Egypt-centrism and Diffusionism in west African historiography
Although Egyptian and African parallels had been noted for over two hundred years (De Brosses 176o; Bowdich 1821) it was only the present century that detected the hand of ancient Egypt behind every African ‘divine Kingship’, behind every African language with syllables superficially resembling ancient Egyptian ones, and behind every burial custom remotely paralleled in ancient Egypt.
This obsession came from those diffusionists who were so impressed by what they saw of ancient Egyptian civilization that they felt it must be the fount and origin of all civilizations; the ancient Egyptians were envisaged as explorers, missionaries, traders, colonists and rulers, bringing the enlightenment of ancient Egypt to a dark world (Smith 1915, 1933; Perry 1923). It is no coincidence that this particular theory of diffusionism emerged during the ascendancy of the French and British Empires in Africa, when western Europeans saw themselves as undertaking a ‘mission civilisatrice’ or what Kipling called ‘the white man’s burden’, of spreading enlightenment to what he called the ‘lesser breeds without the Law’ (Kipling 1940, 323, 329) rather as they pictured the ancient Egyptians having done; certain it is that this particular diffusionist theory greatly appealed to colonial administrators and others, who joined in the hunt for things Egyptian in the territories in which they worked (Delafosse 1900; Johnston 1913; Talbot 1926; Meek 1931; Seligman 1934; Palmer 1936; Wainwright 1949; Jeffreys 1949, 1950; Meyerowitz 1960).
In defence of the proponents of the theory of diffusion from Egypt one must remember that, when they were writing, archaeological knowledge about the other ancient civilizations of the Old World and about surrounding areas was scantier; chronology was much less securely based and it was not appreciated that the civilization of Sumer was older than that of Egypt.
It is somewhat ironic that the advocacy of Egyptian diffusionism on the part of colonial administrators was accompanied and followed by its enthusiastic espousal by African writers (Johnson 1921; Lucas 1948, 1970; Diop 1955, 1960, 1962; Biobaku 1955; Egharevba 1968, ɪ). These diffusionist arguments, however, have been pretty convincingly refuted (Westcott n.d.; Hodgkin n.d.; Parrinder 1956; Mauny 1960; Garnot 1961; Goody 1971, 19; Okediji 1972; Armstrong 1974). There are indeed a few stray pieces of evidence which suggest that sub-Saharan Africa was not completely cut off from Egypt and it behoves archaeologists to be aware of them and to evaluate them. But the emotional attraction of this idea has sometimes outweighed critical judgement and it dies hard (Diop 1973; Obenga 1973); ancient Egypt, which is part of Africa, had a great and glorious civilization, and it gives added lustre to African pride to trace cultural or even physical ancestry to that source.
What does not seem to have been noticed is that the desire to gain some reflected glory from the splendour that was ancient Egypt is almost a tacit admission that ancient Nigerian culture is lacking. But this is not the case; Nigeria has a great deal of ancient culture which arouses the interest and admiration of artists and scholars in all parts of the world. Nigeria possesses her own glories and needs no borrowed light from other cultures. Just as Britain no longer derives her cultural respectability and self-assurance from postulated connections with the Classical and Biblical worlds, so there is no need for Nigeria to try to do the same from supposed origins in ancient Egypt.
— Thurstan Shaw (1978). Nigeria: Its Archaeology and Early History. Introduction. Thames and Hudson. Quoted from Ụ́kpụ́rụ́
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 100,000 times in 2015. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 4 days for that many people to see it.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.
Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
In an article “Ice T Explains Why He Cherishes White Women Over Other Races”, the rapper-turned-actor offered his reasons for preferring white women. Among them was this one, #4:
White girls have WAY less restrictions in the bedroom than other races. You can basically do whatever, wherever with them. And they’ll smile through it all.
To this one commenter, “Darlene” clapped back, and damn near outed him:
And in the bedroom, well we prefer a classy persona but do not underestimate the intimacy we display under the sheets. If we do not want to be dogged out or allow your latent homosexual moves to destroy our anus that is our choice.
Islam was revealed in Arabic in the Arabian Peninsula, but what does it actually say about Arabs? What is their place in Islam and Islamic history? And does this apply to today’s modern musta’rab (Arabized people) or only to the original Arabs?
Arabs & Islamic Culture in Islamic History
Enmity to Islam
The first opponents of Islam were Arabs. They tortured and killed Muslims, even spearing a woman- Sumayya- in her vagina.
The people Muslims had to flee from, several times, were Arabs.
The first army Muslims fought was an army of Arabs.
The first munafiqeen (hypocrites) were Arabs. They pretended to be Muslims ready to fight with Prophet Muhammad, sAá&s, then betrayed him.
The first murtadeen- renegade apostates- and false prophets were Arabs.
Enmity to Prophet Muhammad, sAá&s, and His Family
Arabs tried to assassinate Prophet Muhammad, sAá&s, a grave sin of the Children of Israel condemned in the Qur-an…
Excerpted from “Jesus, the Black Prophet and the Ancient Black Hebrews of Israel”, by Wesley Muhammad, PhD
Discovered in 1997 by Jewish scientists, this paternal genetic marker (it is found on the Y-chromosome) has a high frequency among the Jewish (Askenazi and Sephardic) priesthood (Cohanim) and is thought to be a signature of ancient Hebrew ancestry. The haplotype (CMH) is indeed part of a haplogroup (Hg J) that originated in Black Arabia or Afrabia ca 30 kya (thousand years ago) and in high frequencies is believed to indicate “Semitism.”
While early reports, largely from Ashkenazi (white) Jewish writers, tended to portray this discovery as evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are truly Hebrew with a legitimate claim to the Holy Land, further genetic tests and reports demonstrated just the opposite.
Dark Secrets Revealed
There was a further “discovery” that the “purest” surviving remnant of the Children of Israel identified by CMH tests is the tribe of Black Jews in India, the Bene Israel and the Black Jews of Cochin, who show a genetic affinity not only to Ethiopians and Yemenis, but also to the tribe of Black Jews in South Africa, the Lemba, whose relation to the ancient Hebrews has also been confirmed by the presence of high frequencies of the CMH.
Other reports confirm that, though the CMH is found in high frequencies among the priestly class of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewry, this class only represents 4-10% of this Jewry. Most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews lack this signature and in fact have been shown to be genetically related, not to Semites, but to Gentiles: Kurds, Turks, East Europeans, etc.
Only about 15% of lay Ashkenaz and 12% of lay Sephardim possess this marker. The presence of this marker in non-priestly segments of the populations may be accounted for by gene flow from the Cohanim or priests.
Myth: Palestians and Israelis are Genetic Cousins
In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Cresent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors. Genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, North Italian and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups.
Ashkenazi & Sephardic Jews are NOT Semitic
The CMH clad belongs to the J haplogroup. J has two major derivative subclads associated with it: J1 and J2.
The CMH belongs to JI, which originated in Black Arabia and signals African Semitic ancestry.
J2, on the other hand, which is found among Ashkenazis at a frequency twice that of JI, has a characteristically non-Semitic European distribution and is believed to have originated from a mutation that occurred in the Aegean area! Because Jewish populations possess approximately twice as much J2 as they do J1, their ancestry more closely matches that of Turkish and Transcaucasian populations.
“North Africa”- populated by brown-skinned, wavy-haired “mulattos”/”Semites”
“Sub-Saharan”/”Black” Africa- populated by dark-skinned, “nappy”-haired “Negroids
From that one would assume the following pictures are from “Sub-Saharan Africa”:
In fact they are all from Algeria in northern Africa.
Dark-skinned people with tightly-coiled hair are native to ALL of Africa and many other places.
Pale-skinned Hordes Central Asian Hordes (The Emergence of “White” People)
Above: Scheme of Asiatic migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BCE. The magenta area corresponds to the assumed homeland . The red area corresponds to the area settled up to ca. 2500 BCE; the orange area to 1000 BCE. (wikipedia)
Pale or “white” North Africans are remnants of Asiatic steppe hordes who have made various incursions into Africa throughout history (Hyksos, Turkic, Germanic, etc.):
The Alans (1st Century BCE onwards):
The Germanics (of whom the Vandals were a branch)
The Ottoman Empire was an empire founded in 1299 by Oghuz Turks.
What Happened to the Central Asians in Africa?
The fate of these Asiatic hordes was to:
remain unmixed as separate ethnicities, or sub-tribes,
to intermarry with the native Africans, or
to become enslaved or trafficked by native Africans
Unmixed Descendants of Asiatic Hordes in North Africa:
Unmixed Native North Africans:
North African Nomads Displaying Mixed Asiatic-African Phenotypical Traits:
Mixed Asiatic-African North Africans, Asiatic Features Dominant:
Asiatic Women in North African Slave Market:
Some of those who intermarried or got enslaved by native north Africans eventually made it across the Sahara to “Sub-Saharan Africa”. This was in very small numbers of course, but not too small to leave a mark on the phenotype. This is part of the reason why some “Black” Africans have relatively light skin (golden brown instead of dark brown) and even more rarely have (relatively) straight hair and light eyes: these are recessive traits from Asiatic ancestors.
Those who would argue that an ancient “white”, “Caucasian” presence in Africa was as an invading master race are delusional. There were some invasions, but Asiatic movement in Africa was not as some “master race”. They were either isolated, assimilated, or subdued, and always a minority.
Lank hair, epicanthic fold (eyes), relatively light skin:
Naturally-born child with Asiatic features (Not Albino)
Possible Residual Recessive Asiatic Influence on Phenotype?
Fulani (Nomadic group)
The fact that these ‘full-blooded’ Africans resemble African-Americans and other African diasporans who are known to have mixed with Asiatics (known as “Europeans” after settling in western Asia “Europe”) is sufficient testimony to the fact that they may, too, have acquired Asiatic ancestry in Africa.
Africa has never been isolated. It wasn’t ‘discovered’ by anybody, certainly not “Europeans” who’d just discovered civilization from Moors (who were from Africa). That’s why the question is so complicated: many features commonly associated with Asians (western included) and not with Africans actually are African:
Epicanthic Eye Fold:
Tightly-coiled (“coarse”, “nappy”) hair is usually associated with dark skin, but the ‘nappiest’ hair is found on people with light skin!
Africans have been moving around the globe- and around Africa- forever. People have been moving into Africa forever. The place with the most diverse genotype will have the most diverse phenotype as well. “Non-African” features could have come from another part of Africa just as easily as a place outside it.
Abstract: The identity and origin of the historical Aryans need not be a mystery. However, disabusing oneself of misguided 18th-20th century racialist notions is necessary for reaching understanding. To do that, the author employs Aryan scriptures, and artifacts, non-Aryan historical accounts, and linguistics to locate, describe, and define the Aryans. The sources are not new, but a fresh analysis establishes surprising conclusions about heretofore unknown Aryan links to a broader ancient civilization.
WHERE DO ARYANS COME FROM?
According to their scriptures, the homeland of the Aryans was modern day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India.
Sixteen perfect lands created by Ahura Mazda, and as many plagues created by Angra Mainyu.
1: I have made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it
2: had I not made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it, then the whole living world would have invaded the Airyana Vaeja.
3: The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja, by the Vanguhi Daitya. (Avesta: Vendidad: Fargard 1)
The footnote to this translation states that
Airyanem Vaeja, Iran-Vej, is the holy land of Zoroastrianism: Zarathushtra was born and founded his religion there (Bund. 20.32; 32.3). From its name, ‘the Iranian seed,’ it seems to have been considered as the original seat of the Iranian race.
It has been generally supposed to belong to Eastern Iran, like the provinces which are enumerated after it, chiefly on account of the name of its river, the Vanguhi Daitya, which was in the Sassanian times (as Veh) the name of the Oxus.
But the Bundahish distinctly states that Iran-Vej is ‘bordering upon Adarbajan [Azerbaijan]‘ (29.12)… 
To settle the confusion of eastern versus northern Iranian plateau, we have Strabo, who in his Geography says that Eratosthenes so defined Ariana:
‘Ariana,’ he says, is bounded on the east by the Indus, on the south by the Great Sea, on the north by the Paropamisus and the succeeding chain of mountains as far as the Caspian Gates, on the west by the same limits by which the territory of the Parthians is separated from Media, and Carmania from Parætacene and Persia. (Strabo’s Geography)
In the Vedas, Aryavarta (Land of the Noble Ones) is extended as far as the Bay of Bengal:
The Manusmṛti (2.22) gives the name [Aryavarta] to “the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern Sea (Bay of Bengal) to the Western Sea (Arabian Sea)”.
Here are the combined Aryan Homelands, covering areas historically or currently known (from east to west) as Khorasan, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Sindh, Punjab, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal:
This, of course, brings the discussion to the opposing Out of India and Aryan Invasion/Migration theories, in short the debate over whether Aryans originated in Greater India, or came from the north.
If the Aryans were from somewhere else, they would have named that place Aryanem Vaeja or Arya Varta. This is critical. It defies logic to claim, or even think, that Aryans forsook the place of their origin for the place of their migration. Crucially, as mentioned above, one translation of Aryanem Vaeja is ‘Aryan seed’- alluding to birthplace or origin. No place outside of the mapped homelands has ever been named or thought of as an Aryan homeland, to the author’s knowledge.
Aryans did indeed migrate out of their homelands- most likely not as conquerors, but as people wielding “soft” power- cultural, spiritual and technological influence. As the more developed culture, their language(s), spiritual systems, and cultural mores dominated the new the new hybrid cultures they fostered by moving north. According to Indologist Giacomo Benedetti,
If there were ‘cultural ties’, they should have spoken a common language, and why not Indo-Iranian as in the later centuries, the same language of the names of the rivers and mountains of that region, when not substituted by Turkic words? Moreover, if we look at the textual traditions, in the Avesta we have the Airyas as a settled people, living on agriculture and stockbreeding, opposed to the Tuiryas (remained as Turanians in the Iranian tradition), who are nomads (but also bearing Iranian names), exactly the situation that we find in the late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age in Central Asia, with steppe pastoralists in contact with the settled agriculturists of a tradition of millennia of sedentary civilization, well reflected also in the Shahnameh of Firdusi. If the Aryans were the nomads from the steppe, the situation in the Avesta and Firdusi should be completely opposite. Not only, in the hymns of the Avesta (e.g. Yt. 5) the ancient Iranian heroes are often associated with mountains, including the progenitor Yima, who is described as offering a sacrifice on the Hukairya mountain, which is probably in Pamir. Whence came these traditions if they came from the northern flatlands? 
So, if we combine Iranian texts and archaeology, we suspect that the Aryans are actually the heirs of the Central-South Asian Neolithic tradition, and not of the steppe nomads, who normally are absorbed by the superior culture of the sedentary civilizations,
The contrast between the southern Aryan culture and that of the steppes- home of the Scythians, for example, who undeservedly show up in Aryan origin hypotheses- and who had the capacity to influence whom is clear in Benedetti’s analysis
“The steppe pastoralists in the Iron Age learned from the agriculturists: for instance, in the Tagisken mausoleums on the Syr Darya, they used bricks, obviously unknown in the steppes, but so typical of the southern civilization, since the Neolithic Mehrgarh in Baluchistan…” 
“Around 3800 BC in Baluchistan (where we find the technologically most advanced pottery tradition of Eastern Iran) appeared the earliest grey ware, which spread over the Indus plain but also westward to the whole of the Helmand valley, Bampur and Kerman.” 
The fact that there was trade with BMAC suggests that Bactria-Margiana merchants and metallurgists went north in search of metal sources and maybe of a better climate, in that period of aridification at the end of the third millennium, and started to colonize that region with their fortified settlements with their perpendicular streets, inner square and concentric walls 
The influences of the pastoralists of the steppe reached the south, but they did not bring a radical change, rather the steppe peoples were influenced by the farmers, as recognized by Askarov about the Iron Age in Transoxiana (op.cit., p.441): “The cultural and economic tradition of the advanced southern communities gradually permeated the stockbreeding population of the steppes.” 
Thus, it is clear that Aryans came from Aryan Vaeja- as Baluchistan, in modern southeast Iran-southwest Pakistan, along with the other areas mentioned, is squarely in the historical Aryan homelands- in addition to naming it after themselves. The elements of Aryan civilization (language, spirituality, symbology) found in the steppes, which later spread west, travelled upwards from Ariana, not the reverse.
Later migrations and diffusion, of peoples Aryan and Anaryans together, would spread languages to the uncivilized peoples of the steppe (whether in the steppe itself or to the places they themselves had migrated- west Asia a/k/a “Europe).
The Scythians are the historical Iranian speakers of the steppe. They should be seen not as the bearers of Indo-Iranian languages from the north to the south, but the opposite, as the nomadic pioneers of the Iranian languages (like the Tuiryas and Sairimas of the Avesta), who brought them up to Siberia in the east and Ukraine in the west.
A parallel scenario is the spread of Islam around the globe. Initially, majority Arab conquerors spread outwards from Arabia in all directions. Under their influence, diverse peoples adopted and modified the Arabic script, and added many Arabic words to their lexicon. They, of course, were not Arabs themselves, but they spread their new hybrid cultures further, including their script and vocabulary. While some people in these secondary and tertiary waves may have had some Arab ancestry, they would have been in the minority. Importantly, no one would ever think that any place but the Arabian peninsula is Arabia, and no one claims that Persians, Turks, East Africans and Malays are all Arabs, despite cultural, linguistic and (very sparse) genetic affinities.
With that, the question of Aryan diffusion is solved: a cultural empire spread out from the Iranian plateau and Indian sub-continent, civilizing and influencing the steppe nomads- who themselves were populating “Europe”- in its wake.
Who is Aryan Today?
Some people in the Aryan Homelands may have some Aryan blood.
The Aryan homelands covered a huge landmass in the middle of the world’s largest continent. It’s been invaded, occupied and ruled by Mongols (multiple times), Turkic peoples, and Arabs. The Iranian plateau in particular was inundated for centuries by “white” and other slaves . This would have added to and altered the local genotypes and phenotypes.
To complement that, people from the Aryan homelands have also migrated in many directions. While they would have influenced the genotypes and phenotypes there, theirs would have been influenced in return.
Saying that whoever is in the Aryan homelands now are direct, “pure-blooded” descendants of the Aryans, would be extremely difficult to prove. To even say that whoever speaks “Aryan” languages is Aryan, is also poor logic. No one claims that Senegalese are ethnically French just for speaking French, for example.
ARE “EUROPEANS” ARYAN?
Aside from random chance, West Asians “Europeans” do not descend from Aryans.
They either don’t know their origins, or are hiding them:
The desire to have ancestors as illustrious and grand as possible can be found with all European peoples.
The Romans believed their ancestors to origin from Troy.
The medieval Spanish aristocracy put emphasis on their superior Visigothic blood which not only made them different from their subjects but also put them above them.
The French continue to become chronic schizophrenics as soon as they are to decide whether they are descendants either of Vercingetorix and the Gauls (Celts) or of Charles The Great (Charlemagne) and the Franks (Teutons).
Some English seemingly not satisfied with their mix of Briton, Anglo-Saxonian, Viking and Norman predecessors still found it necessary to have one lost tribe of Israel driven to their coasts in order to make sure they have even older and religiously more important ancestors.
Now the Germans meant to see the roots of their own history in the changes caused by the very migration of the peoples that had caused the illustrious ancestors of their neighbors. Considering that even Tacitus mentioned that the Teutons were “of pure blood”, not at all mixed with other races and (therefore) authochtone, there seemed to be hardly any reason to doubt their Northern European origin.
When the Church needed a relation to the bible, Ashkenaz, one of Japhet’s grandsons, was found who discovered a way to Northern Europe and thus established the Teutons even within this frame. Especially during the time of Reformation one was proud to be different from the degenerated and corrupt Roman world. 
Essentially, they are inventing their origins as they go along. It is a peculiar habit of western Asian (“European”) culture that continues today. In academic discussions, such efforts should be seen as nothing other than absurd.
Under Christian influence, Europeans claimed biblical heritage. Soon, another group came from the heart of Asia- the steppes- and they, too, had a claim to biblical lineage. They were the Khazarian converts to Talmudic Judaism. (If you’ve noticed, most Ashkenazi Jews hail back to areas in or around the Eurasian steppes- the same location as Khazaria). The fact that they were racially similar, but culturally distant from these arriving Jews compounded the problem settled Europeans had had with Jews from pre-Christian days (Roman Empire). So they expelled them hundreds of times. And they looked for a new, non-Biblical heritage to attach themselves to:
Thinkers of the calibre of Goethe, Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner found in the Orient a system of philosophy and historiography that allowed them to abandon the unsatisfactory world view of Judeo-Christianity… Of course, in order to establish and strengthen the link between the Germans and the Orient, Hebrew had to be abandoned as the original language of humanity, to be replaced by Sanskrit, the language of classical Hinduism. 
The above quote illustrates the intentional to create a new identity- Aryan- to distance “Europeans” from Jews. It is the root of Aryan/”white” vs. Jew anti-semitism.
The premier Aryanist thinkers of the time eventually came to this realization, but too late:
By way of illustration, it may be pointed out in this connection that English is spoken at the present day by, among others, the Hong Kong Chinamen, the American Red Indians and negroes, by the natives of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, and the Scottish Highlands, besides the descendants of the ancient Britons, the Jutes, the Angles, the Saxons, the Norsemen, the Danes, and the Normans in England, but all these peoples cannot be classified in the racial sense simply as Englishmen. Similarly,the varied types of humanity who are Aryan in speech cannot all be regarded as representatives of the “Aryan race”, that is, if we accept the theory of an “Aryan race”, which Virchow, by the way, has characterized as “a pure fiction”. (author’s emphasis)
Max Müller in his closing years, faced this aspect of the problem frankly and courageously. “Aryas”, he wrote, “are those who speak Aryan languages, whatever their colour, whatever their blood. In calling them Aryas we predicate nothing of them except that the grammar of their language is Aryan. . . . I have declared again and again thatif I say Aryas, I mean neither blood, nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language.The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, and Slays. When I speak of these I commit myself to no anatomical characteristics.The blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, and Sla[v]s, and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say thateven the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. . . . To me an ethnologist who speaks of an Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.” (author’s emphasis)
Their voices, unfortunately do not echo down the halls of history as loudly as racialists like Churchill and Hitler whose pseudo-scientific “mashup” of Aryans and Nordics justified incalculable atrocities and theft worldwide.
Here are other proofs that West Asians (“Europeans”) were never Aryan:
Greece, and later Rome, were in constant contact and conflict with Iran, and, in the case of Alexander, India. Why didn’t they notice linguistic similarities then? Why didn’t they consider themselves brothers in Aryan-hood?
Ancient historians were aware of Aryans, yet did not consider themselves part of them. Even after Renaissance revival of Greek texts, the Europeans did not identify with Aryans for centuries.
No part of Europe or Russia was ever listed in the Aryan Homelands, not even by Europeans [Greco-Roman] historians.
In short, the term Aryan has never been, and should never be, applied to other branches of Indo-European people.
ARYANS WERE NOT NORDIC
There is even less basis for the conflation of Aryans and Nordics (blonde hair & blue eyes).
Our knowledge of these “Aryans” is sketchy, and there’s still a lot to be determined about them, both through anthropological and archaeological research. But we can be quite sure that they bore no direct relation to the modern inhabitants of Germany and Scandinavia. 
Another distinctive race has yet to be accounted for–the tall, fair, blue-eyed, long-headed Northerners, represented by the Scandinavians of the present day… How dark eyes became grey or blue, and dark hair red or sandy, is a problem yet to be solved.
The ancestors of this fair race are believed to have been originally distributed along thenorthern Eur-Asian plateaus; Keane’s blonde long-headed Chudes and the Wu-suns in ChineseTurkestanare classed as varieties of the ancient Northern stock. 
In short, Nordics (blond, blue-eyed) are not from the Aryan homeland. Only by coincidence did Nordicism and interest in the Aryans arise at the same time. It was a mistake to ever have merged them.
THEN WHAT WAS THE ARYAN RACE?
The Aryans did have what we now call a “race”, and we know what it is.
However before exploring that, it is important to remember that “race” (skin color, ethnicity) did not matter to the Aryans, and they were not a “master race”.
According to Rg Veda translator Kant Singh, “If you believe Grifﬁth’s or even Jamison and Brereton’s translation (Oxford Univ. Press,2014), the Rigveda is a racist document”. However, he goes on to argue, this is due to gross mistranslations that are so inaccurate they could only have been intentional.
He offers word-for-word translations and transliterations of relevant passages in his pivotal work “No Racism in the Rigveda”, available free online here.
Looking further into Aryan scripture, though, we do find some accurate information about their appearance.
DESCRIPTION IN HOLY SCRIPTURE
May thy hairs grow as reeds, may they cluster, black, about thy head! (Atharva Veda 6.137.2)
Brahmins have strong black hair (Atharva Veda 6.137.3) Let him [the Brahmin Priest] kindle the sacrificial fire while his hair is still black. (Dharma-Sutra 1:2)
And in the Avesta we read:
O Zarathushtra! let not that spell be shown to any one, except by the father to his son, or by the brother to his brother from the same womb, or by the Athravan to his pupil inblack hair, devoted to the good law, who, devoted to the good law, holy and brave, stills all the Drujes. (Khordha Avesta.Yashts.4.10)
Hair that is “strong”, “black” and “grows [i.e. unaided] as reeds”:
Hair that is “strong”, “black” and “as reeds” ‘clustered’ “about the head”:
Linguists have also done much to ascertain the origin of the earliest inhabitants of Aryan homelands.
Most Congolese (Bantu) languages have an a-prefix (or augment) attached to past verbal forms:
Kele a-lembe-ke “loved”
Poto a-kala-ka “loved”
Ngala a-jinga-ka ”loved”
Kongo a-tond-ele ”loved” etc.
The augment is thought by Torrend (1891 : 237) to be a reduced form of the verb ya “go”.This feature is quite unusual and very significant. We assume Bantu has preserved a very ancient Niger-Congo characteristic here. The suffix -ke, -ka often cooccurs with this prefix.
Now Greek, an Indo-European language, preserves this augment as do various other Indo-European languages (Meillet 1950 : 97)
Sanskrit a-bharat “he carried”
Old Persian a-bara “he was bringing”,
We know that there were once Niger-Congo languages in Iran from the evidence of place names (I-ran, compare I-raq), perhaps also in western India (Pakistan). Iran is nearer to Africa, and like India, has a prominent river system. The early Africans originally travelled by boat.
So Indo-Iranian, … appear to constitute a subgroup within Indo-European, which has Niger-Congo characteristics. This subgroup extends from Greece in the west to India in the east.
Recent linguistic discovery tends to show that a Cushite or Ethiopian race did in the earliest times extend itself along the shores of the Southern Ocean from Abyssinia to India… it extended from the Indus along the seacoast through the modern Beluchistan and Kerman, which was the proper country of the Asiatic Ethiopians 
THE ARYAN “RACE”
AS DESCRIBED BY HISTORIANS
The above linguistic findings, and the Ethiopian connection they begin to establish, are corroborated by the claims of historians about the ancient inhabitants of the Aryan Homelands: that they were part of a vast religious and cultural empire, the worldwide cultural sphere known in antiquity as Ethiopia.
Classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans. 
“Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and IndiaEthiopians.”
Herodotus wrote in his celebrated History that both the Western Ethiopians, who lived in Africa, and the Eastern Ethiopians who dwelled in India, were black in complexion…
The vestiges of this early civilization have been found in Nubia, the Egyptian Sudan, West Africa, Egypt, Mashonaland, India, Persia,
in ancient times Southern Asia had a Negro population ranging from the Persian Gulf to Indo-China and the Malay Archipelago.
SPIRITUAL EMPIRE & Legacy
The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (572–480 B.C.), pointed out a profound truth when he observed that the gods men worship very closely resemble the worshippers. In the words of this ancient sage: “Each man represents the gods as he himself is. The Ethiopian as black and flat-nosed the Thracian as red-haired and blue-eyed; and if horses and oxen could paint, they would no doubt depict the gods as horses and oxen.” This being the case; when we find the great nations of the world, both past and present, worshipping black gods, then we logically conclude that these peoples are either members of the black race, or that they originally received their religion in toto or in part from black people. The proofs are abundant. The ancient gods of India are shown with Ethiopian crowns on their heads…
A study of the images of ancient deities of both the Old and New Worlds reveal their Ethiopic origin. Most of these black gods were regarded as crucified saviors who died to save mankind by being nailed to a cross, or tied to a tree with arms outstretched as if on a cross, or slain violently in some other manner. Of these crucified saviors, the most prominent were Osiris and Horus of Egypt, Krishna of India,Mithra of Persia
Whatever the Aryan thoughts, if any, about “race”, by today’s standards they had one. Because “race” in general, and the “race” of the Aryans in particular, has become such a controversial and dogmatic issue in our time, and not to start a new dogma about “the” Aryan “race”, pictures are provided below of how some Aryans chose to depict themselves.
MONUMENTS AND RELIEFS
“I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds … an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage.” (Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e Rostam)
These, of course, corroborate the hair texture and color given in the scriptural descriptions of Aryans, as well as the connection of the Aryan Homelands to Ethiopian civilization.
Aryan was a race, but at a time when race was not defined by ethnic relatedness, instead it was by qualitative similarity. Aryans were people who shared and lived by the same ideals- noble ideals- not who came from the same family. The very word itself denotes not a place or a family or color, but a value, a code, a standard of conduct.
Aryan, 1601, as a term in classical history, from L.Ariana, from Gk.Arianame applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt.Arya-s“noble, honorable, respectable… originally originally “belonging to the hospitable,” from arya-s “lord, hospitable lord,” originally “protecting the stranger,” from ari-s “stranger.” Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam).”
This is the true Aryan concept- not that of a certain ethnicity or phenotype, but of a noble way of life:
arya/årya does not mean a particular ”people” or even a particular ‘racial’ group but all those who had joined the tribes speaking Vedic Sanskrit and adhering to their cultural norms (such as ritual, poetry, etc.) — as has been underlined for decades. 
It cannot be better stated than the words of Dr. N. S. Rajaram, who says
The word ‘Arya’ in Sanskrit means noble and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition:
mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah
An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct
And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as:
arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah
Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone.
The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:
praja arya jyotiragrah … (Children of Arya are led by light)
RV, VII. 33.17
The word ‘light’ should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya,according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or theManusmriti (X.43-45):
But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants – the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas.
Two points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold had nothing to do with race, birth or nationality; it was due entirely to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people from the southwest of India and the South.
Thus, the modern notion of an Aryan-Dravidian racial divide is contradicted by ancient records. We have it on the authority of Manu that the Dravidians were also part of the Aryan fold. Interestingly, so were the Chinese. Race never had anything to do with it until the Europeans adopted the ancient word to give expression to their nationalistic and other aspirations. 
If, still, a case is to be made on phenotypical similarity, then let the reader take bona fide Aryan artifacts, and not modern fantasy art, as a guide.
“Every king springs from a race of slaves, and every slave had kings among his ancestors.” -Plato
It is reported that the Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) said, (In a dream) I saw myself following a herd of black sheep. Then a group of white sheep came (and mixed with the black sheep) until they (the white sheep) became so many that the black sheep could no longer be seen in the herd of sheep.” Abu Bakr, the companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and the interpreter of dreams, said, “Oh Messenger of Allah. As for the black sheep, they are the Arabs. They will accept Islam and become many. The white sheep are the non-Arab Persians, etc. They will accept Islam and become so many that the Arabs will not be noticed amongst them.” The Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) then said that an angel had interpreted the dream the same way.
Zaid ibn Aslam related that the prophet (SAWS) saw a vision and told his companions about it. He said, “I saw a group of black sheep and a group of white sheep then mixed with the black sheep. I interpreted it to mean that the non-Arab Persians will enter Islam and then share with you your genealogy and your wealth.” The companions became surprised by what he (SAWS) said. Then one said, “The non-Arab Persians will enter our land, Oh Messenger of Allah?!” The Prophet (SAWS) then said, “Yes. By He Who Has my soul in His Hand, if the religion was hanging on the distant star, men from the non-Arab Persians would reach it and the luckiest of them would be the people of Faris.
Do the above narrations and interpretations really prophecy a change in the phenotype (physical appearance) of the people of Arabia? Do they really imply that today’s Arabs are a foreign people who have overwhelmed the original populace?
Historians seem to think so:
Bertram Thomas, historian and former Prime Minister of Muscat and Oman, reported in his work ‘The Arabs’:
“The original inhabitants of Arabia…were not the familiar Arabs of our time but a very much darker people. A proto-negroid belt of mankind stretched across the ancient world from Africa to Malaya. This belt…(gave) rise to the Hamitic peoples of Africa, to the Dravidian peoples of India, and to an intermediate dark people inhabiting the Arabian peninsula. In the course of time two big migrations of fair-skinned peoples came from the north…to break through and transform the dark belt of man beyond India (and) to drive a wedge between India and Africa…The more virile invaders overcame the dark-skinned peoples, absorbing most of them, driving others southwards…The cultural condition of the newcomers is unknown. It is unlikely that they were more than wild hordes of adventurous hunters.”
the first certain fact on which to base our investigations is the ancient and undoubted division of the Arab race into two branches, the ‘Arab’ or pure; and the ‘Mostareb’ or adscititions…
A second fact is, that everything in pro-Islamitic literature and record…concurs in representing the first settlement of the ‘pure’ Arabs as made on the extreme south-western point of the peninsula, near Aden, and then spreading northward and eastward…
A third is the name Himyar, or ‘dusky’…a circumstance pointing, like the former, to African origin.
A fourth is the Himyaritic language…(The preserved words) are African in character, often in identity. Indeed, the dialect commonly used along the south-eastern coast hardly differs from that used by the (Somali) Africans on the opposite shore…
Fifthly, it is remarkable that where the grammar of the Arabic, now spoken by the ‘pure’ Arabs, differs from that of the north, it approaches to or coincides with the Abyssinian…
Sixthly, the pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces-its monarchies, courts, armies, and serfs-bear a marked resemblance to the historical Africao-Egyptian type, even to modern Abyssinian.
Seventhly, the physical conformation of the pure-blooded Arab inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and the adjoining districts-the shape and size of head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, the comparative scantiness of hair, and other particulars-point in an African rather than an Asiatic direction.
Eighthly, the general habits of the people,-given to sedentary rather than nomad occupations, fond of village life, of society, of dance and music; good cultivators of the soil, tolerable traders, moderate artisans, but averse to pastoral pursuits-have much more in common with those of the inhabitants of the African than with those of the western Asiatic continent.
Lastly, the extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races; the fecundity of such unions; and the slightness or even absence of any caste feeling between the dusky ‘pure’ Arab and the still darker native of modern Africa…may be regarded as pointing in the direction of a community of origin.”
The dark-skinned South Arabian today is short and “extremely round-headed (brachycephalic)” but he was no doubt originally much taller and dolichocephalic (long-headed) like the so-called Hamites of East Africa.
In the 13th century CE the Muslim traveler Ibn al-Mujāwir described the Mahra as “tall, handsome folk” in his Tārīkh al-mustabsir, 271.1.17 and early pre-Christian skulls found in Hadramawt were markedly dolichocephalic.
It has been suggested that the ‘definite change’ in the racial constitution of the people of Hadramawt resulted from the invasion and inbreeding of brachycephalic whites such as Armenoids or Persians.
Henry Field suggested that Arabia’s current ethnography is the result of the mixing of two distinct basal stocks: The dolichocephalic (long-headed), dark-skinned Mediteranean/Eur-African and the brachycephalic (round-headed) fair-skinned Armenoid. See his “Ancient and Modern Inhabitants of Arabia,” The Open Court 46 (1932): 854 [art.=847-869].
These findings are corroborated by Persian sources describing their first impression of their Arab Muslim conquerors.
“When Fredon (mythical hero) came, they (the black people) fled from the lands of Iran and settled on the coast of the sea. Now, through the invasion of the Arabs, they (the Zing-i-Siak posht (i.e. the black skinned negroes)) are again diffused through the country of Iran.”
[Note: in these last sentences allusion is made to the Blackness of both the original inhabitants of Iran, and of the Arabs.]
You’re saying that the real Arabs are Black?! What do these historians know anyway? They’re not Arab or Muslim. They’re colonialists and Orientalists out to distort Islamic history.
True. Who better to ask than the Arabs themselves? How did the Arab historians, grammarians, linguists and pre-Islamic poets describe themselves? Let’s see:
“Red (al-hamra’) refers to non-Arabs due to their fair complexion which predominates amongthem. And the Arabs used to say about the non-Arabs with whom white skin was characteristic, such as the Romans, Persians, and their neighbors: ‘They are red-skinned (al-hamra’)…” al-hamra’ means the Persians and Romans…And the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves.”
Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition, claimed: “The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-ḥumra waal-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”
Lisan El-Arab (an old Arabic dictionary) mentions Shamar’s explanation of the hadiths that say that the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) said that he was sent to the blacks and the reds. Shamar explains the hadiths as follows:
قال شمر: يعنـي العرب والعجم والغالب علـى أَلوان العرب السُّمرة والأُدْمَة وعلـى أَلوان العجمالبـياض والـحمرة،
“He means (by the blacks and the reds) the Arabs and the non-Arabs and the complexion of most Arabs is brown and jet-black and the complexion of most non-Arabs is white and red.”
Shams El-Din Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Othman El-Dhahabi (died1374 A.D.) explains the hadith that mentions that a man was “red-skinned as if he was one of the slaves” as follows:
يريد ألقائل أنه في لون ألموالي ألذين سبوا من نصارى ألشام وألروم و ألعجم
“The speaker means that the man was the color of the slaves who were captured from the Christians of Syria and from the Romans and the Persians.”
Thus, it was common for the Arabs of the past to describe a light-skinned person as having the color of the slaves. This is a known fact. Ibn Mandhor (1232-1311 A.D.) says in his book Lisan El-Arab:
سبوطة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العجم من الروم والفرس. و جُعودة الشعر هي الغالبة علـى شعور العرب
“Non-kinky hair is the kind of hair that most non-Arabs like the Romans and Persians have while kinky hair is the kind of hair that most Arabs have.”
The Arabs of the past also used the word green to mean black. El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba El-Lahabi said:
وأَنا الأَخْضَرُ، من يَعْرِفُنـي؟أَخْضَرُ الـجِلْدَةِ فـي بـيتِ العَرَبْ
I am the green one. Who knows me?My skin is green. I am from the family of the Arabs.
Ibn Mandhor, the author of Lisan El-Arab says this about the verse:
يقول: أَنا خالص لأَن أَلوان العرب السمرة
“He says that he is a pure Arab because the color of the Arabs is brown (dark).”
In Lisan El-Arab, Ibn Mandhor also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying the following about the verse:
فـي هذا البـيت قولان: أَحدهما أَنه أَراد أَسود الـجلدة؛ قال: قاله أَبو طالب النـحوي، وقـيل: أَراد أَنه من خالص العرب وصميمهم لأَن الغالب علـى أَلوان العرب الأُدْمَةُ،
“There are two sayings about this verse. One is that he meant that he had black skin. This is what Abu Talib El-Nahwi said. It is also said that he meant that he is a pure unmixed Arab because most Arabs are black-skinned.”
Abdella ibn Berry (1106-1187 A.D.), the “King of the Grammarians” as he was called, said the following about the verse:
قال ابن بري: نسب الـجوهري هذا البـيت للهبـي، وهو الفضل بن العباس بن عُتْبَةَ بن أَبـي لَهَبٍ، وأَراد بالـخضرة سمرة لونه، وإِنما يريد بذلك خـلوص نسبه وأَنه عربـي مـحض، لأَن العرب تصف أَلوانها بالسواد وتصف أَلوان العجم بالـحمرة. وفـي الـحديث: بُعثت إِلـى الأَحمر والأَسود؛ وهذا الـمعنى بعينه هو الذي أَراده مسكين الدارمي فـي قولهأَنا مسكِينٌ لـمن يَعْرِفُنـي،لَوْنِـي السُّمْرَةُ أَلوانُ العَرَبْ
“El-Jawhari attributed this verse to El-Lahabi and he is El-Fadl ibn El-Abbas ibn ‘Utba ibn Abi Lahab and he meant by green the brownness (darkness) of his complexion and he meant by that the purity of his genealogy and that he was an unmixed Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arabs as red. Like the hadith says, ‘I was sent to the red and the black. And this is exactly what Miskeen El-Darimi meant when he said:‘I am Miskeen, for those who know me.My color is brown (dark), the color of the Arabs’”.
“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was ‘white’, they meant that the person was honorable. They weren’t talking about his/her complexion. When they (the Arabs) said that a man or a woman was ‘red’, they meant that his/her complexion was white.
The famous, old Arabic dictionary Lisan El Arab also quotes the author of El-Tahdhib, Saad El-Din Masud ibn Umar El-Taftaazaani (1312-1389 A.D.) as saying:
التهذيب: إِذا قالت العرب فلان أَبْـيَضُ وفلانة بَـيْضاء فالـمعنى نَقاء العِرْض من الدنَس والعيوب… لا يريدون به بَـياضَ اللون ولكنهم يريدون الـمدح بالكرم ونَقاءِ العِرْض من العيوب، وإِذا قالوا: فلان أَبْـيَض الوجه وفلانة بَـيْضاءُ الوجه أَرادوا نقاءَ اللون من الكَلَفِ والسوادِ الشائن
“When the Arabs said that a man or a woman was white, they meant that the person had a faultless honor…they didn’t mean white skin. What they meant by this was to praise the person for his/her generosity and faultless honor. When they said that a man or woman had a white face, they meant that the person had a complexion free of blemishes and free of an unattractive blackness.”
Whatever. If the original Arabs were black, then how do you explain the predominance of light brown and white Arabs of today?
There are different ways that non-Arabs changed the dark-skinned, Negroid/Dravidian appearance of Arabia and the Middle East:
1. Intermarriage between non-Arab converts and slaves with Arabs.
“increasing intermarriage (between Arabs and non-Arabs) served to submerge the original distinctions, and increasing numbers of the conquered, having adopted the religion and language of the conquerors, took to assuming the identity as if Arabs themselves” (Segal 2001:22)
“In one important way … (the second caliph) Omar was unable to prevent the Moslems from mingling with the subject peoples … Since they were forbidden to own land, they used their wealth (from booty) chiefly to buy women … All the children born of these unions – and there were many thousands of them – called themselves Arabs, in order to identify with the ruling class. When they grew up and married, their offspring in turn called themselves Arabs. Thus it came about that the people of the Moslem world, many of them without a drop of Arab blood in their veins, became known as Arabs.”Such ‘conversion to Arabism’ is illustrated by the words of the Iranian poet Bashshar b. Barb (d. 783-4), who responded to the caliph al-Mahdi’s question, “Of whom do you reckon yourself, Bashshar”: “As for my language and dress, they are Arab; but as for my origin, it is non-Arab (ajam.)”” (Suskind 1972:37)
Ninth century poet Abu Al-Hasan Ali ibn Al-Abbas ibn Jurayj, known as Ibn Al-Rumi, wrote a long poem to the Abbasids blaming them for the way that they treated the family of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). It should be understood that at that time, the Abbasids had become very mixed with the Romans, Greeks, and Persians. Here is part of what Ibn Al-Rumi said in his famous poem called Al-Jeemia:
“You insulted them (the family of the Prophet Mohamed) because of their blackness while there are still pure-blooded black-skinned Arabs. However, you are blue (eyed) – the Romans have embellished your faces with their color.”
2. Assimilation (Arabization) and Empowerment of Non-Arabs
In the passage quoted below al-Maqrīzī discusses the influence on Islamic tradition of the Abbasid caliph al-Maʿmūn (reigned 813-833) and his successors al-Muʿtaṣim (r. 833-842), al-Mutawakkil (r. 847-861) and al-Mustaʿīn (r. 862-866).
“This fellow al-Maʿmūn …left one of the worst possible reputations in the whole history of Islam. This arose from the fact that he had books on philosophy translated into Arabic, to such a pitch that heretics and deviationists used them to pervert Islam and to trick the Muslims…He removed from the pay-registers the Arabs, the Messenger of God’s people, the race through whose agency God had established the religion of Islam…In their place, he relied on the Turks. He abandoned Arab dress and clothing, put a crown on his head and wore the dress of the Persians, that race which God had sent his prophet Muhammad to slay and to combat. With al-Muʿtaṣim, and through his deliberate agency, the rule of the Arabs came to an end; henceforth, during his reign and under his political regime, the Turks, upon whom the Messenger of God vowed to make war, assumed power. After him, they (viz. the Turks) secured an ascendency in all the lands. God gave the Turks dominion over al-Muʿtaṣim’s son, Jaʿfar al-Mutawakkil, so that they eventually murdered him. They also murdered al-Muʿtaṣim’s grandson, Aḥmad al-Mustaʿīn. They treated the religion of God as a plaything and established a reign of terror throughout all the provinces of the caliphate.”
Slave girls were favored as concubines, and certain of the wives of ʿAbbasid caliphs who gave birth to princes and future caliphs, being of the status of omm walad,are mentioned as being Iranian, e.g., Marājel, the concubine of Hārūn-al-Rašīd, said to be from Bāḏḡīs in northwestern Afghanistan, and the mother of the future caliph al-Maʾmūn, born in 170/787, and also Māreda, born in Kūfa but of Sogdian stock, slave of Hārūn al-Rašīd, who bore him the future caliph al-Moʿtaṣem, born in 179/795 or 180/796.
3. The changes the last two brought are minor in comparison to the next one. And this one’s going to be a huge shocker, because it’s a bit of covered-up history:
There was a massive white slave trade between Europe, Central Asia and the Middle that lasted over 1,000 years. This brought an enormous number of white Western and Eastern Europeans into the Middle East.
(The focus on African slaves in Arabia only came after access to white slave trade routes was lost.)
“In the Viking era starting c. 793, the Norse raiders often captured and enslaved militarily weaker peoples they encountered. In the Nordic countries the slaves were called thralls (Old Norse: þræll) The thralls were mostly from Western Europe [i.e. Far West Asia], among them many Franks, Anglo-Saxons and Celts… There is evidence of German, Baltic, Slavic and Latin slaves as well. The slave trade was one of the pillars of Norse commerce during the 6th through 11th centuries.”
“Slavery during the Early Middle Ages had several distinct sources. The Vikings raided across Europe, though their slave raids were the most destructive in the British Isles and Eastern Europe. While the Vikings kept some slaves for themselves as servants, known as thralls, most people captured by the Vikings would be sold on the Byzantine or Islamic markets. In the West the targets of Viking slavery were primarily English, Irish, and Scottish, while in the East they were mainly Slavs. The Viking slave trade slowly ended in the 1000s…”
“The Middle Ages form 1100 to 1500 saw a continuation of the European Slave trade, though with a shift form the Western Mediterranean Islamic nations (Andalusian Spain, modern day Morocco) to the Eastern, as Venice and Genoa, in firm control of the Eastern Mediterranean from the 12th century and the Black Sea from the 13th century sold both Slavic and Baltic slaves, as well as Georgians, Turks and other ethnic groups of the Black Sea and Caucasus, to the Muslim nations of the Middle East. The sale of European slaves by Europeans slowly ended as the Slavic and Baltic ethnic groups Christianized by the Late Middle Ages. European slaves in the Islamic World would, however, continue into the Modern time period as Muslim pirates, primarily Algerians, with the support of the Ottoman Empire, raided European coasts and shipping form the 16th to the 19th centuries…”
“Genoese merchants organized the slave trade from the Crimea to Mamluk Egypt.”
“For a long time [from declaring independence in1441] until the early 18th century, the [Crimean] khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. In a process called the “harvesting of the steppe”, they enslaved many Slavic peasants.”
“The Byzantine-Ottoman wars [in or near modern Turkey] and the Ottoman wars in Europe brought large numbers of Christian slaves into the Islamic world too.”
Asaolu, Richard Oluseyi. Slavery. PediaPress. pp 4-7. http://books.google.com.sa/books?id=YTXuW0zptegC&dq=Asaolu,+Richard+Oluseyi+slavery&source=gbs_navlinks_s
In early Islamic times, parts of [Arab-ruled] Iran itself remained unislamized, and these infidel regions could be raided for slaves. This was the case with Daylam in northwestern Iran up to the time of the appearance there of the ʿAlid dāʿī Ḥasan b. Zayd b. Moḥammad (second half of the 3rd/9th century); while slaves were captured from the mountainous region of Ḡūr in central Afghanistan, a pagan enclave there till the early Ghaznavid period.
Slaves came into the Iranian world as captives of war from the Arab campaigns in the Caucasus against the Ḵazars and from the campaigns in central Asia against the local Iranian peoples and the Turks of the steppes beyond, from the end of the lst/7th century onward. Thus Naršaḵī mentions how in 87/706 the Arab governor Qotayba b. Moslem slew all the males in the town of Baykand in Sogdia and enslaved all the women and children.
From early in the Abbasid period the caliphs instituted a tradition of forming army contingents composed of slaves, mostly taken as captives in the course of frontier wars and raids into Central Asia, the Caucasus, and India, among other regions. There were also slave markets where young male slaves, along with female ones, captured as booty or procured by other means, were sold. The preferred slaves were Turkic ones, admired for their handsome features, their valor, and their martial gifts. The Samanids, who originated from Sogdiana and were neighbors to the Turkic khanates of Central Asia, adopted the practice of enlisting slaves in their army—a practice which continued under the succeeding dynasties, chiefly the Ghaznavids, the Seljuks, and theKʷārazmšāhs.
[Note: The Abbasids ruled Arabia, Iraq, the Levant (Sham) and North Africa for 500 years, from 750 to 1258. The Seljuks ruled Oman, and parts Iraq and the Levant from 1037-1194.]
The love poetry of these periods is generally addressed to such adolescent soldiers or pages. That these Turks were ‘white’ or pale-skinned is made clear in these poems:
They are of musky facial hair, sweet of speech, with perfumed tresses / Silver-bodied, gold-girded, and narrow-waisted( Kāfi Ẓafar of Hamadān, cited by ʿAwfi in his Lobāb al-albāb (pp. 210-13))
I love silver-bodied, ruby-lipped children. / Wherever you see one of them, call me there (Farroḵi, Divān, p. 5).
O beautifully clad child, silver-bodied and ruby-lipped, / the substance of charm and gaiety, envious houries in pain from you! (Anvari, apud Šamisā, p. 80).
Attar (ʿAṭṭār [d. 1221] uses in his ghazals, which vibrate with profound and passionate, amorous feelings, the imagery developed by earlier poets: he sings of the beloved’s moon-like face, ruby lips, narrow, hair-like waist, cypress-like figure, the lasso of the beloved’s tresses, the chain of his curls…
Of course there were slaves of other origins as well, e.g., Indian and Slav (generally termed bolḡār “Bulgarian,” known for their fair skin).
The Seljuk Turks ruled parts of Iraq and the Levant from 1037-1194. The settlement of Turkic tribes in the northwestern peripheral parts of the empire, for the strategic military purpose of fending off invasions from neighboring states, led to the progressive Turkicization of those areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuks
The Oghuz Turkic Zangids ruled the Levant from 1127-1250.
The Kurdish Ayyubids ruled the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa from 1171-1341.
The Mamluk Sultanate ruled the western Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Libya from 1250-1517. The sultanate’s ruling caste was composed of Mamluks- soldiers of predominantly Kipchak Turk, Cumans, Circassian, and Georgian slave origin. By the late fourteenth century, Circassians from the North Caucasus region had become the majority in the Mamluk ranks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk_Sultanate_(Cairo)
On top of being “white”, all of these dynasties, and the many others not mentioned here, were involved in trading and capturing white slaves, in addition to settlement of peoples of their respective ethnicities. Who can doubt the enormous changes this would have brought to the phenotype and color of these Arab lands? And as all of these people would be in some degree Arabized (particularly in language) they are now known as Arabs.
Thus it seems that the Black & White Sheep” Prophecy would indeed come to pass, and that it was a reference to skin color and phenotype.
The view of the ancient Arabs holds true today: visible European features or ancestry is a sign of foreign, slave ancestry.
This shouldn’t be a problem. African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans and Afro-Latinos openly acknowledge slave ancestry as an explanation of their presence in the Americas, and they are expected to. Why shouldn’t white and light-skinned Arabs feel comfortable doing the same? Why shouldn’t they be expected to? Why not anybody?