[By Ayele Bekerie]:-
New York (Tadias) – The purpose of this essay is to
interrogate assumptions in the reading of our past and to suggest new
approaches in the construction of Ethiopian history.
I contend that the long history and
its resultant diversity have not been taken into consideration to document and
interpret a history of Ethiopia. In fact, what we regard as a history of
Ethiopia is mostly a history of
northern Ethiopia and their links to the
Arabian Peninsula. This is because historical narratives have been shaped by
external paradigms. The assumptions and interpretive schemes used to construct Ethiopian
history are extracted from experiences and traditions other than our own.
Almost all history texts begin from the premises that
the history and civilization of Ethiopia have had an external origin. It is also my contention that the centrality of the external paradigms in the interpretations of Ethiopian history has created a hierarchy of national identity (the civilized north vs. the pre-historic south) and culture (written vs. oral traditions) among the polity.
 |
| Stelae Park at Tiya, central Ethiopia. Statues of Inset Culture. (Photo by Ayele Bekerie) |
the history and civilization of Ethiopia have had an external origin. It is also my contention that the centrality of the external paradigms in the interpretations of Ethiopian history has created a hierarchy of national identity (the civilized north vs. the pre-historic south) and culture (written vs. oral traditions) among the polity.
The history of northern Ethiopia is regarded
by several writers as “superior” to the history of the rest of Ethiopia. The
history of the north, not only has been constructed to have a non-African
orientation, but also the historical values of its two major institutions: the
monarchy and the church are allowed to dominate. I argue that a history that is
constructed on the basis of external paradigms is divisive, neglects the South,
too monarcho-tewahedo centric, and privileges the North. Furthermore, the
external based history cannot even guarantee the unity among the northerners.
What are these external paradigms? Who are there authors? Why did they remain
so prevalent in our construction of Ethiopian history? What prevents from
pursuing an Ethiopia-centered (people-centered) interpretations and
construction of Ethiopian history?
It took a revolution to
fundamentally change our assumptions and interpretations. Languages, religions
and cultures are no longer presented in hierarchical forms. There are no
superior or inferior religious or linguistic traditions within the country.
This is not to suggest that equity in diversity has been achieved in the
country. But it is safe to say that the country is moving towards plurality and
unity in diversity.
In this paper, I will also attempt
to address these and related questions with the intent of searching and
developing internal paradigms rooted in the observed and narrated traditions of
the diverse and yet remarkably intertwined communities of cultures and
languages in the place we call Ethiopia.
One of the most persistent and most
pervasive themes in the Ethiopian history and historiography until very
recently was the theme of “the South Arabian or the South Semitic origin of the
major part of the Ethiopian civilization and culture, including its writing
system, its religion, its languages, agricultural practices and dynasties.”
According to this external paradigm, the history of the Ethiopian people begins
with the arrival and settlements of the “culturally superior” people from South
Arabia, the Greater Middle East, including Jerusalem, Syria, Mesopotamia, and
Lebanon. These ‘Semitic’ people supposedly brought with them to the highlands
of Ethiopia their languages and, most importantly, their writing system and
agricultural practices, such as terracing and ploughing. The external paradigms
are still pervasive and, despite the facts to the contrary, they continue to
distort the Ethiopian history.
In fact, the South Arabian origin of
Ethiopian history and civilization is so pervasive, almost all accountings of
Ethiopia are prefaced or began their introductory chapters by highlighting the
external factors. It is as if Ethiopia is fathered and mothered or at worst
adopted by guardians who came from elsewhere. It is a strategy that places
Ethiopia in a permanent state of dependency, from its emergence to the present.
As I argued before, what is the
logic of beginning a history of a people or a country from an external source?
It is my contention that a history of a people that begins with an external
source is quite problematic. It would not be the history of the Ethiopian
people, but the history of south Arabians in Ethiopia. Since history narrates
or records the material and cultures of all peoples, it is important that we
seek conceptions, construction and narration of the Ethiopian history from the
inside.
Ever since its conception by the
“father” of Ethiopian Studies, Hiob Ludolf (1624-1704CE) of Germany, in the
17th and 18th centuries of our era, the external paradigms became a kind of
scholarly tradition among both the Ethiopianists and the Ethiopian scholars.
Very few scholars have raised questions regarding the external origin of the
Ethiopian polity. Before I explore this assertion further, let me provide some
background information on the history of the term Ethiopia.
What is Ethiopia?
Ethiopia is a term by far the most
thoroughly referenced and widely recognized both in the ancient and the
contemporary world. It is a term associated with people, place, religions and
cultures unarguably from the continent of Africa, and to some extent Asia. In
fact, at one time, Ethiopia was almost synonymous with continental Africa. Only
Ancient Libya and Ancient Egypt were known or recognized as much as Ethiopia in
Africa. It is a term deeply explored by both ancient and contemporary writers,
theologians, historians, philosophers and poets. Ethiopia is known since
antiquity and, as a result, has been a source of legends and mythologies. All
the great books of antiquity made probing references to Ethiopia. The term,
etymologically speaking, has its origin in multiple sources.
Ethiopians insist that the term
originated from the word Ethiopis, who was one of the earlier kings of
Ethiopia. Ethiopians also point out that the term is a combination of Eth and
Yop, terms attributed to a king of Ethiopia who resided by the source of the
Blue Nile. There are also others who link the term with incense, thereby
tracing it to the land of incense.
Given these suppositions that are
primarily presented based on oral traditions, it is incumbent upon us to dig
deeper into our past, in order to come to terms with our Ethiopian identity. It
is interesting to note that the ancient historians had a better understanding
of the Ethiopian past and wrote profusely, from Homer to Herodotus, from
Siculus to Origen.
According to Snowden, “Aeschylus is
the first Greek to locate Ethiopians definitely in Africa.” ‘Io, according to
the prophecy of Prometheus, was to visit a distant country, and a black people,
who lived by the waters of the sun, where the Ethiopian river flowed, and was
to go to the cataract where the Nile sent forth its stream from the mountains.”
Snowden identifies Xenophanes as the
first to apply to Ethiopian physical characteristics that include flat-nosed
black-faced features. “Fifth-century dramatists wrote plays involving Ethiopian
myths, made references to Ethiopians, and included intriguing geographical
details such as snows in the Upper Nile which fed the waters of the Nile.”
Source: Tadias Magazine