The Iniquitous Amhara / Tigray, Abyssinian Anti-Semitism

Promoting historical aberrations about the supposedly limited number of Semitic origin Yemenite immigrants to Abyssinia, degrading the authentically Semitic character of the Axumite Abyssinian kingdom, and proscribing their Semitic national name Habashat (Abyssinia), the demented Amhara and Tigray tyrants pursue of policy of cultural dissimilation and Semitic denigration. In doing so, they believe they preserve to dictatorially rule over the oppressed Kushitic, Non – Semitic, nations of Ethiopia, on whom they brutally impose the worst form of Semitic inspiration tyranny and state terrorism.

The paranoiac attitude of cultural and national self-demeaning and self-effacing invented and employed in order to ensure political and economic benefits to the barbaric Amhara / Tigray elite is an extraordinary event of global side.

Its ramifications are yet to be identified, but its character is sheer: by rejecting their Semitic Yemenite origins and identity, the Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian elite contributes to the elaboration and diffusion of Anti-Semitic concepts related to Semitic ‘inferiority’. This should be perceived as an alarming warning among Human Rights activists, political ideologists, intellectuals, diplomats and academia allover the world.
  
The Topoi  of the Abyssinian Anti-Semitism
 
As in many other cases of Hate Literature and Discriminatory Bogus-Historical Theories promoted to the level of National Dogma, Abyssinian Anti-Semitism emanates out of a false, ‘mythical’ reading of, and approach to, History.

Like the numerous irrelevant ‘Charts of the Nations’ with which the medieval authors filled dozens of pages with meaningless names of peoples that did not exist in their times, the Abyssinian Anti-Semitism starts an incredible mythical revisionism of African and Middle Eastern History.

Like the medieval chronicle writers, the efforts start with some references to the Creation, and at the same time incorporate Anthropology to History to prove that either you believe in the Bible and the Coran or you accept evolutionism  and Darwin’s theories you have got to start with their mythologized stories.
 
However, today, after so many reconsiderations and reassessments of the modern academic disciplines, and more particularly of the Humanities, and the Discipline of History, we just cannot start History with … mythology; this is their first aberration, a real insane effort and assumption.

Myths confusingly taken as History

We cannot start a presentation of the Ancient Greek History with … Deukalion! We cannot afford to start Ancient Hebrew History with Noah! And we do not start History of the Turkic peoples with Ergenekon! These are all myths, they are not real history, and consequently they have no face value in the historical reality, and in our perception and representation of it. Only after understanding and representing the true History of a people, we can afford to set up a picture and interpret (not accept as such) the mythological and religious beliefs, the theories and the intellectual and artistic systems this people had developed for a reason or another.

In an effort to help illiterate elites spare time, errors and misunderstandings, we stress beforehand that ‘History’ means ‘contemporaneous texts’! Without a scripture in use, and without textual evidence testifying to contemporaneous events, eventually many texts (so that we can also crosscheck the sources themselves), we have No History!

Archeological evidence without text does not consist in historical documentation, and does not allow concise History writing. As consequence, we do not have ‘History’ in Ancient Mesopotamia before 3250 BCE (first Sumerian and Elamite texts), in Ancient Egypt before 2950 BCE (first Egyptian Hieroglyphic text: King Narmer’s Palette), in Ancient Anatolia before 2100 BCE (Cuneiform Assyrian texts from Kanis, Caesarea), in Canaan before 1900 BCE, and in Ancient Greece before 1600 BCE (the earliest documents of Ugaritic and Byblic).

The same is valid for Abyssinia before the introduction of the Yemenite writing system by the Habashat Abyssinian immigrants from Yemen (a writing system that is mainly known under the name of Gueze – or Ge’ez); without textual evidence (of course, I mean deciphered scripture and plainly understood text) we are at a ‘Pre-Historical’ level.

Certainly for cases of countries whereby History starts relatively late (as is the case of Abyssinia), we find themselves at a particular position, namely the History of an area, region, people, starts with textual evidence originating from another people (using another language and scripture)!

For instance, the History of the Western African Coast starts with the text of the Periplus of Hanno that was written by Carthaginians, and then was saved in an Ancient Greek translation! In other words, the History of the Western African Coast does not start with texts written by the indigenous Khammitic peoples of that area.

The same happens to large extent with the History of Ancient Sudan, i.e. the area, the people, the country Ancient Greeks called Ethiopia. First, we have Egyptian Hieroglyphic texts about that area, people, and state. They go as back as the third millennium BCE, and they offer the earliest documentation about that country and its inhabitants! At a later stage, in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, we attest in Ancient Sudan an entire administrative elite involving scribes, priests, and an indigenous dynasty who learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and used that scripture and language as their own official and religious language. It looks like the case of the modern Maori of New Zealand who adopted English! They still preserve their native tongue, but the first scripture they used was English!

Later, in the second half of the 1st millennium BCE, we attest Ancient Sudanese introducing their own writing system, by employing Egyptian hieroglyphic signs, and setting up an exclusively alphabetic writing system. We have brought to light several thousands of inscriptions of that scripture, Meroitic as it is conventionally called after Meroe the Ancient Ethiopian capital, but we have not yet deciphered it, but to a limited extent! So, we cannot base our knowledge about the ancient ‘Ethiopians’ – as the Greeks and the Romans used to call them – on the ancient scripture of that people.

We have, in addition to Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic (as well as Hieratic and Demotic), Ancient Assyrian texts (more extensive when Assyria invaded Egypt, kicking out the Kushitic 25th dynasty) describing ‘Mat Kusi’, the Kushite state at the area of Sudan that was a major enemy of Nineveh. Going through the Annals of Assurbanipal (the edition of Maximilian Streck is very old, but it has not yet been updated or replaced by a more recent one), one can get remarkable information about the 7th century BCE Sudanese (Kushitic) involvement in Egypt and war with the Assyrians! Later on, we have the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Romans, who write – and at times a lot – about Aithiopia, and its capital, Meroe (Bagrawiyah in today’s Sudan). So, until we truly decipher Meroitic (that covers a phase going from 450 BCE to 350 CE), our knowledge about the History of Ancient Ethiopia will be based on foreign – not local – sources.

The same happens for Abyssinia. All that we know about the important trade that took place at the Red Sea port of call Adulis (that was at an 8 days distance from inland capital Axum) is not due to Gueze texts, but to Ancient Greek sources, and more particularly to the Periplus of the Red Sea, a 1st CE text written in Ancient Greek by an Egyptian merchant and captain of Alexandria. All this introductory comment may be long, but it is quintessential as the only existing academic method to re-establish the history of an ancient state, people or area.

As consequence, paragraphs like the following cannot possibly be used in a Manual for the Primary and Secondary Education, cannot appear in an encyclopedia or review, and cannot be in the mind of cultured and educated average people:
 
"The Deluge or Universal Flood is attested in all traditions and inscriptions of all peoples worldwide, from the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa to the Americas and the Pacific Islands. In the same way, the beginning of the human race history after the survivors of the Flood is part of the heritage of all peoples, that essentially prove the biblical report".

The aforementioned is a typical mythical event, and as such it does not make part of human race history. The ‘survivors of the Flood’ are not historical persons, and do not exist in History because the Flood already does not exist in History.

Error analysis is at times valuable as it helps corroborate the accuracy of the scientific method and the inconsistency of the Abyssinian historical-mythical confusion. Victims of the latter are able to compose self-contradictory texts that offer full proof of their irrelevance. An Abyssinian reader had sent me the following paragraph:

 "The "Table of the Peoples" of Bereshyit (Genesis) chapter 10 is mainly referred to the origins of the ancient peoples, that for kabbalistic symbology is equalized to the "70 Nations of the Earth". Nevertheless, the list accurately defines the peoples in three categories that still exist in the modern world: the Northern and powerful nations, the Southern subdued peoples, as it is written in Bereshyit 9:25-27 that the offspring of Ham (the Southern nations) would become servant to Shem and Yephet (the Northern nations), and Semitic peoples, who have first subdued all Hamitic peoples in the Asian Middle East and then extended their cultural hegemony in the North-African lands. One of these Semitic peoples, the Israelites, achieved also great importance in the cultural, scientific and politic history of the Northern civilizations".

As he states that kabbalistic symbolism’s needs prevailed in establishing the Table of 70 Nations, the reader implies – without realizing it – that the Table is wrong, because it was created not out of a need for objective representation of the situation but for the needs of a symbolism. This highlights the limited validity of such mythological narratives.

One has by the way to admit that the Biblical text in question is very erroneous, and testifies only to the needs of his own author. In addition, it shows that he had not studied the History of the World as best as he could in his own time, when these subjects were taught within the environment of Mesopotamian and Egyptian temples-universities.

The ‘coup de grace’ is given to the Genesis chapter 10 Biblical text by the observation that the Ancient Sumerians, the main pillar of cultural and political development throughout Mesopotamia, the first people on earth to have developed writing and administration, state and market economy, religion and art, a people totally unrelated to all ethnic – linguistic groups (we know this because Sumerian has already been deciphered), are not … mentioned at all!

Even if we accept the latest possible date for writing down Biblical Genesis, which is 7th century BCE, Sumerian was already a dead language since approximately 2000 BCE; however, dozens of thousands of Sumerian tablets were preserved in many Assyrian and Babylonian libraries (like that of Assurbanipal at Nineveh) and Assyrian and Babylonian scribes, priests, intellectuals, erudite academia, and scholars were learning, writing and reading Sumerian in the same way today people speak Latin in Vatican and in several academic and religious circles. Even more, they had access to sources of Sumerian History about Lagash, Eridu, Larsa, Ur, Uruk in detail – and here we do not mean Sumerian mythological texts but purely historical Sumerian sources that were 1300 years old texts by the time of Genesis’ composition.

We can therefore conclude that the author (-s) of the Biblical texts were deprived of direct access to Sumerian sources, and therefore failed to be as accurate and as erudite as their Assyrian and Babylonian counterparts.
 
Indo-European, Semitic and Khammitic peoples

In the same paragraph  the interpretation of ‘North, Center, South for the Indo-European, Semitic and Khammitic peoples’ is totally erroneous, and there is no evidence to support the assumption that the Biblical author had that geographical vision about the descendents of Noah’s three sons.

As early as 2650 BCE, Semites appear in History with the Accadians, but we have no idea were the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans were by that time! The prevailing theory locates them in Central Asia; with them at the east, and the Khammitic peoples in Egypt and in Africa, any geographical schematization effort would rather turn to ‘East – Center – West’. And again, a schematization of this sort may be important for modern utilization of ancient sources, but is completely meaningless for the ancient sources’ authors themselves! 

Deliberate confusion is key to modern falsifiers of History, and the Abyssinian Anti-Semitism is also based on terminological confusion. This is phrased in inconsistent ways as the following: "the Khammitic peoples may have the same name as the Semitic ones that settled after them in the same land". To promote confusion, this sentence is used to absurdly deny the normal phenomenon of a people or ethnic group having its own – different – name.

Ancient Meroitic (Khammitic) names have nothing in common with the Semitic national names in use either in Yemenite, Abyssinia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syro-Palestine, Phoenicia or elsewhere. In the same way, in the area of Atlas where Carthaginians (of Phoenician – Semitic origin) lived among the prevailing Khammitic populations (the ancestors of today’s Berbers), the Berberic ethnic – national names were not the same as those of the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians. Even today’s Berbers have different, non-Arab and consequently non-Semitic, names! It would be very wrong to over-generalize and misjudge because of just the diffusion of Islam in Northwest Africa.

Erroneous assumptions reach at times the level of ignorance; this takes the form of sentences like the following: "that almost all the sources that reached us are written in Semitic languages". Sumerian, Elamite, Hatti, Hurrian, Hittite, Luwian, Egyptian Hieroglyphic, Lydian, Greek, Latin, (Old Achaemenidian Cuneiform) Persian, Middle Persian (in Aramaic characters), Etruscan, and Meroitic are not Semitic!

The Sumerians, as the earliest developed people, society and nation in the History of the Mankind, are widely exposed to Abyssinian forgers’ efforts; by depicting them as ‘Khammitic’ or ‘Southern’, and by opposing them to ‘Semites’, they contribute to Anti-Semitic semiotics. In fact, the Sumerians are not Khammitic, and they are not ‘Southerners’, having lived in the north of the areas where many Semitic peoples settled in posterior times, involving the Yemenites, the Abyssinians, the Arabs. In addition, the Sumerians lived in the north of Egypt and the Khammitic Egyptians.

The Kushites were the first purely Khammitic people to have formed a state; but Ancient Ethiopia, i.e. present day in Sudan, rose to significance at the times of Kerma (first half of the 2nd millennium BCE), which is of course ‘late’, if compared to either Semitic or non Semitic states in the Middle East. Kerma at 1800 BCE was not as developed as Elam at 3100 BCE!
 
Lack of academic background is evident in the texts of the Abyssinian anti-Semitic forgers. Sumerians did not "attempt to found the first kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia"; they did found many states there. The area is not called "Shinar", this is a later name, nothing more. It is erroneous to pretend that the Sumerians established states "without full achievement", since they achieved a lot in terms of Administration, Law, Education, Economy (the first derivatives were dealt with by Sumerians 5000 years before the Chicago Derivatives Exchange be opened!), Agriculture, Culture, Art.

When it comes to Kushitic past, the deliberate misuse of data gives place to comprehensive falsification. There is not a single point of historical truth in sentences like the following: "the Kushites settled by both shores of the Red Sea, in the South of the Arabian peninsula and Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa and Nubia". In reality, Kushites never settled massively on the Red Sea coast, they were never present in the South of the Arabian peninsula, and we do not know the details of their gradual penetration in the south of Sudan/Ethiopia, that is the area of modern Abyssinia, and in the Horn of Africa. We have no evidence to identify the populations of Punt (Somalia’s coast according to Ancient Egyptian sources), Berberia (Sudan’s coast according to the Periplus of the Red Sea), the Other Berberia (Somaliland’s coast according to the Periplus of the Red Sea) or Azania (the coast of Puntland, Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania according to the Periplus of the Red Sea) as Khammitic, let alone Kushitic. They well have been Bantu.

Historical geography is also distorted for the needs of the Abyssinian Anti-Semitism. Trying to stretch the Ancient Ethiopia’s surface, modern Abyssinian forgers pretend that it extended to the south, encompassing territories of Abyssinia. This is completely wrong. The Kushites / Meroites never acquired significance as ethnic, linguistic and cultural component in the Abyssinian plateau during the Pre-Christian times; culture and civilization on the plateau are preponderantly the result of Abyssinian, Yemenite, Semitic endeavours, during the Pre-Christian and the early Christian times.

The effort of ‘de-Semitization’ undertaken by Abyssinian Semites

The epicenter of the historical forgery undertaken by the Anti-Semitic Abyssinian racists is to be found in the ‘de-Semitization’ and ‘Kushitization’ of the Arabic peninsula; of course, we know very well that there is no proof that it was conquered by Semitic peoples that assimilated the Kushitic inhabitants". Projecting an earlier, Kushitic, layer in the History of the Arabic peninsula relieves the anti-Semitic Abyssinians from the historical pain of being totally and absolutely Semitic. It gives them a kind of re-comfort in their anti-historical effort of self-dissociation from their Semitic forefathers.

As a matter of fact, there was never a Semitic conquest of the peninsula, as early Semitic peoples were the original inhabitants of the area, particularly the Ancient Yemenites, whose presence in Yemen has been attested since the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE. There were not a single Kushite in the peninsula at those days! 

Abyssinian Anti-Semitism has a deep involvement in transfiguring Historical Truth related to Egypt. A great dose of Anti-Semitism is to be found in statements like "Egyptians' civilization endured until the Arabs subdued the country". This is absolute non-sense!

Egyptian civilization had taken a dead end, after the diffusion of barbaric hatred, the practice of hysterical vandalism, and the attitude of paranoid self-destruction that characterized the christianized Egyptians (Copts) when acting against the rich Cultural Heritage of Ancient Egypt, which was of course theirs. The uncivilized attitude and the criminal, bloody acts of the fanaticized Copts against temples, libraries, institutes, monuments, books, erudition, research and intellectual and artistic masterpieces of Ancient Egypt, this is what gave a dead end to the Egyptian Civilization, long before the first Muslim reached Alexandria! Well, this is nothing strange! Christianized Greeks carried out the same barbaric acts in Greece against the Ancient Greek Heritage, and so on!

Further de-Semitization attempts are undertaken by the Amhara and Tigray bogus-intellectual elite; by portraying the purely Semitic Canaanites (ancestors of the Phoenicians, who are ethnically close to the Hebrews) as a Khammitic people, they reject a large part of academically established conclusions. In fact, we know very well that the Canaanite languages were Semitic, as we have deciphered both Ugaritic Cuneiform and Byblical Syllabogrammatic writings. Canaanite is Semitic 100% !

Further anti-Semitic deformation occurs with the theory that the Amorrites, Amurru as was their name, were of "Hamitic background". Of course, Amurru were 100% Semitic, having absolutely no connection with the Sumerians or the Canaanites!!!!

The Abyssinian Anti-Semitism reaches the level of paroxysm with sentences like the following: "the Kushites were originally settled in Mesopotamia and Sumerians were just one of their tribes". This is a Nazi-like distortion of historical truth for perverted visions. There is not a single proof of Kushitic or Khammitic presence in Mesopotamia, and of course not a single scholar in the world would accept such distortion.

Making an equation Kush – Kish (a Sumerian city – state) – Khuzestan (written deliberately as ‘Kuzistan’, a SW Iranian province) is a laughable method that sufficiently highlights the shameless way the Abyssinian anti-Semitic distorters have been used to act. For the most detailed articulation of the anti-Semitic bogus-theory that combines etymologically different names of African peoples, Sumerian cities and Modern Iranian provinces a side story is developed, namely the Kushite emigration from Mesopotamia through Yemen to Africa! This is the most preposterous element in the fake attempt.

It looks quite odd that despite the unprecedented anti-Semitic bashing, the Abyssinian history-forgers do not highlight the real Kushitic past as the traces left in the area of present day northern Sudan are overwhelming! Dozens of pyramids and temples in Karima and Nuri, foundations at Kawa, vast archeological area at Kerma Defufa, gigantic statues from Argo island (Kurgus), vast sites at Bagrawiyah (the place of the ancient capital of Ethiopia, Meroe) with more numerous pyramids and temples (there was the famous, mythologized ‘Table of the Sun’), royal baths and palaces, impressive palaces and well preserved temples at Mussawarat as Sufra, many temples at Naqa and Wad Ben Naqa, etc., all covering more than 1000 years of thrilling Meroitic / Kushitic past, this is a great complex of ‘Ethiopian’ Heritage for today’s Sudan, as well as for the entire Black Continent and the whole Mankind. But all this is probably useless to the Ant-Semitic Semites of Abyssinia, who would need the Kushites in Mesopotamia and in Yemen, but not in Africa!

The role of the Women and more particularly that of the Queen, the famous Ethiopian Kandaqe of Herodotus (it is a royal title rather than a name, and he probably misunderstood it), was more important among the Kushites than among other peoples, but all peoples had moments with strong matriarchal characteristics. As early as the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, Enheduanna, the daughter to Sargon of Akkad, shines among her Semitic people. Queen Sammu Rammat of Assyria in the 9th century BCE is another high moment in this regard. And one should not forget Pharaoh Hatshepsout of Egypt, Queen Zenobia of the Aramaic kingdom of Palmyra / Tadmor, Queen Arwa of Islamic Yemen, and many other similar cases, with the Queen of Sheba – Makeda – Balqis being the most international – intercultural one!

Last but not least, the Semitic denigration effort takes the Himyarites on; by portraying one of the Ancient Yemenite peoples as Khammitic despite the proven Semitic nature and identity of the deciphered language, the Abyssinian anti-Semitic elite attempts to convert to its imaginative Khammitic fabrication the environment from which emanated their ancestors, the Habashat. Of course, there is not a single proof of Kushitic / Khammitic presence throughout the peninsula

As archeological evidence from today’s Eritrea and Abyssinia seems to testify to the existence various successive waves (not one) from Yemen to Abyssinia during the 1st millennium BCE, we may reveal the reasons that led to this situation in the Ancient History of Yemen. Only very late in their history, and for a brief time, did the Ancient Yemenites unite; they were constantly organized in several kingdoms that were at times in peace and at times in war. It is therefore quite plausible that Habashat left Yemen and crossed the Bab al Mandeb straits following problems with other neighboring Yemenite states and/or tribes. 

At the circumference of the Anti-Semitic topoi of the Abyssinian forgery of History is falsification of the original Egyptian name of Egypt. The name of Egypt in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic was Kemet (not Khemet as they try to falsify). Kemet means ‘the Black One’, and as term it refers to the black land that is transferred by the alluvial appositions of the Nile floods. It has nothing to do with Kham, contrarily to the Abyssinian racist revisionism. Kham is not a historical person, and cannot be taken into consideration in any serious historical study. In addition, the Hebrew term Mizraim originates from the Assyrian name of Egypt, Musur or Mat Masri (land of Musur).
 
Even worse for the Abyssinian forgery, at no stage of the Ancient History of the Middle East can we raise a subject of Semitic – Khammitic rivalry (or that of Semitic – Indo-European rivalry as well). These schematizations are the result of recent efforts of historical falsification.

The entire Abyssinian forgery consists in an unbelievable, fresh Anti-Semitism that is based on ignorance and rejection of almost the entire academically accepted history. Another topos of this falsification relocates the famous Queen of Sheba, identifying Punt (the Somali coast, not Yemen) as her land and country! Bringing their mythical ancestor ‘closer’, the historical falsification perpetrators think they eliminate the reasons for a Habashat immigration from Yemen, a subject that has probably become sort of unbearable burden for them.

Yet, the name Punt was not known until modern times! It was forgotten along with all the Egyptian Hieroglyphic literature that had to be deciphered first, before offering us its valuable contents. So, never before the middle of the 19th century and the excavations at the mortuary temple of Pharaoh Hatshepsut at Deir al Bahari (West Thebes – today’s Luqsor) did anybody – let alone the isolated Abyssinians who did not catch up with the academic developments and even now they do not have in their irrelevant universities a single Abyssinian specialist in Egyptology – know the term ‘Punt’. 

Furthermore, since times immemorial, not a single Abyssinian knew the word of Punt! So, how could possibly anyone of them believe that the Queen of Sheba – Makeda originated from a place the name of which was unknown to them? Of course, after 1850 and the diffusion of the Colonial Falsification of History in the Middle East – that the Abyssinians accepted along with many others uncritically – anyone can create a false history by narrating that the mythical Queen of Sheba originated from Punt.

Another topos of the Anti-Semitic forgery of the Abyssinian elite concerns the Pre-Islamic Yemenites, who are ‘transformed’ into ‘Arabs’. Neither the Ancient Yemenites were Arabs nor the present day Yemenites are Arabs; Ancient Yemenite languages were close to Gueze than to Arabic. And the Arabic writing is derived from Syriac Aramaic. The Yemenites invented their writing system that was later diffused in Abyssinia to help scribes write Gueze.  And the arabization process in Yemen concerns the linguistic level only, being due to the diffusion of Islam.

=======================  

Picture: The Queen of Sheba meets King Solomon in Jerusalem, according to the fresco of Piero della Francesca; was the Queen of Sheba African?