[By Ayele Bekerie]:-
Who are the authors of the external
paradigm?
New York (Tadias)- Sergew (1972) represents the Ethiopian
scholars who look at the Ethiopian history from outside in, one of the most
ardent proponents of the external origin of Ethiopian history and civilization
is Edward Ullendorff. In the preface to his book The Ethiopians: An
Introduction to Country and People, Ullendorff (1960) wrote:
This book is principally concerned
with historic Abyssinia and the cultural manifestations of its Semitized
inhabitants – not with all the peoples and regions now within the political
boundaries of the Ethiopian Empire.
The constituent elements of the
external paradigm are thus “historic Abyssinia” and “Semitized inhabitants.”
Regarding the name Abyssinia, Martin Bernal (1987), in his book Black
Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol 1, wrote: “It
should be made clear that the name ‘Abyssynia’ was used precisely to avoid
‘Ethiopia,’ with its indelible association with Blackness. The first American
edition of Samuel Johnson’s translation of the 17th-century travels of Father
Lobo in Ethiopia and his novel Rasselas, published in Philadelphia in
1768, was entitled The History of Rasselas, prince of Abissinia: An Asiatic
Tale! Baron Cuvier equated Ethiopian with Negro, but categorized the
Abyssinians – as Arabian colonies – as Caucasians.”
On the question of “Semitized
inhabitants, Bernal (1987) appears to agree with Ullendorff. Bernal stated,
“The dominant Ethiopian languages are Semitic.” I must add, however, Bernal now
claims the origin of what is generally accepted as Afro-Asiatic or “Semitic”
languages is Ethiopia. The possible diffusion of the Afro-Asiatic languages
from Ethiopia to the Near East since Late Paleolithic times have also been
emphasized by Grover Hudson (1977; 1978). This claim by itself is a major
challenge to the South Arabian or external paradigm. Ullendorff’s claim that
“the Semitized inhabitants of historic Ethiopia” had South Arabian origin has
become difficult to sustain. It is, however, exemplary to look into the
writings of Ullendorff in order to bring to light the process of linking the
Ethiopian history to an external paradigm.
According to Ullendorff, “no student
of Ethiopia can afford to neglect the connection between that country and South
Arabia. Among those who have recognized this vital link are Eugen Mitwoch,
while leo Reinsch is the undisputed master of the Semitic connection with the
Hamitic (Kushitic) languages of Ethiopia.” Hamitic/Semitic divide, of course,
was nothing but a means to keep the Ethiopian people divided.
His divisiveness even became clearer
in the following statement: “The Abyssinians proper, the carriers of the
historical civilization of Semitized Ethiopia, live in the central and northern
highlands. From the mountain of Eritrea in the north to the Awash valley in the
south we find this clearly distinguishable Abyssinian type who for many
centuries has maintained his identity against the influx of Negroid peoples of
the Nile Valley, the equatorial lakes, or the Indian Ocean littoral.” What is
surprising is this outdated argument of physical anthropology that remained
unchallenged until very recently. It is also unfortunate that a significant
portion of the Ethiopian elite would buy such erroneous assertion.
The outline of Ethiopian history
constructed by Ullendorff begins with “South Arabia and Aksum.” And the outline
has been duplicated and replicated by a significant number of Ethiopian
historians. For instance, Sergew used similar “external” approach in his
otherwise very important book entitled Ancient and medieval Ethiopian
History to 1270. Sergew (1972) wrote, “Ethiopia is separated from Southern
Arabia by the Red Sea. As is well known, the inhabitants of South Arabia are of
Semitic stock, which most probably came from Mesopotamia long before our era
and settled in this region. … For demographic and economic reasons, the people
of South Arabia started to migrate to Ethiopia. It is hard to fix the date of
these migrations, but it can be said that the first immigration took place
before 1000 B.C.11 Sergew essentially echoed the proposition advanced by
Ethiopianits, such as E. Littmann (1913), D. Nielson (1927), J Doresse (1957),
H.V. Wissman (1953), C. Conti Rossini (1928), M. Hoffner (1960), A. Caquot and
J. Leclant (1955), A. Jamme (1962), and Ullendorff (1960).12 The Ethiopianists
almost categorically laid down the external or South Arabian paradigmatical
foundation for Ethiopian history.
Challenges of the External Paradigm
from Without
In Aksum: An African Civilisation
of Late Antiquity, Stuart Munro-Hay (1991) writes: “The precise nature of
the contacts between the two areas [South Arabia and Ethiopia], their range in
commercial, linguistic or cultural terms, and their chronology, is still a
major question, and discussion of this fascinating problem continues.”13 What
is notable in Munro-Hay’s interpretation is the very labeling of the Aksumite
civilization as an African civilization. Its impact may be equivalent to Placid
Temples’ Bantu Philosophy. At a time when Africans are labeled people without
history and philosophy, the Belgian missionary in the Congo inadvertently
overturned the Hegelian reduction of the so-called Bantu. Temples elevated the
Bantu (African) by wanting to observe him in the context of reason and logic,
that is, philosophy.
By the same token, Aksum: An
African Civilisation dares to place or locate Aksum in Africa. That by
itself is a clear shift of paradigm, from external to internal. It is an
attempt to see Ethiopians as agents of their history. It is an attempt to
question the validity of the south Arabian origin of the Ethiopian history and civilization.
Jacqueline Pirenne’s proposal has
also convincingly challenged the validity of the external paradigm as the
source of Ethiopian history. Pirenne suggests that the influence is in reverse,
i.e., the Ethiopians influenced the civilization of the South Arabians. She
reached her ‘ingenious’ conclusion after “weighing up the evidence from all
sides, particularly aspects of material culture and linguistic/paleographic
information.” Pirenne is essentially confirming the proposal made by scholars
such as DuBois and Drusilla Dungee Houston, two African American vindicationist
historians, who, in the early 1900s, wrote arguing that South Arabia was a part
of ancient Ethiopia.
Another landmark in the refutation
of the South Arabian paradigm comes from the Italian archaeologist, Rodolofo
Fattovitch, who linked the pre-Aksumite culture to Nubia, “especially to Kerma
influences, and later on to Meroe.” After more than three decades of extensive
research and publications, Fattovitch in 1996 made the following conclusion:
“The present evidence does not support the hypothesis of migration from Arabia
to Africa in late prehistoric times. On the contrary, it suggests that
Afro-Arabian cultures developed in both regions as a consequence of a strong
and continuous interaction among the local populations.” Recent archaeological
evidence from Asmara region also appeared to support the conclusion reached by
Fattovitch. “Archaeologists from Asmara University and University of Florida,
based on preliminary excavations in the vicinity of the Asmara, seemed to have
found an agricultural settlement dated to be 3,000 years old.”
Challenges of the External Paradigm
from Within
Among the Ethiopian scholars, Hailu
Habtu (1987) presents a very strong case against the external paradigm. As far
as Hailu is concerned, “the formulation of Ethiopian and other African
historiography by European scholars at times suffers from Afro-phobia and
Eurocentrism.” Hailu utilizes linguistic and historical linguistics evidence to
challenge the external paradigm. Most importantly, Hailu suggested a new
approach in the reading of the Ethiopian past by declaring the absence of
“Semito/Hamitic dichotomy in Ethiopian tradition.” Hailu cites the works of
Murtonen (1967) to question any significant linguistic connection between Ge’ez
and the languages of South Arabia. According to Murtonen, “Ancient South Arabic
is more closely related to northern Arabic and north-west Semitic rather than
Ethiopic.” He also cites Ethiopian sources, such as Kibra Nagast or the Glory
of Kings and Anqatsa Haimanot or the Gate of Faith.
Another Ethiopian historian who
challenged the external paradigm is Teshale Tibebu. Teshale (1992) poignantly
summarizes the argument as follows: “That Ethiopians are Semitic, and not
Negroid; civilized, and not barbaric; are all images of orientalist semiticism
in Western Social Science. Ethiopia is considered as the southwestern end of
the Semitic world in Africa. The Ethiopian is explained in superlative terms
because the ‘Negro’ is considered sub-human. That the heavy cloud of racism had
been deeply embedded in the triplicate4 intellectual division among Social
Sciences, orientalism, and anthropology – corresponding to Whites, ‘orientals’
(who included, Semitic people, who in turn included Ethiopians), and Negro and
native American ‘savages,’ respectively – is common knowledge nowadays. …
Ethiopians have always been treated as superior to the Negro but inferior to
the White in Ethiopianist Studies because of the racist nature of the
classification of the intellectual disciplines. It is quite revealing to see
that more is written on Ethiopia in the Journal of Semitic Studies than
in the Journal of African History.”
Perhaps the most persistent critique
of the external paradigm was the great Ethiopian Ge’ez scholar, Aleqa Asras
Yenesaw. Aleqa Asras categorically rejected the external paradigm as follows:
The notion that a Semitic fringe
from South Arabia brought the writing system to Ethiopia is a myth.
1. South Arabia as a source of
Ethiopian civilization is a political invention;
2. South Arabia was Ethiopian
emperors inscribed a part of Ethiopia and the inscriptions in South Arabia.
3. There is no such thing as Sabaen
script; it was a political invention designed to undermine Ethiopia’s place in world
history.
Paleontological Evidence Places the
Origin in Africa
Of course, Ethiopia in terms of
place and time emerged much earlier than the name itself. The formation of a
geographical feature called the Rift Valley predates in millions of years the word
Ethiopia. It was in the Rift Valley of northeast Africa, thanks to the openings
and cracks, that paleontologists have been able to unearth the earliest
human-like species. At least 5 million years of human evolution has taken place
before the naming of Ethiopia. Dinqnesh, Italdu, Garhi, ramidus or afarensis
are names assigned within the last thirty years, even if they predate Ethiopia
by a much longer time periods.
Ethiopia’s beginning, in
paleontological terms, was in what we now know as southern Ethiopia. The Afar
region is primal, for it is the cradle of human beings. The people of this
region may have experimented
I greeted Gandhi with a military salute and asked him: 'What are you going to do for Africa now that India is going to be free?'
