THE REAL story about YEKUNO AMLAK

A writer Okbazghi Yohannes say that: The first Amhara king known to history is Yekuno amlak, who overthrew the Zagwe dynasty in 1270. Yekuno Amlak proclaimed himself after he killed the last Zagwe king, who had taken refuge in church. The Amharic version of the matter is, however, different. The legend states that the Zagwe king voluntarily transferred power to the “legal” owner of the throne through the mediation of a certain monk, Tekle Haimanot. According to the legend of Zagwe period of was a temporary interruption of the solomonic line so that the enthronement of Yekuno Amlak represented the restoration of solomonic dynasty created by Menelik I, son of Solomon and the queen of Sheba of Axum Makeda.
The significant of this Amharic legend lies not only on Yekuno Amlak use of it to justify his claim as a “rightful” heir to the trone but also in its frequent usage by subsequent amhara rulers of the same purpose. In fact even the well-known Ethiopian historian Tadesse Tamrat contends that the Zagwe period represented the countinuity rather than interruption of the axumite political order. There are 6 factors the militate against the Amharic legend, however.
FIRST: The territory that Yekuno Amlak inherited from the Zagwe rulers was limited to the province of Lasta and to amhara inhabited region. Although little is known about the fate of other people in the vicinity of Lasta, part of Eritrea was still under beja confederacy at the time.
SECOND: The six and the a half centuries that elapsed between the final collapse of Axum and the emergence of Abyssinia in 1270 were marked by cyclical pattern of withdrawals and supersessions of one group people to another. It is hardly possible even the conjecture that the axumites would survive as a state controlled by people other than themselves.
THIRD: Yekuno Amlak’s immediate action in sending an envoy to Egypt to solicit the assistance of egyptian sultan in obtaining a Coptic bishop for Abyssinia is a good indicator that he was badly in need of the church’s support in establishing his authority.
FOURTH: The conflict that ensued between tigraians and amharas over the accession of Yekuno Amlak to the throne also indicates that the former never accepted the Amhara claim the solomonic dynasty nor axumites origin.
FIFTH: The geographical location of the new amhara kingdom, or Abyssinia, was quite different from that of Axum.
SIXTH: the relationship among of the amharas to the zagwe rulers have never been clear. Amharic chronicles and genealogies cannot be demonstrated to be accurate. As Greenfield noted: Unfortunately, as has be argued, Ethiopian history has too long be represented merely as catalogue of kings, and the interpretation of the story of the Zagwe rulers fits into such a chronological framework almost too readly.“ The truth is that we know very little about Lasta and Zagwe". Roha…. Was the capital and in late sixties archeologists discovered it to have been a walled city- walled against whom? We have little or no idea of the extent of the ruler’s authority beyond those walls and hence do not know how many other foci and national loyalties existed in north-eastern Africa thousand years ago.
Thus all available evidence, albeit scanty, indicates that the Amhara kingdom, otherwise known as Abyssinia, did not represent the continuity of the axumite state nor were the tigraians ready to accept the Amharic claim. As Abir noted, the tigraians, who were the direct descendants of the axumites both by virtue of the geographical location and cultural traits, were held in subjection by the amharas by means of force, although the subjection was later transformed into an entirely different relationship.

The point here is that the descriptions of the period are essentially based on hagiographical and legendary stories that cannot be factually demonstrated. Therefore these historical descriptions should not be extended beyond their literary significance to any relevance in understanding the problems of the area today.

agreed 100% I like it and it was my believe!

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

The point here is that the descriptions of the period are essentially based on hagiographical and legendary stories that cannot be factually demonstrated. Therefore these historical descriptions should not be extended beyond their literary significance to any relevance in understanding the problems of the area today.

What is your point here ? Obviously Amharas took power from the zagwes in the 13th century. And even the Zagwes already spoke amharic when the amharas were just consultants at their court. do you think the zagwe spoke amharic when they were still kings because the amharas forced them ? whatever, amharas took the power from the zagwes just as amharas will take power again from the tigreans who are now in power in ethiopia. and you see: MELES IS also speaking amharic and can do nothing without amharas...you will see. amharas are born to rule...

solomonic wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your point here ? Obviously Amharas took power from the zagwes in the 13th century. And even the Zagwes already spoke amharic when the amharas were just consultants at their court. do you think the zagwe spoke amharic when they were still kings because the amharas forced them ? whatever, amharas took the power from the zagwes just as amharas will take power again from the tigreans who are now in power in ethiopia. and you see: MELES IS also speaking amharic and can do nothing without amharas...you will see. amharas are born to rule...

Yes i that is the fact i have told this tigres many times that they cant rule they dont know how to rule the tigres in power today are in power with some hodam amharas help.

The weyanes and their tigre supporters know very well that they are loosing power and that scares the sh-t out of them

Ethiopian wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes i that is the fact i have told this tigres many times that they cant rule they dont know how to rule the tigres in power today are in power with some hodam amharas help.
The weyanes and their tigre supporters know very well that they are loosing power and that scares the sh-t out of them

Birds of a feather flow to gether! same as solominic but nastier!
you know the truth so need to talk more b/se you know the truth!

the amhara are nothing but agaw monkey and oromo mix!

abr wrote:

the amhara are nothing but agaw monkey and oromo mix!

...so that is why dna studies proved that amhara have the highest amount of semitic dna marker J1 in the whole of north africa, even higher than egyptians and tunisians ! that doesnt sound like a mix of ormo and agew to me. just google it dude: J1 and AMhara !

Have a nice day dude.

abr wrote:

the amhara are nothing but agaw monkey and oromo mix!

I don't know what your beef is with Amhara people, you need to get help for your hate man. You can say what ever you want about Amharas but your point of view dont hold nay waight in Ethiopia. Your views are 1980's Tigrians, Eritrean Diaspora views, which was just proppeganda. Ask youreself How come the state language is Amhaic, how come I have to learn my subjects in Amharic. Its because Amharic is the language of the elite, and if there is going to be a second state language in Ethiopia it will definitely be Affan Oromo. Your sick views of Amharas and Oromo's is not going to get you anywhere, and it hasn't till this day. If you want proof go and look and compare Mekele with Bhar dar and Nazret. Nazret and Bhar dar are being considered the future urban Centers of Ethiopia, they have grown and will surpass Adis abeba in development. What ever your views are its going to keep you down. The rest of the population of Ethiopia has moved on and are worrying about developing their cities, I suggest you do as well instead of wasting your time calling other ethnic people names.

solomonic wrote:

<quoted text>
What is your point here ? Obviously Amharas took power from the zagwes in the 13th century. And even the Zagwes already spoke amharic when the amharas were just consultants at their court. do you think the zagwe spoke amharic when they were still kings because the amharas forced them ? whatever, amharas took the power from the zagwes just as amharas will take power again from the tigreans who are now in power in ethiopia. and you see: MELES IS also speaking amharic and can do nothing without amharas...you will see. amharas are born to rule...

Dont you understood the point? did you read all or not? The point is that Yekuno Amlak basing on a scientific research is more an impostor than a solomonic line, in fact the point is that about yekuno amlak should be considerated a legend rather that a true story

abr wrote:

agreed 100% I like it and it was my believe!

Yes those amharas think to be nobles but they are not, then is strange that from Dil nao'b last ruler of axum to Yekuno Amlak are passed 3 centuries and in theory the descendants of Dil nao'b at the time of Yekuno Amlak should be AT LEAST 12, but only one claim to be the descendent of Dil nao'b, just Yekuno then as you can read up he ask the help of the Egypt to ask a priest 'coz local priest wasnt support him and tigraians at the time protested, they never accepted him as descendent of "Shlom" Aka Solomon
Amharas say they come from Israel but i am sure if you ask them the name of thier Jews ancestors they hush... Very sad.

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
Dont you understood the point? did you read all or not? The point is that Yekuno Amlak basing on a scientific research is more an impostor than a solomonic line, in fact the point is that about yekuno amlak should be considerated a legend rather that a true story

...aha, but OBVIOUSLY an AMHARA called YEKUNO AMLAK took over power from the ZAGWES, if you really want to know if he was a solomonic or israelite I would guess you will have to find dna material of him...LOL. I still dont understand your point dude...

solomonic wrote:

<quoted text>
...aha, but OBVIOUSLY an AMHARA called YEKUNO AMLAK took over power from the ZAGWES, if you really want to know if he was a solomonic or israelite I would guess you will have to find dna material of him...LOL. I still dont understand your point dude...

It wasnt from his paternal line... LOL.
I think that you understood the point very well because you are not dumb just that dont wanna understand, anyway i proof that Yekuno Amlak was an impostor than from solomonic line, but i dont see Amharas that answer to that research. Some amharas has something to say about that research or is all true????????

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasnt from his paternal line... LOL.
I think that you understood the point very well because you are not dumb just that dont wanna understand, anyway i proof that Yekuno Amlak was an impostor than from solomonic line, but i dont see Amharas that answer to that research. Some amharas has something to say about that research or is all true????????

...dude you have proven shit unless you bring some dna of yekuno amlak which says he is not israelite or solomonic. since that wont happen you will mever proof if he is this or that. all i KNOW IS THAT AMHARAS HAVE STILL THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF SEMITIC J1 IN THE WHOLE OF NORTH AFRICA ALONG WITH THE ALGERIANS which makes their claims of a an israelite ancestry very reasonable...

solomonic wrote:

<quoted text>
...dude you have proven shit unless you bring some dna of yekuno amlak which says he is not israelite or solomonic. since that wont happen you will mever proof if he is this or that. all i KNOW IS THAT AMHARAS HAVE STILL THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF SEMITIC J1 IN THE WHOLE OF NORTH AFRICA ALONG WITH THE ALGERIANS which makes their claims of a an israelite ancestry very reasonable...

I proven shit? If i say that i have solomonic blood, all must believe me until who dont believe me must do me a dna test? But who come from the royal family dont relate himself with a slave while the fatehr of Yekuno Amlak was married with a slave, strange from being of royal family, we tigrinyan the real heirs of axumite empire dont relate ourself so easy with other ethnic group, think with a slave, just amhara, and if i proven nothing well answer to Okbazgh Yohannes, until now no amhara answered about what he said...

First from maternal line tigrinya have more j1 of all you amharas we are waiting from paternal line...
Second to have j1 haplogroup doesnt mean y'all are jews or israel just that have semitic or better say ancestors that come from Middle east, in fact no one associtated j1 to israel, just YOU
Third Amhara that claim to have ancestors from israel can tell us the names of them, who come from menelik knows this, also if are passed 3000 years, but amharas? we are waiting, just you can related yourself with a jews but your ancestor is not someone that came with menelik, so no value

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
I proven shit? If i say that i have solomonic blood, all must believe me until who dont believe me must do me a dna test? But who come from the royal family dont relate himself with a slave while the fatehr of Yekuno Amlak was married with a slave, strange from being of royal family, we tigrinyan the real heirs of axumite empire dont relate ourself so easy with other ethnic group, think with a slave, just amhara, and if i proven nothing well answer to Okbazgh Yohannes, until now no amhara answered about what he said...
First from maternal line tigrinya have more j1 of all you amharas we are waiting from paternal line...
Second to have j1 haplogroup doesnt mean y'all are jews or israel just that have semitic or better say ancestors that come from Middle east, in fact no one associtated j1 to israel, just YOU
Third Amhara that claim to have ancestors from israel can tell us the names of them, who come from menelik knows this, also if are passed 3000 years, but amharas? we are waiting, just you can related yourself with a jews but your ancestor is not someone that came with menelik, so no value

...well it was not uncommon even amongst royal arabs to marry slaves or concubines, so why should ethiopian royalty should differ from that habit.

J1 is the only marker who is attached to semites. and the cohen modal haplotype is only found in J1, so indeed the real jews are only to find in J1...

...and I still dont know what your point is...

solomonic wrote:

<quoted text>
...well it was not uncommon even amongst royal arabs to marry slaves or concubines, so why should ethiopian royalty should differ from that habit.
J1 is the only marker who is attached to semites. and the cohen modal haplotype is only found in J1, so indeed the real jews are only to find in J1...
...and I still dont know what your point is...

Axum kings never related themselves with a slave, just amharas like The father of Yekuno Amlak and Menelik II but probably others too, and this is very strange especially because Axumite kings conserved the same character of their ancestors, in fact Axumite kings and Sabean in ancient time when they ask if someone is one of them or not(in our case habesha or Sabean way sabean), they usually were saying if is an animal, because they consider other people inferior to them like "animal", this because probably they had a culture so high that consider their neighbors as "primitive". So if is hard to an habesha relate with a stranger think from royal family. Arab sultans can do what they want, it doesnt means habesha should do the same, but i dont think anyway that a sultan get married with a slave but rather had sex with concubines that the most of the time had humble origin or are slaves.
The point is that Yekuno Amlak invented all, he should ask the help to Egypt to reign, anyway i still dont see amharas answer to that reaserch, probably you all dont have proofs about him, just bla bla bla....
About j1 you are wrong again study better or read better. First j1 is not attached to semites for a simple reason, semites are ALMOST the population of the Asia continent, instead j1 is born in middle east and who have that haplogroup it means that his ancestors come from it.
A haplotype is a contraction of the words "Haploid Genotype" - is a term in genetics. Specificially, the E3b1 Semitic haplotype refers to the Semitic sub-race of humanity that originated in south-western Asia and a certain base-pair sequence specific to that sub-race. Anyone with these genes has ancestry pointing them in the direction of the middle east at some point IN THE PAST and has often been used to identify those who may be part of the "tribe of Israel" - though the genes are not specific to Jews. Similarly people of Native American and Eastern Siberian ancestry tend to register having the 9RA Asian haplotype in their genome.

If you want proof of ancient Jews, go to gojam and see the beta Israel youreself, there is no need to speculate or spread lies. The beta Israel practice a form of judasim that is ancient, so ancient that modern Jews in the west don't even practice it anymore. I am not going to say anything about tgrian people because I am a nationalist, wasting time nitpicking evrything will not make you're false notions come true. Obviously no one believes you other than people with an agenda. The real history and proof is out there in plain sight.

Nazret wrote:

If you want proof of ancient Jews, go to gojam and see the beta Israel youreself, there is no need to speculate or spread lies. The beta Israel practice a form of judasim that is ancient, so ancient that modern Jews in the west don't even practice it anymore. I am not going to say anything about tgrian people because I am a nationalist, wasting time nitpicking evrything will not make you're false notions come true. Obviously no one believes you other than people with an agenda. The real history and proof is out there in plain sight.

I think you are out of the point, we are not speaking about biet israel, but amhara.
There is a big different between them Biet israel dont relate themselves with amhara and vice versa.
We are speaking about Yekuno Amlak and the false claim of him and other amhara to have jews ancestors that come from israel together with Menelik I.
Biet Israel say that thier ancestors come from tribe of Dan. They believe, based on the ninth century stories of Eldad ha-Dani (the Danite), that the tribe of Dan attempted to avoid the civil war in the Kingdom of Israel between Solomon's son Rehoboam and Jeroboam the son of Nebat, by resettling in Egypt. From there they moved southwards up the Nile into Ethiopia, and the Beta Israel are descended from these Danites.
While Kebra neghst say that the Beta Israel are descended from a battalion of men of Judah that fled southwards down the Arabian coastal lands from Judaea after the breakup of the united Kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms in the 10th century BCE (while King Rehoboam reigned over Judah).
Most of the Beta Israel consider the Kebra Negast legend to be a fabrication
So as you can your comment is void of sense
My intention is to create a discussion taking something that goes in opposite sense about the normal belief and i hoped that some amhara we're answer to that relation about Yekuno, but until now no proof so i just can think that is all true Yekuno is a fake

THE REAL HABESHA wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you are out of the point, we are not speaking about biet israel, but amhara.
There is a big different between them Biet israel dont relate themselves with amhara and vice versa.
We are speaking about Yekuno Amlak and the false claim of him and other amhara to have jews ancestors that come from israel together with Menelik I.
Biet Israel say that thier ancestors come from tribe of Dan. They believe, based on the ninth century stories of Eldad ha-Dani (the Danite), that the tribe of Dan attempted to avoid the civil war in the Kingdom of Israel between Solomon's son Rehoboam and Jeroboam the son of Nebat, by resettling in Egypt. From there they moved southwards up the Nile into Ethiopia, and the Beta Israel are descended from these Danites.
While Kebra neghst say that the Beta Israel are descended from a battalion of men of Judah that fled southwards down the Arabian coastal lands from Judaea after the breakup of the united Kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms in the 10th century BCE (while King Rehoboam reigned over Judah).
Most of the Beta Israel consider the Kebra Negast legend to be a fabrication
So as you can your comment is void of sense
My intention is to create a discussion taking something that goes in opposite sense about the normal belief and i hoped that some amhara we're answer to that relation about Yekuno, but until now no proof so i just can think that is all true Yekuno is a fake

Beta Israel are Amhara, they are Amhara as any Amhara in the present day will get.Some do speak Agew. There are different opinions on how the Beta Israel ended up in Ethiopia. Your calim comes from Wikipedia, I take that with a grain of salt. The transfer of power if its not peacefull, there would of been in internal power struggle and civil war, but since the country did imidiatly go in campaigns of fighting the muslims, you would think he had most if not all the countries support. If its not a peacefull transition the church would neve approve it, n those time you can say the church ruled the land because people listened when the church spoke. Perfect example is when Lalibelas brother tried to take the throne from Lalibela by force and plotting, the church denouced him and he peacefully transfered power and went on to live a seclusion life.