User talk:Yom/Archive4

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Re: Amda Seyon

Wow, I get to be the first one to write on your new Talk page! (BTW, I noticed that archive 2 appears to be more recent than archive 3 -- & neither appear to have any material after the middle of June. Is that intentional?)

Yom, I took a look at this article, & made some small changes. You put a lot of work into this article, & added some new sources -- good. But I have a couple of questions:

You are using 2 series of footnotes in this article. Is this just an interim measure while we get the sources sorted out, or is it how you want the "finished" article to look? (I found having it this way unusual & a bit confusing.)
Also, there are some inconsistent transliterations in this article, for example "Interta" & "Endarta". Was this caused by the different sources you used? If not, where there are variant spellings, which form better represents the Amharic? (I changed a few spellings in ored to link to existing articles.)

I also saw that you created a map for the period -- great! I have a couple of suggestions on that image:

Any reason you couldn't use different colors to indicated which places are provinces, sub-provinces & various ethnic groups/tribes? Say Black for provinces, dark blue for sub-provinces & dark red for the ethnic groups?
I also noticed that some of the names on the map are spelled differently from the names we have been using for existing articles -- for example "Semén" (our " Semien"), "Begemdir" (our "Begemder"), & "Kefa" ("Kaffa"). Can those be changed? -- llywrch 16:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to make changes when I copy edit not only when I see something that bothers me, but I can offer what I feel is an improvement on what's there; & you're writing style truly isn't as bad as some Wikipedians. So sometimes I rewrite more than other times. (It doesn't help that at the moment I'm posting from work, so I can only do so much. :-\) But I'll be coming back to that article & fiddling with it from time to time. If you'd like some more rigorous feedback, go ahead & list the article at Wikipedia: Good articles: at the worst, you'll get a paragraph or two of criticism; at best, it'll be included in the GA list.

I focussed on the footnote system because that's what bothered me the most. I'll admit that I don't like it -- although I see what the folks were trying for in Pericles -- but many changes have been made at Wikipedia that I didn't like but afterwards accepted. I think the best thing to do is to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. -- llywrch 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I'll confess to being the person responsible for most of the existing transliterations of Ethiopian names on Wikipedia. They are inconsistent because I had no detailed system of transliteration: I adopted the forms that I felt were familiar or established, appeared to be the easiest to pronounce -- but once in a while I adopted a particular style because I just liked the look (e.g., "Yaqob", "Debre Worq"). Although I did not know that he had written this before I took these steps, T.E. Lawrence's words from his Seven Pillars of Wisdom probably are appropriate here: "I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot systems are." (Well, it's something worth repeating should someone become a pest by insisting on slavish obedience to any one specific system of transliteration -- especially if we suspect that said perosn is simply trolling us.) -- llywrch 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more I can say about the footnote system. I don't like it because I think it is confusing -- but as I said before that's my opinion, & I may be wrong. Have you asked at the two talk pages I suggested? I honestly believe that you'll receive more useful feedback there. At the least, one of the regulars over there should be able to state whether this system is permitted by the MLA Stylebook -- or a similar authority. -- llywrch 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in Arab

I gave, in the talk page, a prefectly good explaination for taking down the "biblical tradition" part from the article before taking it down. You just reverted it without saying a word. Unless you can counter my argumnet, I think this part should be taken down again. Harvest day fool 09:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mischaracterization of my edit. You removed a whole section without any remark as to why in the edit summary and without explaining on the talk page when I reverted you (though you did the right thing in explaining afterward). Given the situation, I took it for plain vandalism. Next time, please include edit summaries when you make major edits like that, and please discuss it on the talk page first, not after you have already made a massive change like that. As to the actual issue as to whether or not to include the passage, I don't really know much about the subject, so I can't really comment. You'll have to take it up with other editors. Good job in being bold, but I think you should probably get consensus on this. Inahet may have some insight on the matter. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Yom, your sig is enormous. Would you mind shortening it to get it in compliance with WP:SIG? Thanks in advance.--Kchase02 T 10:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Evidence

How is it that all the Semitic people of Ethiopia have links in blood to the Sabean and Jewish people when (according to you) there was only MINOR intemingling between the two cultures. What about also the inscriptions from the Sabeans people in Ethiopian obelisks. What about all of those,and it is also evident that (from many sources) South arabian language EVOLVED into Ge'ez, not that it had a strong relationship, but that it EVOLVED into Ge'ez and it speaks for itself. There is just too much evidence!Also, there are people from the Arabian peninsula and in Southern Yemen that look like Northern Ethiopians and some Eritreans (Tigray) and some Amhara also. http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=112&threadID=42807&messageID=50915 If u read this link, it classifies ethiopians and eritrean languages as part of the Yemenite languages http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/kn/kn000-1.htm

Cluckbang 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two cultures have been tied since antiquity even before the Sabaean migration, see the Tihama Cultural complex, e.g., which seems to have been Ethiopian in origin and encompassed the Yemeni Tihama, N. Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, the Sabaean migration as I showed earlier with my Munro-Hay quote, was limited to just a few localities. That Ge'ez is not a descendent of South Arabian is certain. See Weninger, Stefan "Ge'ez" in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, pp.732:

"Ge'ez is not, as was stated by earlier researchers, an offshoot of Old South Arabian (Appleyard 1996)."

Regarding the "Yemenite languages," that is not a real classification. The one you are referring to is "South Semitic," and it includes both the South Arabian and Ethiosemitic languages. It does not mean that the Ethiopian came from the Yemeni or vice versa, just that they came from the same, South Semitic source. This is apparently disputed, however, as Weninger goes on to say in the next sentence that "The Semitic languages of Ethiopia (Ethio-Semitic) form an independent subgroup of the Semitic languages." Moreover, Norbert Nebes supports this in his article on Epigraphic South Arabian (ibid, pp.335-6). I'm not sure how accurate this is, as it seems to be a new theory, since I've usually seen the two languages as both in a South Semitic group. Here is the relevant quotation:

"Along with Akkadian, Cananite, Aramaic, North Arabic and Ethiopic, E.S.A. [Epigraphic South Arabian] constitutes a separate language branch within the Semitic group. E.S.A. can neither be considered a historical forerunner of classical Arabic in the north, nor has it a close relationship with the modern South Arabian. The identical structure of the imperfective base in stem 0₁, together with some other shared morphological features allows grouping of E.S.A. together with North Arabic and North-west Semitic into the "Central Semitic" language group (s. Voigt 1987). Specific morphological and syntactical similarities inside this group reveal closer relationships between Sabaic and Canaanite."

Regarding facial features, those people mainly live in the Tihama (other areas are also darker than N. Arabs, but generally can't pass for Horn Africans), where Aksumite presence and Ethiopian cultural influence stayed the longest. Moreover, Yemeni "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" DNA percentages are comparable to Ethiopian percentages, instead of revealing a "Caucasoid" Yemen and mixed Ethiopia ("caucasoid" and "negroid" aren't good ways to define the lineages, but the point stands). Plus, I already answered the question of looks (nose type, orthoganous faces or little to no prognathism) earlier. Nose type was developed due to climate, and I believe this may affect prognathism as well. Either way, as the Ethiopian population is pretty close to direct descendents to the population that left Africa to populate the rest of the world, its clear that the so called "Caucasoid" features are indigenous. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to keep in mind is that people have been migrating back & forth across the Red Sea for as long as...well, as long as there have been boats. Ethiopia was one of the last sources for the slave trade, & Arabia was its last major market until it was finally stopped in the 1930s. One authority (I think it was Richard Pankhurst in his Economic History of Ethiopia, but I'll double-check) states that most inhabitants of Oman are of African ancestory due to the slave trade! Even if this is an exageration, both the Horn of Africa & the Arabian pennisula (until recent times) have been so sparsely inhabited that the migration of a few thousand people each way can't help but narrow the genetic differences. -- llywrch 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-Semitic

Your edit, as usual, is sloppy. Considering my last run-in with you on the subject of Proto-Semitic and your apparent ignorance by claiming that the sound *θ doesn't exist despite ample evidence and oodles of books and websites available on the subject, you'd think you'd learn to be more careful.

"Proto-Semitic is generally reconstructed as having the following phonemes (as usually transcribed in Semitology (IPA values are given in square brackets with an asterisk afterward when tentative)". First off, you add a bracket "(" for no reason. It was perfectly fine until you came along. Then, your add-on (in boldface) is completely out of context. How can someone change something that they don't even bother reading?? Insane. There are no asterisks here so there's no point mentioning them. Your thinking processes are very alien to me.

So, I guess my advice for you is to only comment on what you see and only edit what you know. Please? I'm begging you, cuz you're giving me a heart-attack, already. Thanks, a bunch, Yom. --Glengordon01 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult me on my talk page. It's intended for constructive and civil discussion. I obviously didn't see the first "(," which is why I added one. It's true that there were no asterisks before I edited the article, but I mentioned them in the intro because I added them in the same edit. If I am not mistaken, the non-emphatic IPA values for proto-Semitic are much more certain than the emphatic ones (perhaps one for "ś" should have an asterisk as well), which is why I added the asterisks. If this is note the case, then there's no need to make the differentiation, but I think it's beneficial to show which IPA sounds are relatively certain. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting? You interpret this as a vendetta and yet I continue to revert your edits because they're wrong. You even admit to your mistakes, so why shouldn't I call your edits sloppy?

Asterisks aren't based on some arbitrary probability of yours. You can't just place them wherever Yom feels like. They signal that the sound or word in question is theoretical. That's it. In this table, it's simply redundant to mark them all with asterisks but all are equally theoretical, so it's either all or nothing. I continue to revert your edits because they're wrong. And I could care less whether you're insulted by continually being ignorant about linguistics. Most other people would move on and read more. You whine about imaginary wounds. --Glengordon01 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You're probably right that I didn't assume good faith in my last response, but you were rather abrasive in our last encounter. Next time I make a small mistake like adding a parenthesis where it need not go, simply remove it. No need to discuss obvious typographical errors. Regarding my addition regarding asterisks, I added them with the intention of distinguishing between more established sounds and less established ones. They're all theoretical, but the proto-Semitic sounds for "m," "d," and "n," for instance, are much more likely than those for the emphatics, so some way of distinguishing likelihood is beneficial. A paragraph discussing the controversies as you proposed on the talk page is probably the best way to go about it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Onesimos Nesib

I listed the article at DYI a few minutes after I finished it. Yes, I can be immodest about my contributions. :-) -- llywrch 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

I dont mean to be rude but, are u and i supposed to believe what one man said, cant we atleast consider all the theories placed? I understand what your saying, and it all makes sense to me, its just that Ive never seen you consider the other side as a theory but rather as a myth. You also didnt tell me what you thought about the fact that Jews have similar characteristics in blood with Ethiopians. Can you reply on my talk page? Thanks- Cluckbang 20:48,, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

Ethiopians and Jews

Another lineage common in the ancestral Arab-Jewish gene pool is found among today's Ethiopians and may have reached the Middle East by men who traveled down the Nile.

This i got from http://foundationstone.com.au/HtmlSupport/WebPage/semiticGenetics.html

this link was from the semitic article Cluckbang 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

Did you read the whole thing?

Another lineage common in the ancestral Arab-Jewish gene pool is found among today's Ethiopians and may have reached the Middle East by men who traveled down the Nile. But present-day Ethiopian Jews lack some of the other lineages found in Jewish communities, and overall are more like non-Jewish Ethiopians than other Jewish populations, at least in terms of their Y chromosome lineage pattern.

The relations are clearly limited. Note that it says "Arab-Jewish" pool in particular, meaning that it's really talking about Yemenis, not most Jewish populations. Also note that it says that the lineage came from Ethiopia and then entered the Middle Eastern gene pool through Ethiopian admixture into arab (specifically probably Yemeni) blood. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yom

You said that Eritrea was part of Ethiopia until the 1890's. You have been totally wrong, I have family records that go back to the bibilical times that Eritrea was not part of Ethiopia. The right answer is that Eritrea and Tigray(Northern Region) of Ethiopia formed the Auximite empire before they grew and engulfed most of the african and arabian regions. It was refered to as the land of punt, and something else, but it was during the colonization of Eritrea by Ethiopians, that the History got messed up. I just think you need to go do a little bit more digging before you make any statements.

First of all, you do not have family records that go back to biblical times. No one does. Geneological information in Ethiopia can go back far due to the sebat bet rule, but not that far. The part about Aksum being mainly located in Eritrea and Tigray before expanding into Gonder and other areas is true, but Eritrea was part of Ethiopia throughout the centuries after Aksum up until 1890. For instance, even the Dahlak islands, which have been traditionally Muslim since they were invaded in 702 in response for the sacking of Jeddah, have been part of Ethiopia for almost all of the time up until the Ottomans took Mitsiwa, Hergigo and the Dahlak Archipelago. They were back under Ethiopian control again in the 9th century (800s) along with the rest of the coast, and this is according to a contemporary Arab (al-Ya`qubi) historian, not Ethiopian tradition. Another instance is in 1332, during the time of Amda Seyon I, who put down a revolt in Eritrea and Tigray and rode his elephant into the sea as a symbol of his control. In the 1880s Eritrea was still part of Ethiopia. See the battle of Dogali, for instance, in which Yohannes IV defeated the Italians, which was just 10 miles outside of Mitsiwa, so you can see that only a couple portions of the coast where the Ottomans had taken over (And given to a Beja na'ib, i.e. deputy) weren't held by Ethiopia, but the entire region was historically part of Ethiopia. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what's up......

Regarding your response You don't have to apologize, I know people have shit to do, but anyways, thank you. It's nice to know SOMEBODY sees the use of all the stuff I invested in the article (most of it's been deleted), and being an encyclopedia, we need to put in the truth, the stone cold facts. Only 3% of Axum has been excavated? Damn. where you'd get that figure? As for "further contributions", ah, I don't know, that article is going to hell in a handbasket, I might as well leave it alone, it's kind of like the good loving parents who say to a kid who turned out completely wrong "We've done the best we can, but fuck it." I'll se ya around, wish I knew how to say "peace" in Amharic, but I'll just say it in English, peace. Teth22 17:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe now?

The name itself of Abyssinia (‘-b-sh-t, Abashat) is mentioned in Ancient Yemenite texts and epigraphic documentation as the name of a … Yemenite tribe! This tribe, or at least a sizeable part of it, migrated to Africa and transferred there its name that lasts until now, as ultimate proof of the Yemenite origin of a large part of the populations of Abyssinia and Eritrea.

‘Returning’ the compliment, Gueze – that was never lost, since it still is the religious language and scripture of the Christians of Ethiopia and Eritrea – helped a lot in the deciphering of the ancient Yemenite epigraphic monuments. It was as useful as Coptic to Champollion deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. Without Coptic, Champollion would have failed; without Gueze the likes of Conti Rossini and Rhodokanakes would have failed too.

This is the link http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-4-2005-74197.asp Cluckbang 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

Another Megalomattis article? Didn't I note to you how he's not a good source? Rather than believing that the Oromo are indigenous to the Horn of Africa, he believes that after the conquest of Meroe by Aksum ca. 350 AD, all of the inhabitants of Meroe got up and left and moved to southern Ethiopia, somehow leaving no indication of such a huge migration, nor an account of it (by any source), despite literacy throughout the area (granted Meroitic isn't yet translated, but the inscriptions would be "on the road" and not in Sudan, so the mere existence would be needed). All his unreliablity aside, his claims are completely false:

The name itself of Abyssinia (‘-b-sh-t, Abashat) is mentioned in Ancient Yemenite texts and epigraphic documentation as the name of a … Yemenite tribe! This tribe, or at least a sizeable part of it, migrated to Africa and transferred there its name that lasts until now, as ultimate proof of the Yemenite origin of a large part of the populations of Abyssinia and Eritrea.

Firstly, the root is not `-b-sh-t (I'll assume that the ` was supposed to be ' becuase ` represents ayin, and not alif). Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge of the situation would know that "Abyssinia" was originally spelled with an "H" (in Ge'ez and Tigrinya, a pharyngeal h - ḥ), as it is still spelled today (with the exception of "Abesha," which is sometimes used in Amharic, but "h" > zero is a well documented and known sound change; compare Haddis Alemayehu and Addis Ababa). Secondly, the "-t" is external to the article, but he doesn't specifically reference his construction as a root, so I'll be nice to him and assume he was simply spelling in South Arabian. Now here's where the outright lies begin. The tribe is mentioned in Yemenite texts, but not as a Yemenite tribe. It is only mentioned as an Ethiopian tribe. The first use dates between 200 AD and 225 AD and calls GDRT as the king of Aksum and the clans of ḤBŠT — i.e. "Habashat" meant the "clan" of all Ethiopian tribes (i.e. all Ethiopian tribes were sub-units of "Habashat," so "habashat" means Ethiopian). All references to "Habashat" are always to Ethiopian population and never to a Yemenite tribe.

Ge'ez would be useful in translating Yemenite inscriptions because they are both in the South Semitic sub-classification of Semitic. However, as I have pointed out before, Ge'ez is not derived from ESA, but they do share a common parent (or grand-parent?). Note that some classify Sabaic differently, such as Norbert Nebes, who classifies them as Central Semitic in the Northwest Semitic group. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GF Zemen Unicode

Can't read my user name? Download GF Zemen Unicode and move it to C:\Windows\Fonts\ -- I read on your user page.

Thanks for the tip. A little googling told me that it was available via abyssiniacybergateway.net/fidel/unicode/. You may wish to add the link. And [cough] I'd point out that millions (well, tens of thousands) of people have managed to escape the clutches of Micro$oft. I for one don't have C:\, let alone C:\Windows. ¶ Good luck with GDRT. -- Hoary 10:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could just skip the installation instructions; either way, providing a link to the TTF file could be helpful. Of course it's entirely up to you. ¶ A couple more little points about your article. First, is the choice of vowels pretty much arbitrary (because people don't really have a clue), or is there some educated guesswork here? You may wish to link to some article that explains the (arbitrary/tentative) provision of vowels to come between the consonants. Secondly, I'd try to standardize footnote-index placement: this can come either immediately before a period (etc.) or immediately after itl different people have different preferences (and maybe there's something about it in WP:MOS), but a mixture of the two looks odd. -- Hoary 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of National Merit

Although I don't recall us interacting, I've appreciated your contributions to Ethiopian topics. I'm interested in the country (note my Haile Selassie userbox), and I've noticed your frequent appearances in the edit history of Ethiopian articles I read. So...

Yom, I award you this barnstar for your great contributions to Ethiopia related articles. Picaroon9288 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it. Picaroon9288 05:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I wasn't expecting to get a barnstar from someone I don't even know! Thanks I lot, I appreciate it. I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with your work on Wikipedia, but I hope we cross paths more often in the future. :) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace & Aqua

How would you know its non-notable and non-existant ? Have you checked my blog lately about my short? Have you ever even thought about going to the website?

Steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.27.234.155 (talk • contribs) 16:06, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

I have not visited the website, but from your description on the wikipedia page, it's clear that it's non-notable. Firstly, it hasn't even been created yet, so for it to be worthy of an article before even it's creation, it would have to be something that has a lot of hype (e.g. Snakes on a Plane). Seeing as it's a flash animation, there's not going to be enough hype about it to make it notable before production. Even after it's produced, unless it becomes extremely popular and becomes an internet meme, it probably won't be notable enough. If it does become a meme, like Bananaphone or Badger Badger Badger, then I would vote keep if it gets listed for deletion again. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'mt

After reading a book called Ancient Ethiopia, and many other books also, they all reached the same conclusion about Ethiopia's relations with Southern Arabia (Yemen) and that D'mt( not Aksum) which u said was a very old kingdom before Aksum was made by the Southern Arabians. For instance how can you tell the tigray and the Amhara apart. Usually/the majority of Amhara's are darker than most tigray. This is why the theory about how they came and migrated south and how they intermingled with other kushitic and somali tribes kinda makes sense. Those who live in northern ethiopia/eritrea (the habesha) the tigray have more links with the old Yemenites Cluckbang 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

There's no color difference between the Tigray and Amhara and you can't tell them apart. The difference is simply linguistic. D`mt was not founded by South Arabians, as you claim. Some Sabaean inscriptions around this time have been found, but all of the royal inscriptions in D`mt were in a different Semitic language - proto-Ethiopic/proto-Ethio-Semitic. Besides, darkness is a product of latitude, not of race. Somalis are on average darker than N. Ethiopias for instance, but N. Somalis are lighter than S. Somalis for the same reason. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont say "as you claim" I didnt claim this, i am just telling u this from a book that I read. the Book made these claims, its not my own theory, but rather a theory from an author, and yet you still think i am making all this up. i told you the book is called "ancient ethiopia".

Never heard of it. Is it by someone named Phillipson? I won't say "as you claim," but the way you post (just posting other peoples words instead of saying what you believe with references) makes it seem as if their claims are your claims exactly. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont u believe in Megalommatis?

You refer to my article Kushitic Oromo Ethiopia and Semitic Amhara Abyssinia! There I stressed that it is historically erroneous and politically misleading for the Amhara - Tigray ruled country to change its real name, Abyssinia, and pretend to be called by a name like Ethiopia that is totally irrelevant to these two peoples, who descend from the ancient Axumite Abyssinians, who in turn are the offspring of one Ancient Yemenite (so please, do not confuse, they are non-Arabic) tribe that we first attested on Ancient Yemenite epigraphic documentation. We know of course that for the needs of his royal propaganda the invader of Ethiopia, which is present day Sudan, king Ezana of Axumite Abyssinia called himself ‘King of Ethiopia’, and he truly ruled the southern part of Ethiopia, all that area of the Butana desert of Sudan that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were calling Insula Meroe, island Meroe, since surrounded by Atbara, the United Nile, the Blue Nile and lake Tana. The Abyssinian control did not reach Ptolemais Theron, present day Suakin, the Ptolemaic and later Roman colony at the Sudanese Red Sea coast; it did not reach either the flow of the Blue Nile or even lake Tana itself, although the lake was not far from the Axumite borders. Last but not least, Ezana’s control did not reach further in the north, the old Kushitic capital of Napata (present day Karima), let alone Meroitic territories further in the north, Dongola, Kerma and the 3rd and 2nd cataracts’ area. A few successors to Ezana may have kept their control on that part of Ethiopia, but after the end of the 5th century and the rise of the three Christian states in Sudan, Nobatia, Makkuria, and Alodia, the Axumite kingdom of Abyssinia did not control any area on the present day soil of Sudan, or if you want, did not control any area belonging to the ancient Meroitic kingdom of Ethiopia. Consequently, they had - already by that time - lost any legitimacy to the name of ‘Ethiopia’; we know of course that the kings of Axum kept using it among their royal titles but this propaganda was related to the Christianization of their state. The use of the name ‘Ethiopia’ they were making was of Biblical dimensions, since according to their erroneous and falsified interpretations the christening of Abyssinia was prophesized long ago by means of the Biblical verse stating that Kush (and in the Greek translation of the Alexandrian 70 Elders ‘Ethiopia’) will extend its hand to the Lord.

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=195 Cluckbang 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

I already told you why Megalomattis isn't a good source. I'll respond to this later. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

"The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

I got this from one of the links from the Caucasoid article.

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/ethiopians.html Cluckbang 18:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

Sidama & the kingdom of Kaffa

The inhabitants of Kaffa aren't considered a Sidama people? According to the sources I have at hand (& I admit that they are a little dated), many of the people are grouped (or maybe better expressed lumped) under the Sidama category? What is the current ethnological breakdown? -- llywrch 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how specific you want to get. Both Sidama and Hadiya (both Cushitic languages) have been used in the past to describe more than just the central ethnicity. I.e., there is a Sidama and a Hadiya ethnicity, both of which speak those respective languages, but there are also groups speaking distinct but related languages that were in the past incorporated into the definition "Sidama" and "Hadiya," like the Kafa and Kambaata. Here's a site with pretty accurate info on ethnic groups. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on Eritrea page

Please follow the link below for the discussion on the Eritrea Talk page, thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eritrea#Relations_w.2F_neighbors

Already noted. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Panairjdde

From Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde, just in case...

Dear Yom, I would like to tell you the beginning this story from my POV:

This all started when I applyed the Manual of Style and got against a stubborn User:Codex Sinaiticus for Montanism. I tried to discuss this matter, but nobody wanted to give his opinion on the matter.
I discussed with CS, but he kept twisting the rules to his favour.
I avoided Montanism and got over in my usual routine of MoS application, and eager users reverted my edits not because they were against them (some said they agreed with me), but because I should "stop the edit war" first.
I returned to Montanism, and asked for a third opinion, the answer was "stop the edit war".
I asked a RFC, and the few editors coming (I don't know if because the RFC) said "stop the edit war".
I went to MoS talk page and proposed an edit whose aim was to make clearer something was already there, but the only persons discussing the matter (llywrch and another) just said every editor is free to do whatever he wants, as regards using redundant AD.
I returned to the Montanism talk page, and told them I had found a section of MoS that clearly showed I was right, the only answer was "stop the edit war! wait a week".
I edited Honorius (emperor) (an article I contributed to in the past) to include AD the way CodexSinaiticus and all the others involved claimed was in the powers of an editor. It was to make a point, I admit, but in a non-disruptive way (and this is true however you read WP:POINT). llywrch (an admin involved in the discussion) blocked User:Panairjdde for 24 hours. Maybe you already know the end of the story

So far I witnessed a lot of editors eager to formally protect Wikipedia (those who reverted, those who appeared to petition against the edit war, the one who immediately blocked because he tought I made a disruptive edit, all those prompt to block sockpuppets, and so on), but nobody who had really cared about the content (and I'm sorry, but if you think this matter is "ridiculous", you are among those who don't understand), and stubborn users who clutter WP of ADs just to make a point (have you seen CS talk page?). So, I was a little angry because I felt the block was wrong, but the whole point with evading the block was to show people that it was only a matter of principle, to tell them that content is more important than "form" (blocking, endless procedures to settle a matter against someone who doesn't want to collaborate, and so on): I closed Panairjdde account (something nobody cares to understand - I can't log on anymore).

The funny thing is that until now, a few people, including you, showed to tell me they agreed with me or my position somehow, sometime, but that I was behaving bad, now. Where all those editors were when the matter was under discussion?

Now, I still say it is a matter of principle. That llywrch blocked me for 24 hours (and now indefinitely, even if he still refers to a 24 hours block) is not important, I can do without WP for one day, one week, one month, or forever; that he acted as an admin with an important action (the 24 hours block) without understanding the situation is by far more important to me. I see him like a policeman that sees a thief robbing an old woman, and starts shooting around: even if he gets the thief, he risked the life of innocent people around him, and this is by far more important than avoiding the theft.

Now, what I want? Not Panairjdde account back, since it is closed. Not Panarjedde back, since I can avoid editing at all. I want that my work of months is saved, that "my" Wikipedia grows well. This means, to me, that easy-trigger admins like llywrch do actually think before acting, weighting the formal break of the rules (and I still maintain I did not break them in the beginning) against the real problem they are watching to. This also means that those asked to give a third opinion really want to give a third opinion on the matter (I had other problems with "third opinion" in the past - see Talk:Constantine XI, if you like). This also means a more serious behaviour of all those who enter into a dispute resolution.

If, in the process of obtaining this, I have to dig the hole deeper and deeper, I shall accept the consequences: if I did not do those edits to Ethiopia page you would not have showed here, right? But be sure I shall "fight" this till the end, because it is important to me.

Best regards.-- The person behind Panairjdde/Panarjedde

Yom, I noticed that an anon editor had made some questionable edits to Amda Seyon I, an article I know you care about. Because anon editors cannot be blocked for violating the WP:3RR rule, you may have it be semi-protected, which will keep people with new accounts -- or none -- from editting it. Drop a note at WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR & an Admin will help you. -- llywrch 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's fine. I don't think it'll end up being a problem. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinians

At an early epoch South Arabian tribes emigrated to the opposite African coast, where Sabaean trade colonies had probably existed for a long time. As early as the first century A.D. we find in the north of the Abyssinian mountain — lands the Semitic realm of Aksum. The conquerors brought with them South Arabian letters and language, which in their new home gradually attained an individual character. From this language, the Ge'ez, wrongly called Ethiopian, two daughter-languages are descended, Tigré and Tigriña. The confusion of this kingdom with Ethiopia probably owes its origin to the fact that the Semite emigrants adopted this name from the Graeco-Egyptian sailors, at a time when the Kingdom of Meroë was still in some repute. And so they called their kingdom Yteyopeya. From Aksum as a base they gradually extended their dominion over all Abyssinia, the northern population of which today shows a purer Semitic type,(Proof of the Differences Btwn the North Ethiopians and the South) while the southern is strongly mixed with Hamitic elements. At an early date the south must have been settled by Semites, who spoke a language related to Ge'ez, which was afterwards to a great extent influenced by the languages of the native population, particularly by the Agau dialects. A descendant of this language is the Amharic, the present language of intercourse in Abyssinia itself and far beyond its boundaries.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13706a.htm

Cluckbang 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

Cluckbang, none of your info is new. It's the same old thoughts repeated again, not a refutation of the new thinking and evidence I provided. Until you can provide evidence countering my evidence, then corroboration of old thinking does you no good. I already showed you, by a scholar, not a website, that Ge'ez is certainly not descended from Sabaean. In fact, some (Norbert Nebes) even believe that it is Northwest Semitic (posting this for the second time):

Along with Akkadian, Cananite, Aramaic, North Arabic and Ethiopic, E.S.A. [Epigraphic South Arabian] constitutes a separate language branch within the Semitic group. E.S.A. can neither be considered a historical forerunner of classical Arabic in the north, nor has it a close relationship with the modern South Arabian. The identical structure of the imperfective base in stem 01, together with some other shared morphological features allows grouping of E.S.A. together with North Arabic and North-west Semitic into the "Central Semitic" language group (s. Voigt 1987). Specific morphological and syntactical similarities inside this group reveal closer relationships between Sabaic and Canaanite.

Either way (i.e. NW semitic or South), Ge'ez is not descended from Sabaean. See Weninger, Stefan "Ge'ez" in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, pp.732 (again - or Appleyard 1996):

Ge'ez is not, as was stated by earlier researchers, an offshoot of Old South Arabian (Appleyard 1996).

So clearly Sabaeans could not have brought Ge'ez to Ethiopia. Regarding the alphabet, its origins earlier than the 8th century BC are obscure, the first inscriptions occuring around 8th/7th c. BC. In South Arabia (Norbert Nebes again):

The earliest Sabaic inscriptions appear some time in the 8th cent. B.C., while the first (longer) written documents in Sabaic that can be dated reliably on the basis of synchrony with Assyrian sources go back to the beginning of the 7th cent. B.C. The first Minaic inscriptions appear, even though in smaller numbers, of the same time as the first Sabaic texts.

The D`mt inscriptions, too are from the 8th and 7th century BC (Alexander Sima):

D`mt (Da`əmat or Da`amat, vocalization unknown) is mentioned ten times in six Sabaic [referring here to the script] pre-Aksumite royal inscriptions, to be dated approximately to the 8th-7th cent. B.C.

This dating is partly synchronized with Sabaic dating as the first known King of D`mt, W`RN HYWT, mentions the Karib'il Watar that is the King synchronized with Assyrian dates (692 BC tribute by Karbi'il). So, despite the name, the origins of Epigraphic South Arabian are far from known.

The name "Ethiopia" wasn't through confusion. King Ezana, the first Christian king of Aksum chose the Greek Αἰθιοπία (Aithiopia) to translate Habashat, a word meaning the collective of all Ethiopian clans. That he did this after the conquest of Meroë might lead some to think that the use of "Ethiopia" referred to his conquest of Meroë, but in his list of controlled areas, the Greek and Ge'ez (and Pseudo-Sabaic) match one-to-one for all other areas, and I think might even be in the same order. Now, regarding differences between the north and the South, excluding the Southwest, there is very little difference in Phenotype, regardless of genotype. Semitic speakers have much more in the way of J-M267 lineages that arrived during the Neolithic (i.e. not through Sabaeans), but there isn't really a physical difference. Compare Somalis and Ethiopians, for example. If need be, I can provide some pictures, though that's of course not scientific. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harbai

Take your time with the research, but I am curious to see what you find out. Even if you hadn't asked me to wait, nominating this article for deletion is not at the top of my list of Things to Do. (I actually try to use laziness as a positive tool: when in doubt, favor the solution that requires the least amount of work.) -- llywrch 04:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors?

You have to atleast mention the fact that ERITREA WAS REALLY CLOSE TO Ethiopia. I mean the majority of Eritrea was apart of the Tigray Region of Ethiopia long ago, so why not say Ethiopia. Its been with Ethiopia for a long long long time, and i dont see anything wrong with what I said By the way that book i was talking about ANCIENT ETHIOPIA was written very recently, and so that is where i read about D'mt coming from South Arabia, so this is my main source and the author is David Phillipson Cluckbang 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

I would, but the history section should show that (as well as the fact that it only recently gained independence). Merhawie is against it, however. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia and the UN historically

Could you please add to the United Nations article (since u know so much about Ethiopia) about Ethiopia's contributions to the UN and how it was one of the founders? I think the international community of today should know this.

I don't know much about this period, but I'll try to find some info to incorporate. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssinians, You wanted something new, so this is it

Later, in the mid-1st millennium B.C., the southern Arabian immigrants, or Sabaens, appeared in Ethiopia. These were military or trading colonists who maintained contact with their country of origin for centuries. The Semitic-speaking Aksumites, or Habash (Abyssinians), had their capital city, Aksum, in the western part of the province of Tigray. During the first 6 centuries A.D., they controlled territories north to upper Egypt, east to the Gulf of Aden and southern Arabia, south to the Omo River, and west to the Cushite Kingdom of Meroe¨ (Munro-Hay 1991).

Amharas, Tigrais, and Gurages speak Semitic languages and are considered to be descendants of southern Arabian conquerors, who trace their ancestry back to Moses and King Solomon. Previous studies of classic genetic markers and Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions have shown that, in addition to the predominant sub-Saharan African substrate, the Ethiopian gene pool also embraces a considerable component indicative of admixture with populations of Arabian and/or Near Eastern origin

Please read the rest of the article also

http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n5/41578/41578.web.pdf

Cluckbang 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

I don't deny that there were Sabaean traders in D`mt, but they were not the primary population. The inscriptions of D`mt were written in Proto-EthioSemitic/Proto-Ge'ez, not in Sabaean. As I have provided before, Ge'ez, the progenitor of all of the Semitic languages in Ethiopia (really, a proto-Ge'ez), is not descended from South Arabian languages (Weninger, Stefan "Ge'ez" in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, pp.732, 2005 : "Ge'ez is not, as was stated by earlier researchers, an offshoot of Old South Arabian (Appleyard 1996).").

The Haplotypes they are talking about are the J-Haplogroup, which arrived in Ethiopia in the Neolithic, i.e. during the last part of the Stone age. Not during historic times through Sabaeans. Of the J haplotypes found, 2.1% are J-M172, which is more recent, and the motif that characterizes J-M267 as recent in origin, is found rarely in Ethiopia (Semino et al. Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area, 2004). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

Please remove the text about Abbysians invading Yemen, firstly in that way Ethiopia is building glory in the expance of Yemen and that is inacceptable, secondly this is not in the benefit of Ethiopia to have a hostile history,plz remove the sentense MARVEL 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What are you talking about? It's simply history - noting when the empire was at its height. In the same way, it's not offensive for the Assyrian empire's history to note that it at one time controlled Egypt, or that Aksum also controlled N. Sudan starting with Ezana. Let's move the discussion to the talk page, however, where we can get more input. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia

if you want to talk to me use my talk page ok? MARVEL 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages aren't the place for this - the Ethiopia article is. This is regarding the article content, and not just a discussion, so Ethiopia's talk page is better. Please talk there, where we can also get input from other editors. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sienetjo

You left a comment about the Sienetjo on that article's talk page. Here is a paper (warning: it's a PDF) entitled "Christian Influences On Shinasha Oral Traditions." It identifies the Shinasha/Northern Gonga people with the "Sinetjo," which I presume is the same as the Sienetjo. It goes into their convoluted history. Anyway, I hope it is useful to you. 24.62.122.195 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, it's very informative. I think I can clear up all of the confusion now. It seems that they are an Omotic group, which should exclude them from being called "shanqella," yet they live in Metekkel, which is defined as a "shanqella" region. The Gonga, which apparently relates to them, however, lived in Innarya province, which wasn't at all considered "shanqella." Very confusing indeed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make a Change

you see Yom, if u were to look at the Persian Empire article, on the right hand side, it has a list of all the dynasties, why dont you (since you're very knowledgeable) do something like that for the ethiopian article, so that pple can know about ethiopia more and how big of an empire it was

I already did a while back, it just has too many red links. It's at Template:History of Ethiopia. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid

Agreed, i changed it to northen parts.--Spahbod 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

Hey Yom, how ocme ur not replying to my messages anymore? Cluckbang 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

A little busy, just give me some time. I'll reply. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some new info to back the statements i made before

Abyssinia appears to have been originally peopled by the eastern branch of the Hamitic family, which has occupied this region from the remotest times, and still constitutes the great bulk of its inhabitants, though the higher classes are now strongly Semitized. The prevailing colour in the central provinces (Amhara, Gojam) is a deep brown, northwards (Tigre, Lasta) it is a pale olive, and here even fair complexions are seen. Southwards (Shoa, Kobbo, Amuru) a decided chocolate and almost sooty black is the rule. Many of the people are distinctly negroid, with big lips, small nose, broad at the base, and frizzly or curly black hair. The negroid element in the population is due chiefly to the number of negro women who have been imported into the harems of the Abyssinians. The majority, however, may be described as a mixed Hamito-Semitic people, who are in general well formed and handsome, with straight and regular features, lively eyes, hair long and straight or somewhat curled and in colour dark olive, approaching to black. The Galla, who came originally from the south, are not found in many parts of the country, but predominate in the Wollo district, between Shoa and Amhara. It is from the Galla that the Abyssinian army is largely recruited, and, indeed, there are few of the chiefs who have not an admixture of Galla blood in their veins.

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Abyssinia

Cluckbang 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

That's not new information at all. That's from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was pretty racist. The pale olive they're talking about is false. Just simply search for "Tigray" or "Gonder/Gondar" (which is actually north of Lasta) in google images or flickr, and you'll see that they are wrong. Search for eritreans, even, and ignoring the 19th century Arab immigrants called the Rasha'ida (less than 1% of the pop, anyway), you won't see the colors they're talking about. Note that the province, Lasta, that they claim is highly Semiticized, is actually where the Agaw, a Cushitic-speaking group, originate. So you can see how flawed that is. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 19:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: al-K

Dear Yom,

Would you mind reverting your last change to al-Khwarizmi as it is incorrect. No single source list both Ja'far and Abdallah as his first names. It's either Abdallah (which came from (F. Rosen's translation) of his Algebra) or (exlusive or) Ja'far which came from his Geography. Cheers, —Ruud 21:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...Why are they necessarily exclusive? I don't know much about how reliable Rosen's translation is, so I don't know which should be removed. Let's discuss this on the talk page, as others may be able to shed some light on the matter. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this brief, but I'm rather tired at the moment. Of course you are free to bring this up on the talk page, however as I'm the person who wrote pretty much the whole article as it stands now and have done a reasonble amount of literature study on al-K I hope you would trust me on this one. All the sources consistently give his name as either Abu Ja'far Mohammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi or Abu Abdallah Mohammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Wikipedia shouldn't deviate from this and, as with other complicated aspects of him, should be treated in greater length in the body of the article, not the introduction. —Ruud 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Caucasious ethiopia, which migrated

In 960 A.D. Judith (a descendent of Cain), conceived a plan to murder all members of the royal family of Aksum (descendents from King Solomon of Israel and the Queen of Sheba of southern Arabia). During and after this reign of terror, this once powerful Christian kingdom fell into insignificance. Later, in the 1600s Negro tribes called Galla moved into the ancient land and ravaged, pillaged, and burnt enormous areas, destroying countless treasures contained in the churches and irreplaceable old manuscripts. Thus, once the second largest Christian nation of its time, Aksum became a wasteland, and its heritage forgotten and ignored. The forgotten history of the kingdom of the African Nile has caused many modern day Christian Bible students to make a major assumption that is totally incorrect: that the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts chapter 8 was a Negro. But this popular assumption is not correct for the following reasons:

It’s a faulty assumption because it’s based on the idea that Ethiopia now, as well as 2000 years ago, was and is a Negro nation. All of the ancient kingdoms of East Africa, including Egypt, Aksum, Kush, Yemen and southern Arabia were not Negro nations in 33 A.D., but instead were Caucasian and bastions of white culture until the 1600s. The word “Ethiopian” indicates that this eunuch was a Caucasian. “Aith” means sunburned and “ops” means countenance, hence a sunburned complexion. Negroes do not have a sunburned look. It is white people who tan from sun exposure and therefore were the original Ethiopians according to archaic etymology. A similar exegesis is found in the Song of Solomon. The Ethiopian eunuch had been to Jerusalem to do what only an Israelite could do, i.e. “to worship” (Acts 8:27). Who was allowed to worship in the Temple? Could a non-Israelite enter the Court of Israel and worship in the Temple, especially in the time right after the death of Christ? Consider what happened to the Apostle Paul when he stirred up all the people by bringing Greeks into the Temple, and they were going to kill him for it (Acts 21:27-31). Trophimus, even though he was racially the same as Paul, was considered a heathen, polluting the Temple by his presence. How then could an Ethiopian Negro (who definitely could not be an Israelite) have entered into the forbidden, exclusive Temple Court of Israel and worshipped? Wouldn’t he have polluted the Temple too? The Ethiopian was reading a very expensive scroll of Isaiah. Phillip asked him if he knew what he was reading, and he said he needed someone to explain. The eunuch had just finished reading the following 3 verses from Isaiah 53:4-6, which had the recurrent theme of “OUR griefs”, “OUR sorrows”, “OUR transgressions”, “OUR iniquities”, “OUR peace”, “WE are healed”, “WE, like sheep” and “WE have turned”. What people are all the preceding pronouns (in caps) referring to? “For the transgression of MY PEOPLE was He stricken” (Isaiah 53:8): God’s people; the people known as ‘sheep’; the people whom Christ redeemed; the people of the covenants; the people of God’s Kingdom; the people next of kin to Christ, their Kinsman Redeemer, the God of Israel. Isaiah was writing about providing atonement for Israel. This is, no doubt, what Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch. The Apostle Phillip, Isaiah, Christ and the Ethiopian (Aksumian) eunuch were all Israelites. Doesn’t it seem strange that if Aksum, the second largest Christian nation at one time, was actually a black nation, that there was no other known black Christians, let alone kingdoms, anyplace in the world? Isn’t it significant that there were no Negroes who ever attended any of the church councils; or were bishops or elders from this or any other area? If any assumptions are to be made, it is fair to think that the eunuch probably helped Matthew to establish churches in an area with a rich Christian heritage (which is all but forgotten today).

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/EthiopianEunuch.htm

Cluckbang 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

You really shouldn't rely on church claims for your arguments. They have all sorts of claims. Try to stick to history books. First of all, where is the fact that Gudit (i.e. Yodit, i.e. "Judith"), is a "descendent of Cain?" That's simply to demonize her. That she ruled in 960 isn't at all certain. We don't even know what century she existed in (either 800s or 900s), much less the decade and year. Traditionally, she is described as Jewish, but she was more likely a Pagan queen from the south. The murder of all members of the royal family is again not certain at all, but simply a history promulgated by the Solomonic dynasty when they came to power, claiming that they hid in Shewa and escaped death so that they could legitimize their takeover. The description of the Oromo (it says "Galla," which is now pejorative) is incorrect as well. It paints them as "negroes," while Semitic-speaking Ethiopians are "Caucasian," which is false. There are no significant phenotypical differences betweeen the Oromo, Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, and Somalis. So if the "Galla" [sic] are "negroes," then the Semitic-speaking Ethiopians are as well.

Now, the second part is very weird indeed. First of all, the "Ethiopia" in the bible is in fact Kush, in Sudan, not Aksumite Ethiopia, or its predecessors (D'mt and maybe Punt). Secondly, he is saying that the Greek word meant that they were simply "tanned," and not of dark skin. If this were the case, then the Greeks wouldn't also have a word "Leukoaithiope" meaning "White Ethiopian," i.e. an African with lighter skin, more in the "tanned" range than the actual dark skin of Ethiopians. This designation was used for Northwest Africans (i.e. Berbers and Phoenician Carthaginians). Moreover, they are black in the drawings of Cosmas Indicopleustes of the 6th century. So unless your source is saying that Aksumites are black (which he isn't), then he's dead wrong.

ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first recorded kingdom in Abysinnian history was the great city of Axum, which emerged around the 3rd century BCE , it was an offshoot of the Semtic Sabean kingdoms of southern Arabia who had been settling in Northern Ethiopia since around 500 BCE. The basic ancestry of the Habesha is Semtic, as are their languages, but they most likely intermarried and absorbed the surrounding indigenous Cushitic people's to a great extent.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Habesha

Cluckbang 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang[reply]

Are you even reading what I'm writing anymore? I've already shown that D`mt was an Ethiopian kingdom separate from the Sabaean one - evidence of the two emerged around the same time, and they used different semitic languages in their writing. To use "Semitic" as an ethnic term is also incorrect. Language does not represent genetics. Indians speak Indo-European languages, but they have completely separate ancestries, and there are Indians in the North who look like Tibetans and chinese (e.g. Nepalis to a degree), as well as "black Arabs." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]