Banyai at t-online.de
Tue Jul 6 05:14:00 EDT 2004
I have not published any part of the paper yet. Checking the whole data down to the last point is an immensely painfull work, since this is a panorama of the history over literally the whole ANE.
I give you right concerning the arabic mentions of Amalek, they can be followed down to the Koranic mentions. Mohammed should have had much to deal with the Amalekites turned to Jewishness, which he later expelled out of Mekka and Medinah toward Syria. We of course have no older mention of them in arabic literature, since this is the very oldest existing.
However we can link these mentions with the ones in the roman and greek sources (for example Claudius Ptolemeus) pertaining to the same geographic region and slowly make thus the link to the Assyrian, and Biblical ones. It appears they were known to the Assyrians as the Meluhha, while at the same time known as the Amalek to the biblical writers.
I´ll take your papers under sight. Of course you are right that the biblical Cush here has to be understood as the babylonian Kish. I place here no doubt. I however beleave there could be a link between the babylonian Kish, first seat of an all babylonian kingdom, and these widely dispersed semitic kusithes all around the fringes of this fabulous kingdom. THIS is of course just a supposition, while the Kish=Cush equation is certain.
All the best,
More information about the b-hebrew