The alchemist
VIP
I think the issue with the Arabian tribal debate is that there were linguistic change, tribal-rule change, and fundamentally separate rule orientations for identity that we assume is exactly like today. So it might in fact be impossible to uncover a picture, by looking into the past. Unknown dynamic complexities of the ancient past are masked through an extant consistent diachronic picture that is limited in retrospective hindsight. The myth might be real, the linguistic picture might be real, they might seem contradictory and in reality, they might not be. We are missing tons of information and use the wrong assumptions for creating a coherent theoretical model so it is all a mess.
Me, I used to think that myths take a second stage. I think it is unwise to denounce the myth to superficial levels and they might be correct in ways we can't really grasp with our current limited understanding. I would have undervalued the myth stories 5 years ago. I think the two Arab tribes and Arabized tribes are in fact both Arabs too, in a deeper sense.
I don't know how the ancestors of prophet Ibrahim (AS) ended up in Mesopotamia but I have a theory which I am more convinced of now that the genesis of early Sumerians was heavily from peninsular Arab. Some of you guys might remember the random map outlining I did out of intuition from months back. Well, I recently checked things out and they are not at all far-fetched but laid upon heavy evidentiary ground:
The Sumerians had an origin myth that said they came from the sea. That has to be Arabia. When they arrived in southern Mesopotamia, they settled, and they probably had contact with the descendants of those Levantine Neolithic farmers that later pushed further south, and maybe some Zagrozian influence to a lesser degree (but more present way later).
In this way, I don't think it is far-fetched to think that the people were aware of their Arabian origins, furthermore, the prophet Ibrahim (AS) and his people were aware of their relations. To strengthen this, the prophet Ibrahim (AS) had Arabian ancestors that we know, Hud (AS), another prophet of Islam.
On a genetic plain, I claim the view that the Ubaid culture-holders, particularly the bulk of their ancestry, were from Arabia. The people then mixed cultures with the northern Mesopotamia that were descendants of farmers of a separate eastern fertile crescent origin.
These people knew of their origin. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, their ancestor was a man they later deified called Utunapishtim, who was from a place at that time called Dilmum, recognized as current Kuwait. To them, Dilmum was known as the land of immortality. Gilgamesh wanted to go back to his mythological progenitors' place of origin and find a source to an ever-lasting life, which he failed after doing the journey.
Her is an abstract showing a strong network of interaction:
Here is the conclusion from an archeological paper showing connections between Ubaid and Arabian Neolithic:
This substantiates my claims too. Strong archeological proof for the contact I outlined (good read):
www.cambridge.org
So when Isma'eel (AS) came as a baby to Arabia, it would be like if Somalis went into the diaspora and came back a thousand years later with their people still living there. They would be of the same people but re-introduced and re-assimilated. So Adnanites and Qahtanite should in theory be an older sibling group in the first place. To give an analogy, it's like saying Af-Maay speakers are Somalized -- when we both are Somali groups. True, af-Maxaa is dominant and so af-Maay speakers lean towards us more than we do toward them, but it is their common heritage, so it is not like their conforming to foreignness. Similarly, Qahanites were the Arabs that stayed in Arabia, and the Adnanites were likely acculturated towards them. But that does not mean Adnanites did not come from Arabia originally or were not related to Qahtanite in the ancient sense.
We're talking about a supra-regional complex interaction before Mesopotamia had scripts, ziggurats, and all the grandiose characteristics of the "first civilization." I also have a hunch that Sumerian is an old Arabian language. About 65% I speculate that it represented a language from pre-Semitic Arabia. Is it not so far-fetched if the proto-Sumerians had heavy Neolithic Arabian background? And you know the pastoralist people always have this linguistic dominance. Why not include the language too? Might as well, since pushing the envelope is interesting.
Me, I used to think that myths take a second stage. I think it is unwise to denounce the myth to superficial levels and they might be correct in ways we can't really grasp with our current limited understanding. I would have undervalued the myth stories 5 years ago. I think the two Arab tribes and Arabized tribes are in fact both Arabs too, in a deeper sense.
I don't know how the ancestors of prophet Ibrahim (AS) ended up in Mesopotamia but I have a theory which I am more convinced of now that the genesis of early Sumerians was heavily from peninsular Arab. Some of you guys might remember the random map outlining I did out of intuition from months back. Well, I recently checked things out and they are not at all far-fetched but laid upon heavy evidentiary ground:
The Sumerians had an origin myth that said they came from the sea. That has to be Arabia. When they arrived in southern Mesopotamia, they settled, and they probably had contact with the descendants of those Levantine Neolithic farmers that later pushed further south, and maybe some Zagrozian influence to a lesser degree (but more present way later).
In this way, I don't think it is far-fetched to think that the people were aware of their Arabian origins, furthermore, the prophet Ibrahim (AS) and his people were aware of their relations. To strengthen this, the prophet Ibrahim (AS) had Arabian ancestors that we know, Hud (AS), another prophet of Islam.
On a genetic plain, I claim the view that the Ubaid culture-holders, particularly the bulk of their ancestry, were from Arabia. The people then mixed cultures with the northern Mesopotamia that were descendants of farmers of a separate eastern fertile crescent origin.
These people knew of their origin. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, their ancestor was a man they later deified called Utunapishtim, who was from a place at that time called Dilmum, recognized as current Kuwait. To them, Dilmum was known as the land of immortality. Gilgamesh wanted to go back to his mythological progenitors' place of origin and find a source to an ever-lasting life, which he failed after doing the journey.
Her is an abstract showing a strong network of interaction:
Here is the conclusion from an archeological paper showing connections between Ubaid and Arabian Neolithic:
This substantiates my claims too. Strong archeological proof for the contact I outlined (good read):
Globalising Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic and the ‘Ubaid (Two) - Globalization in Prehistory
Globalization in Prehistory - October 2018
So when Isma'eel (AS) came as a baby to Arabia, it would be like if Somalis went into the diaspora and came back a thousand years later with their people still living there. They would be of the same people but re-introduced and re-assimilated. So Adnanites and Qahtanite should in theory be an older sibling group in the first place. To give an analogy, it's like saying Af-Maay speakers are Somalized -- when we both are Somali groups. True, af-Maxaa is dominant and so af-Maay speakers lean towards us more than we do toward them, but it is their common heritage, so it is not like their conforming to foreignness. Similarly, Qahanites were the Arabs that stayed in Arabia, and the Adnanites were likely acculturated towards them. But that does not mean Adnanites did not come from Arabia originally or were not related to Qahtanite in the ancient sense.
We're talking about a supra-regional complex interaction before Mesopotamia had scripts, ziggurats, and all the grandiose characteristics of the "first civilization." I also have a hunch that Sumerian is an old Arabian language. About 65% I speculate that it represented a language from pre-Semitic Arabia. Is it not so far-fetched if the proto-Sumerians had heavy Neolithic Arabian background? And you know the pastoralist people always have this linguistic dominance. Why not include the language too? Might as well, since pushing the envelope is interesting.
