and make it identical to ‘Greece’, since there was a part of Macedonia within the Greek state’s surface, and the Greek political class was afraid that the emergence of an independent state called Macedonia would be a threat for the Greek state’s integrity.

The Greek expansionist-like slogan ‘Macedonia is Greek’ was wrong either viewed historically (Ancient Macedonia was not Greek) or perceived through a PR – Marketing standpoint (it gave the impression of an imminent Greek attack against the state of Macedonia); contrarily, a statement like ‘We also call ‘Macedonia’ our part of the entire Macedonian land’ would shed more light on the issue.

If the independent state of Macedonia had opted for another ancient name (f. i. Dardania) or a composite name alluding to Middle Ages peoples’ migrations (f. i. Slavic Macedonia or Vardar Macedonia), there would not have been any dispute.

B. What is the ‘correct’ national name?

Of course here the answer is simple: the correct name is the name that reflects best the cultural identity of the people to whom it is attributed, and/or expresses better the state promoted cultural image and the historical dogma of the country, always in harmonic coordination of the involved elements and traits.

C. What does the ’correct’ national name do?

A correct national name selection helps
a) prevent cultural identity crisis,
b) diffuse a feeling of national completion,
c) generate an interest for stronger reference to the past,
d) conceptualize better the principal values of the people concerned,
e) ensure a better, higher, and more effective education,
f) elaborate a strong self-knowledge, an absolute self-confidence and a deep self-consciousness, and
g) guide the people in question to a precise conception of its role within the World History.

Better reflection of the cultural identity signifies a tremendous potential for the political and intellectual class of the country to strengthen the positive characteristics of the people in question (or just the characteristics of the people that the upper class wants to strengthen for any possible reason and later use) by retrieving from the accumulated treasure of the cultural heritage the correct narratives for extensive use in the primary and secondary education.

Self-reliance was essential for efficient action overseas, and for this reason William Blake and Rudyard Kipling offered the correct narratives to the 19th c. British.

Lack of reflection of the cultural identity on the name of the country has automatically a negative impact, making of any historical reference and narrative a boring story that students learn by heart and people ultimately do not absorb.

Since the accent is on ‘Arab’ in the Egyptian official national name, monotheistic hymns to Aton, the Unique God imposed by Pharaoh Akhenaten in the middle of the 14th c. BCE, are quite boring a subject for average Egyptian schoolboys and students, so they cannot be used in any pedagogic sense. Simply, today's Egypt is not Egypt.

Better reflection of the cultural identity signifies also a tremendous potential for the intellectual and the political class of the country to better convince the people about several important historical – ideological – political issues without the need of basing everything on religious faith and spiritual command.

Charles Martel, Jeanne d’ Arc and Marianne represent the same French passion for freedom and independence from local and foreign masters. The great Galatian hero Vercingetorix despite his fight against the Romans does not enter into this category, since in his case communal feeling, fraternity, community values matter more.

Lack of reflection of the cultural identity on the name of the country leaves the people unconvinced about the cause the political class of the country wants to serve, or even leaves the political class itself unconvinced about its own purposes.

Italy is a good example in this case; under the name ‘Roman Kingdom’ (or Empire), it would have advanced more convincing literature for the needs of its 20th c. expansion and colonialism in the Mare Nostrum (the Mediterranean), in the Red Sea, and in the Indian Ocean, and the Italian political class would have obtained greater results.

Furthermore, better reflection of the cultural identity helps the intellectual and political class to impose on and diffuse among the people ideals, concepts and principles in a smooth and undetected way, since these ideals and/or concepts are properly presented and definitely appear as inherent to the nation’s character and identity.

It is critical in this regard for the intellectual and the political class to understand beforehand what ideal corresponds to what national name.

An entire people living without some elementary ideals, concepts, and principles faces a problematic environment, and falls easily to decay due to lack of orientation and creativity.

A people, without a proper perception and reflection of the cultural identity, becomes a kind of disintegrated stuff that can easily exploited by rival counties – 'colonized'.

D. A national name in the hands of a ruling class

The aforementioned basics do not specify the use of a national name that a ruling class can make. They just give a horizon of potentialities within the interrelationship ‘ruling class – society’. But it is clear that, when we say that a better reflection of the cultural identity permits the intellectual class of the country to strengthen the positive characteristics of the people, we certainly imply that this is done towards a specific direction that has been chosen.

The choice of a national name can easily become a boomerang for the ruling class of a country, if it is not wisely chosen, and implemented harmonically with all the elements of average culture, education, national historical dogma, and foreign policy.

In this regard, the strength of the choice and the clear identification of the target are very important for a ruling class. Through use of one precise name, a certain part of a country’s the political establishment can strengthen one trait of the people (f. i. heroism), but through use of another name another part of that political establishment can promote another trait (f. i. dignity and integrity).

Even more so, two different cultural environments and ethnic groups that belong to the same people, but express predilection for two different names that can be equally applied to the aforementioned people may perceive differently various traits and characteristics, concepts and nuances.

Avoiding over-generalized terms like ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘just’ that vary tremendously, we may state some examples here; ‘dignity’ is very different a trait for Franks and for Gauls in France, for Muscovites and for southern Russians, for Copts and for Arabic speaking Egyptians, for byzantino-centric Greeks and for Greeks admiring Classical Antiquity.

What matters mostly for a ruling elite’s choice, are the coordination and the harmony among all the elements involved in a name’s choice. There must be a correspondence between national name and culture, between the trait targeted and the national name chosen, between the nuance of the trait desired and the national name.

E. The correspondence between the national name and the average culture

Certainly under the same national name various ideological expressions can be sheltered. A Frenchman can be a good practicing Catholic in 1864 and/or an atheist in 1870!

But when it comes to cultural subjects, the national name is often unable to function at a multi-collective level. England means Anglo-Saxon culture, and this has nothing to do with the name ‘Gaelic’. Another national name for that country, such as ‘kingdom of the Gaelic Isles’, would have perhaps solved problems that existed between England and Ireland for more than a century, but would never have imposed the culture that characterized the fighters of Trafalgar, the (1588) vanquishers of the Armada, and the colonizers of India!

On the other hand, a choice for a name like ‘kingdom of the Gaelic Isles’ would facilitate a union between Britain, Ireland and the French province of Brittany where Gaelic is spoken and Gaelic culture prevails.

It would be an oxymoron to opt for a name that is not expressed at the level of the average culture and education, or that cannot help the ruling class and administration in its choices and targets.

Without a justified conviction, the administration of a country, through an inappropriate choice, risks engulfing the country into an impasse, or into the worst possible confusion. Of course, in case of ideological conflict about the national name, the two ideas reflect two different concepts on how the nation should be ruled and on what its ultimate cultural and educational choices should be. In cases of multiethnic entities like Abyssinia, two national names, reflecting different values, signify that the two ethnic groups or peoples simply cannot live together.

Education is deeply involved in this regard, because the appropriate historical education – added to the cultural background, which is instigated to people at home and in the society – facilitates the average people to immediately and spontaneously refer to historical resources, examples, and paradigms.

F. The Parameters of a National Name Choice

When it comes to the choice of a name that is rather relevant of the past, serious parameters that must be taken into consideration are the following:

a. The degree of the documentation of the name

It matters a lot to have got a vast textual and epigraphic documentation about the name we want to choose for a national name. An extensive and proper documentation permits always to develop ideological, behavioural, artistic, cultural, philosophical issues when based thereupon. To give an example, our documentation about the ancient people of Kashka, who lived in Northern Central Anatolia (Turkey) in the 2nd millennium BCE is limited to just a book of academic dissertation! But our documentation about the Hittites, and/or the Urartu (pre-Armenians) is very extensive.

Even more extensive is our documentation about names – terms like Assyria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia.

But what do we know of the Medes? Very few things are known mostly through other literatures (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek) and through later sources.

Now, if a modern Iranian administration were to opt for ‘Mede or Median Republic’, this would be an aberration, already because the documentation recorded is extremely poor compared to either ‘Persian’ or ‘Iranian’. Before even checking the historical veracity, the cultural authenticity, and the geographical accuracy of the term chosen, one must check what this term – national name brings forth as documentation, since this stuff is necessary for popularizing all the related subjects.

b. The historical veracity of the name

Throughout the world literatures and mythologies, we have got an astronomic number of names of peoples, nations, countries, tribes, realms, or lands. Many of these names have not been recorded within a pure, concrete and concise, historical context; as they arrive to our ears, they are rather mythologized terms that we cannot afford to opt for, when talking about a modern country’s national name.

Sargon of Akkad has been quoted saying: ‘My land is Azupiranu’. But what do we truly know about this land? Based on the huge Assyrian – Babylonian literature (more than 1000000 Cuneiform texts covering more than three millennia of History), within which the aforementioned term is placed, we cannot truly locate that land. We have very few, rather mythical references to Azupiranu.

Within the Classical literary documentation, we got a few references to Sarpedones! Where is truly their land? Somewhere in Anatolia, in Caucasus, in Central Asia! A land lost in the myth.

What about the ideal, perfect isle of Avalon, lost far in the North? It is certainly the converging point of numerous Northern European utopian political ideologies, philosophies and dreams. It seems that the extreme North had already fascinated the ancient Greeks, as their references to the Hyperboreans, the people at the extreme confines of the North, prove!

From Pytheas Massaliotes down to Richard Wagner, one can recreate a Quest for the Ideal Society in the North, but the ‘dream’ can become a nightmare when manipulated – to some extent – by people like Hitler or some present day neo-Nazi groups.

In other words, a name strongly and emphatically mythologized should be avoided. The main reason is that it drives us to extreme political concepts that may be unrealistic, farfetched or even racist. If the North is ‘perfect’, the rest can be … ‘lower’, and then all can turn out to be just a nightmare….

c. The name must be culturally authentic.

This means that the name must express the average culture of the people, the real cultural face of the people. To describe an example, we can refer to the critical cultural expression that the marriage happens to be for all the peoples of the world. Marriages happen everywhere but they are strongly influenced by religion and culture. The Russians are Christians but the basic traits of a Russian marriage have nothing to do with the average marriage in Spain! Within Orthodox Christianity environment, a Russian marriage at Nizhny Novgorod has just a few things in common with an Orthodox marriage at the island of Crete (either under Ottoman rule, until 1905, or under Greek control, ever since). The Russian marriage is a Slavic marriage.

To what extent could one consider as authentic an option ‘Scythian Republic’ for Russia's national name? It is easily understood of course that this choice would have tremendous political repercussions, with Russia advancing an imperialism that would target Afghanistan, Baluchistan, parts of Iran, Kazakhstan, and certainly large parts of Europe and the Balkans, since the Scythians settled in all these lands!

The term would certainly serve an imperialist political discourse, but the term ‘Scythia’ does not correspond at all to the cultural identity of the average Russians, and not only because the Scythians were buried along with their … horses!

Where would such a choice lead? Certainly, the ensuing imperialism would be overwhelming, but it would never take hold deep in the Russians’ hearts and minds.

Expansion is something all the peoples of the world are well versed in – at least for certain periods during their History –, but the expansion is characterized always by the mindset, the character and the culture of each people. Russians do not ‘expand’ in the way Germans do, Italians do not expand in the way Spaniards do, and so on!

It is essential to keep in mind that the best expansion (and this is quite a natural phenomenon that can certainly take many forms, not only the military one) is the one that corresponds to the basic traits and characteristics of a certain people.

In two different moments in History, if the same people with the same culture lives in the same land, certainly this people will express the same expansion tendency. But if a people, later settled in a specific area, is different than another people, who had earlier settled in the same land, the expansion tendency will be different in most of its aspects.

Consequently, by imposing a non-authentic name, such as ‘Scythian’ on Russians, a Russian administration would create contradictions that would complicate the function of the state and the society to large extent. On the other hand, such an option would be the correct one, if the Russian administration decided to de-christianize Russians and Russia. It would consist in a certain political-cultural-ideological choice targeting the change of basic aspects of the Russian character.

This can happen at any time and has actually happened throughout History, but this is the only case the choice of a non-authentic national name may be correct; with the changes that such an ideological choice would evangelize, the non-authentic name would turn out to be authentic in time, namely after the desired and targeted changes of the cultural face of the people would be completed.

There can be several choices that are culturally authentic! Russia could easily be renamed ‘Slavic Republic’. The term ‘Slavic’ expresses very well the cultural profile of the Russian people. Russia could also be called ‘Muscovite Republic’, if the choice is to impose Muscovite particularities. ‘Varanger Republic’ could also be the case, but of course it would imply a strong effort of de-christianizing and de-slavizing Russians! The success of the effort in each case would justify the option and its correctness…

d. The name must be geographically accurate.

Among the most important directives in such a critical issue as the national name choice is the geographical limitation. Hungarians, Estonians and Finns came to Europe from the Altai area at the border of present day Kazakhstan, Russia and Mongolia, but we find it hard to believe that any of these states would promote anything concrete by adopting a name like ‘Altaic Republic’.

The area of Afghanistan, ancient Bactria, where the great pre-Islamic state of Kushan thrived for centuries, at the eastern border of the Sassanid Empire of Iran, was under Macedonian rule during almost 200 years (before the rise of Kushan), since the successors of Alexander the Great had formed a state entity at the eastern border of the Seleucid Empire of Antioch first, and after 250 BCE at the eastern confines of the Arsacid (Ashkanian) Parthian state of Iran. But it would be disproportionate, if not paranoiac, for a modern government in Afghanistan to name the country ‘Macedonia’.…

In the same way, certainly Romans invaded Egypt, and controlled that country before and after the christianization of the empire for no less than 672 years, but it would be unreasonable for today’s Egypt to adopt a name like ‘Roman Republic’!

Viewing things through another viewpoint, Cambyses invaded Egypt but did not name his country ‘Egypt’; in the same way Alexander invaded Mesopotamia but did not rename his country after that land.

When Christian Spain invaded Muslim Andalusia, in the south of the Iberian Peninsula, the Catholic kings did not change the name of their country. And the descendants of all these kings have even fewer reasons to change their counties’ names now! Would you imagine present day Macedonia being renamed as ‘Mesopotamia’ just because a Macedonian king invaded Mesopotamia before 2300 years?

Throughout History, we have very few cases of small countries, or peoples, who invade a bigger one, and they keep for themselves the bigger and invaded country’s name.

For instance, the Nesa Indo-Europeans invaded the (non-Indo-European) Hatti kingdom at the northern confines of the Anatolian plateau in the 17th c. BCE and renamed themselves after the old Anatolian kingdom; they did not impose their ethnic group’s name on the kingdom, even after their great expansion throughout all Anatolia! They preserved the ancient Hieroglyphic Hatti scripture, they wrote their language in Cuneiform scripture, since they were under strong Assyrian cultural impact, but they kept the name Hatti that was actually foreign to them. And yet their culture was significantly different from that of the non-Indo-European Hatti people. It is sure that they wished to show that they were the correct and subservient continuators of the old tradition, but they were able to keep united all the Hatti, and in addition other peoples of the Anatolian plateau.

Of course, any similar case proves very categorically that the smaller ethnic group or country felt and ultimately was inferior to the larger country of which the name kept being used by the invaders. The Kassites were even better assimilated in Babylonia, since they just became a ruling dynasty and remained so for no less than 300 years during the second half of the second millennium BCE, although before these events they were an erring tribe in Zagros mountains!

But in cases like the aforementioned, the earlier smaller and later successful invader remains and controls the area, country or land in question. It would be an unprecedented schizophrenia for Romans who invaded Albania of Caucasus (present day Azerbaijan) for a brief period during the Trajan reign (beginning of the 2nd c. CE) to call the Roman Empire ‘Albania’ long after they were driven out of that land by the Parthian Iranians…

In modern times, Turkish-speaking Muslims from Anatolia and the Balkans decided to name Turkey the central part of the Ottoman Empire, where the great majority of the people were speaking Turkish. Certainly, Turks are just one of the so-called Turkic peoples, who originate – along with many others – from the northeastern part of Asia, beyond the Altai Mountains area. The Turkic linguistic group consists in one of the branches of the Uralo-Altaic linguistic family, to which belong languages like Mongolian, Hungarian, Finnish, etc. Of course, the land of their origin was very far from the land they finally settled, but Turks can claim 900 years presence in the area of Anatolia that they named Turkey. What is even more essential in this regard is the fact that there was never a precise land, country or state named ‘Turkey’ in the original land of the Turks, because tribal social conditions were prevailing there. So, we do not have to do with any effort of name transplantation here! Certainly, as case it is rare, and it consists of course in an ideological Search for National Identity, something that was forged along with the introduction of that name in 1921.

Ending up this part, we conclude that an erroneous selection of a geographically irrelevant national name guarantees the malfunction of the confused country, state, and people, as the introduction of irrelevant parameters is always a cause of confusion.

G. Abyssinian Culture under Ethiopian name is – at least – an Oxymoron.

Examining the subject of the irrelevant, inappropriate and erroneous use of the term ‘Ethiopia’ by the totalitarian authorities of the state of Abyssinia, we come first to several precisions.

The choice for Ethiopia bears the following characteristics:

1. It is a name that is not sufficiently documented.

Like all the national names that are not given to a people or country by the indigenous people, the term is not greatly documented. The term is a foreign language term, used by Ancient Greeks and Romans, not the indigenous Kushitic people of Ancient Sudan. It is as if we compare today the terms Burma (foreign) and Myanmar (indigenous). We certainly are better documented about the latter.

2. It is a term of low historical veracity.

Certainly the term ‘Ethiopia’ describes the people, the country and the state in the southern border of Egypt, and this people, country and state existed in reality, in real History, but because of the fact that the term was not indigenous and the Greeks (who introduced it) were not in common borders with that country, a large part of our documentation on Ethiopia, i.e. the present day Sudan, is mythical – not historical – of character.

The historical veracity of the Ancient Greek documentation on ‘Ethiopia’ is much lower than that of the Ancient Greek documentation on Egypt or Rome.

3. It is a culturally not authentic name; it is counterfeit and fraudulent.

Despite the existence of various primitive peoples and tribes on the soil of Abyssinia at the times of the historical greatness of Meroitic Ethiopia in Ancient Sudan, the main traditional factor behind political developments and state promoted culture and ideology in Abyssinia was the Semitic - Yemenite origin people that created a small state around Axum already in pre-Christian times. Through a series of various state formations that come down to our times, the Gueze – Amhara / Tigray speaking minority of present day Abyssinia shaped the official culture, the historical dogmas, and the state ideological environment in Axum, Lalibela, and Gondar, and finally in Finfinne / Addis Abeba.

It is essential in this regard to denote following elements:

a. While imposing their cultural choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray rulers intended to promote typically Semitic cultural and religious characteristics, traits, forms and concepts.

b. While imposing their cultural choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray rulers never expressed the slightest desire, willingness or intention of making any sort of cultural synthesis with the other non-Semitic, Kushitic peoples, and cultural and linguistic groups of their country.

c. While imposing their cultural choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray rulers deliberately oppressed – with sheer intention of extinction – non-Semitic cultures, behavioural systems, ‘Weltanschauungen’ and systems of traditional thought.

d. Over the past 100 years, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray rulers intentionally attempted a most anti-Khammitic and anti-Cushitic strategy directed mainly against the Kushitic Oromo people, as well as at the prejudice of other Kushitic peoples of Abyssinia.

So, they were the cruelest enemies of anything related to Historical and Cultural Ethiopia and all the related characters and topoi.

4. As term, 'Ethiopia' is geographically inaccurate for the state of Abyssinia.

The use of the ancient Greek term ‘Ethiopia’ never goes beyond the present day borders between Sudan on one side and Eritrea and Abyssinia on the other side.

Historical or mythical references to ‘Ethiopia’ refer therefore to a completely different people living in a completely different location that is totally unrelated to the homeland of the Semitic ruling class and peoples of present day Abyssinia.

In later periods, when due to various historical developments the term ‘Ethiopia’ is used vaguely, it does not encompass the area of Sudan and Abyssinia only – which would let us consider related reasons – but also Eastern Africa, Yemen, Arabia, and even India!

We cannot afford however to take the old times confusion as corroboration of modern states’ illegitimate, controversial, hypocritical and pernicious claims.
In the same way, India could raise similar claims, since in the Late Antiquity the use of the term ‘India’ became also a matter of confusion, encompassing all lands beyond Thebes of Egypt, i.e. from Egypt to Indonesia!

Urgent Conclusions for the US Administration

It is therefore normal to conclude that

I. Since the name ‘Ethiopia’ concerns exclusively the great Kushitic state at the area of the North and the East of present day Sudan, with capitals at Kerma, Napata / Karima, and Meroe / Bagrawiyah,

II. Since the various Semitic, non-Kushitic, peoples and states of the North of present day Abyssinia controlled only once, only partly, and only for less than 100 years, the historically ‘Ethiopian’, Kushitic, pre-Christian state of Sudan,

III. Since the modern Semitic peoples of Abyssinia (Amhara and Tigray), who are the descendants of the earlier Semitic – Yemenite emigrants to this part of Africa, although consisting in a minority in that country, express deep anti-Kushitic attitudes, policies and strategies, by ruling and tyrannically oppressing – at the political, educational, linguistic, ideological and cultural levels – the Kushitic peoples of that country, who represent a genuine majority among the entire population,

it is absolutely unacceptable for the state of Abyssinia to insist on using the bogus-name of ‘Ethiopia’.

The only historically legitimate and politically reasonable use of the name of ‘Ethiopia’ lies

A. either with the present day state of Sudan, if it abandons the Pan-Arabist fallacy

B. or with the oppressed Kushitic Oromo majority of Abyssinia.

In the former case, it would contribute to the country’s demanded de-arabizing policy. In the latter, it should lead to imminent secession and independence.

An Oromo Ethiopia would have its capital at Finfinee, ultimately and justly eradicating the fallacious name of Addis Ababa, a tyrannical burden. If the forthcoming Republic of Oromo opts for use of the name Ethiopia, this will underscore the linguistic propinquity between the Kushitic Ethiopia of the past and the present day Kushitic Oromos, epitomizing therefore the Quest of the Oromo people for their Past, the Greatest African Migration Epics, since an identification of the Napatan and Meroitic Ethiopia with the modern Kushitic people of Oromo is very plausible.