Talk:Kingdom of Aksum/Archive 2

Map of axum

Axum is said to have been much larger than what is stated on the maps. For example, Axum was in control of Leuke Kome in the Hijaz during the reign of King GDRT as stated in Momentum Adulitum 2. And in the African side of things, Axum bordered Egypt and controlled the port of Berinike. Almaqah (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This whole thing would be easier if you two would bring in maps from reliable secondary sources. Pathawi (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find reliable maps that show Axum at it's greatest extent. But the sources support my claim on the size of Axum. Almaqah (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Any source for 'ākʷsəm?

I just changed the representation ኣኵስም 'ākʷsəm back to አክሱም 'äksum. I find this latter Gəʕz form & representation in the Tropper/Hasselbach-Andee grammar, Dillmann's dictionary, and Dillmann's Chrestomathy (without any indication of emendation of manuscript sources). Wikipedia is meant to draw on secondary sources rather than primary, but I thought I'd check the primary to see if there was some error: RIÉ 188 has አክሱም 'äksum pretty clearly on the second line. The published version of RIÉ claims the same for the second line of RIÉ 189, but to be honest I can't make the photograph out. አክሱም 'äksum also appears in Conti Rossini's published edition of the Book of Axum. The editor (not signed in) who changed this to ኣኵስም 'akʷsəm claimed that 'äksum is the Amharic name. It's true that this name is used in Amharic. It's also used in Tigre, which is a close relative of Gəʕz. The Kane Tigrinya dictionary gives ኣኽሱም 'aḵsum, which comes close to the anonymous editor's preferred version. The only reference I've been able to find for ኣኵስም 'akʷsəm is a paper by Ennno Littmann from 1906 about a Tigrinya-Arabic manuscript glossary. Is there any secondary source that suggests that ኣኵስም 'akʷsəm is more representative of actual Aksumite usage? Pathawi (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Greek

User Aearthrise (talk · contribs) has taken two recent summaried edits of mine to constitute edit-warring, which was not my intention: I thought the summaries made clear cases that allowed progress. (For what it's worth, WP:3RR. In any case, if there's continuing disagreement about facts, this belongs on the Talk page.) Briefly: The source cited does not say that Greek was a native language of Aksum. I don't know of a source that does. I think this needs to be substantiated. Pathawi (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I made no talk about "native languages", neither in my edits, nor in subsequent edit descriptions.

Earlier, I only added Axum's name in ancient Greek to this article, and edited an anachronistically written section about Ge'ez where it mentioned the invention of Ge'ez script in the 4th century AD, and then continued on in the same sentence where it seemed like Greek only came about after the 4th century.

This article already had a reference to Greek's usage in Axum ever since the court of Zoscales in the first century AD. The Greek information is as valid as Ge'ez information, as Greek played a major role in Axumite culture.

To conclude, your argument about "native language" is nothing but a fabrication, and due to the importance and historical usage of Greek in Axum, both Greek and Ge'ez translations should be present. Aearthrise (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone would want to fabricate that… You did, in fact, add an explicit under-the-hood native language claim: In the infobox, you added Ἀξωμίτης in the native_name field. I'm guessing you just didn't notice the field name.

Additionally, you added the Greek name to the lead sentence. This really doesn't belong there: Per MOS:LEADLANG, a single foreign language equivalent is appropriate, & it oughtn't be included solely for etymological reasons.

I'm not arguing for removing any mention of Greek from the article. Those are the changes I reverted, & I think the case against them is pretty clear.

A subsequent edit is also not supported by the cited source: There's no reason to think that Greek was the administrative language of Aksum, and that's not what the American Numismatic Society's Museum Notes article says: It just says that early Aksumite currency bore Greek inscriptions. I got a few dimes in my pocket that say 'E pluribus unum', but Latin ain't the administrative language of the US… Pathawi (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You are still fabricating nonsense just to win this argument.

1. In articles that deal with a subject that has multiple significant official languages, it is common practice to add these languages. See Holy Roman Empire (Latin/German), Haiti (French/Haitian Creole), Belgium (French, Dutch, German), and Roman Empire (Latin/Greek) for examples.

2. You say that the case against using two names is pretty clear, and that you believe I had included it "solely for etymological reasons". This is nonsense, as it is quite obvious from multiple sources that Greek played an important role in Axumite history, not only in its government, but also its religion, and methods of communication.

3. You say that the subsequent edit is not supported by "the" cited source; you missed that there are indeed two sources, not one. You need to read both sources; the Garima Gospels clearly states that Greek was used in an administrative capacity for the Axumite Empire, and that it was used for lengthy texts and coinage. The other source, Museum Notes, states the other uses of Greek in Axumite history: for inscriptions, coinage, and trade.

Again I conclude, Greek was a language of great importance in Axum and acted in an official and cultural capacity, similar to Ge'ez's usage several centuries later in its history; the Greek and Ge'ez translations should both be included. Aearthrise (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey. This is a collaborative encyclopædia. Part of the nature of it is that we're going to have disagreements. For the collaborative part to work out, we need to be able to deal with those disagreements civilly. Chill. Let me address your points in reverse:

3. Could you cite the specific quote on page 18 of The Garima Gospels that you think says that Greek was an administrative language of Aksum? What I see says: 'Greek was the lingua franca of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine East and played a role in official Aksumite bilingual inscriptions and on coins.' It goes on to note the king's fluency as reported in the Periplus. This neither says nor means 'administrative language'. There are inscriptions at Aksumite sites in Sabaic & Greek because of their regional importance. Blemmyes and Nubians also used Greek in intercommunal correspondence. When Thai businesspeople today have dealings in Abu Dhabi, they use English; signs in Bangkok are often in Thai & English. English is not the administrative language of Thailand. Again, I've got no problem with including the specific actual uses of Greek.

2. Okay. Your reasons were other than etymological. But…

1. I don't yet see a source which makes Greek out to be an official or administrative language. The fact that the state used a significant language of international correspondence doesn't make it an official language. That's what most states do! The fact that the Gärima Gospels doesn't give Greek a particularly important rôle different from that it's held in most Christian societies. Common practice isn't an argument against the MOS, tho common sense can be. I can see clear arguments for the use of both Latin & Greek for the Roman Empire (Greek was the administrative language of half the empire for quite some time, & the whole remaining empire for quite a lot longer!), or Kreyol & French for Haiti (the language of the overwhelming majority of the populace is not the language of the state). I don't think there's any evidence that Greek had a comparable rôle in Aksum.

I'll also note that you missed my point about your edit actually identifying Greek as a native language in the infobox. (I believe this is an honest mistake.) That really should change.

Last thought for this comment: You seem to think that I disagree with you out of ill will… that I'm "fabricating" things. If you don't believe that I'm dealing in good faith, perhaps the best thing to do would be to appeal to additional parties. Take care. Pathawi (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are indeed dealing in good faith, as you claim yourself to be, then you're just not reading very carefully.

The Garima gospels source reads: Greek was known in Aksum... because it was used at an administrative level - on coin legends as well as lengthier texts....

Additionally, here are further quotes for Greek's usage and status in the Axumite Empire.

The king of the Axumites ruled over the Red Sea coast... and traded constantly with Egypt. The potentate called himself "king of kings" commanded an army and a fleet, coined money, adopted Greek as the official language, and lived on good terms with the Roman Empire.

Axum's official language was Greek, since Axum traded with regions conquered by Greece's Alexander the Great.

Zoscales, one of the earlier Axumite kings, had a Greek education and at one stage Greek was the kingdom's official and specific diplomatic language.

After the Arab conquest in the Middle East and North Africa during the seventh century, Greek gave way to Ge'ez, which began to be used in all circles - civil, military, and religious.

Speaking in regards to Axumite nationality, Muhammad further writes:

For a native might be of Semitic origin, of Axumite nationality and Greek culture and another might be of Bedja or Blemmye stock, a Nubian by birth or nationality, and Egyptian culture. Therefore a person who spoke or wrote Ge'ez was not necessarily an Axumite.

----

In conclusion, there is a plethora of evidence that concretely establishes Greek's role in Axumite culture and government, in all of its capacities: diplomacy, administration, trade; it acted as the official language of Axum, in the same way as Ge'ez several centuries later. Both Greek and Ge'ez translations therefore should be included in this article. Aearthrise (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a flagrant lie at no point did Greek precede Ge’ez or replace it, was always used alongside it. It was used to facilitate trade which all scholars explicitly state and you have not produced any evidence for such just produced quotes from others. So produce the evidence 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:4D4:1FD7:9E2B:BBD8 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Greek was used in Axum for diplomacy and commerce with the Roman Empire from at least the first century AD to the end of antiquity and is found on inscriptions https://chs.harvard.edu/curated-article/snowden-lectures-stanley-burstein-when-greek-was-an-african-language/

Somewhat later, Greek became one of the customary languages for Aksumite inscriptions and coins, since it was the lingua franca of the countries with which they traded. (p.12) Aksumite inscriptions from this period are in three scripts and two languages; Ge’ez, the local language, written both in its own cursive script and in the South Arabian monumental script (Epigraphic South Arabian, or ESA), and Greek, the international language of the Red Sea trade and the Hellenized Orient. (p.13)

Munro-Hay (1991), Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity

Though Greek was known throughout the Red Sea, the Kingdom of Aksum was far from a mere clone of Byzantium. It had a language and tradition of empire all its own. The royal capital, the city of Aksum, was flanked by gigantic obelisks, one of which was nine stories high.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/10/07/the-glories-of-aksum/#:~:text=Though%20Greek%20was%20known%20throughout,which%20was%20nine%20stories%20high.

Many other sources. Stating that Greek was the official language is a complete overstatement that lacks nuance/context. Your information does need to be reviewed, was used for international readership alongside Ge'ez much later on in the kingdom. Ge'ez was also not invented in AD it was said to be developed in AD not invented. You can find inscription in Geez in BC which is a different script to SA. It is Peter T Daniels who makes that mistake and seems to be the only one who doesn't know of an earlier inscription written in the Ge'ez alphabet. 87.81.92.46 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Your claims about an overstatement are incorrect. I spoke with you in another conversation on Talk:Ethiopian Greeks, where you attempted to delete historic cited material of Greek presence in the region, for no other reason than ignorance of the subject.

You continue your baseless arguments with no evidence here to support your claims, as you put it, that Greek was only used for international readership alongside Ge'ez much later on in the kingdom. You have no evidence to say that, and the evidence already added here proves the opposite!

I am tired of your siffling, blathering, and nonsensical arguments, as you have nothing to support what you claim, anonymous. Aearthrise (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have plenty and I shared it, your evidence is utterly nonsensical and baseless. It is an overstatement and you failed on all occasions to put forward any solid evidence for your claims at all. I will seek to have it removed. Rania212 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This does indeed need to be changed, it is completely misleading. Greek was not the official language, it was used for trade and diplomacy. The article is misleading and aims to suppress any type of autonomy in my opinion. There is also another article written by the same individual where they speak of a conquest and annexation by plotemy which there is no evidence of. Rania212 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect Rania, the evidence clearly shows the capacity of Greek in the Axumite Empire, and to claim otherwise is to argue from ignorance. Aearthrise (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope you have failed to bring up evidence for your claims Rania212 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

In the 4th century, Ezana of Axum promoted the Geʽez script and made Ge'ez an official state language alongside Greek; by the 6th century literary translations into Ge'ez were common. After the 7th century's Muslim conquests in the Middle East and North Africa, which effectively isolated Axum from the Greco-Roman world, Ge'ez replaced Greek entirely.

completely incorrect Rania212 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

it is indeed erroneous and you have not adequately addressed the concerns. There is absolutely no evidence it was used in an official capacity, there are no lengthy Greek texts prior to Ge'ez. Ezana would not have been the first person to use the script, rather it was transformed into an Abugida under his reign that does not equate to him promoting and certainly he did not make it an official state language this is all cobbled. Where is a reputable source that states so? Habesha212 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You state there is a plethora of evidence that supports its official capacity except there isn't, I can only find it in the period of Ezana in state inscriptions on his bilingual or trilingual inscription s or coinage prior for external trade. Please do show me otherwise. Habesha212 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

you can’t be trusted to write material and you have a poor understanding of the history of the 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:193E:9488:7DF5:51CF (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Aearthrise, there is clearly no consensus at the moment on this issue. The conversation is only two days old. Consensus takes time. You have not substantively addressed the objections of the IP editor, which is one thing you might choose to do if you want this to move faster. However, conversations in Talk don't always go as quickly as all editors want. Meanwhile, there is no participant in the above conversation who you have not insulted, & you've questioned the good faith of two of your three interlocutors here. If you don't believe that this conversation can be carried out productively with the parties currently involved, you might consider seeking further input. Pathawi (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The editor is saying that Ge'ez was the original language of the region without providing any evidence, which is impossible because Ge'ez was only standardized and written much later, and he purports that Greek was only used later alongside it in the Kingdom. Evidence shows otherwise, and the information of the article was accurate with cited material. Aearthrise (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be effectively OR—not something I think should go into the article in this form—but you should take a look at the Recueil des inscriptions de l'Éthiopie. Greek comprises 17 of 107 Aksumite inscriptions; Greek is totally absent from the pre-Aksumite period—most of the pre-Aksumite inscriptions are definitely OSA, but some are plausibly Gəʕz. (There is more recent work since the publication of the RIÉ, but I'm pretty sure that it mostly expands the number of known Gəʕz & Sabaic inscriptions.) This isn't to the point of what the article should contain: Simply to what you're saying in the above comment. Pathawi (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

No that is incorrect, Ge'ez and south Arabian are two different scripts with distinct differences and they are referenced as such. two cursive scripts one with features of Ge'ez and the other SA, so Ge'ez was not invented as an alphabet in AD rather it developed with Greek being later used along side it. Greek was never the official language and neither is it reported as such. Your information is false and therefore the team will have to be involved. There is a clear deliberate attempt to skew the truth. Rania212 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No that is incorrect, Ge'ez and south Arabian are two different scripts with distinct differences and they are referenced as such. two cursive scripts one with features of Ge'ez and the other SA, so Ge'ez was not invented as an alphabet in AD rather it developed with Greek being later used along side it. Greek was never the official language and neither is it reported as such. Your information is false and therefore the team will have to be involved. There is a clear deliberate attempt to skew the truth. I have shown evidence and you have shown none. Show me where Greek was used prior to Ge'ez Rania212 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Rania212 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To suggest that Ge'ez came after Greek makes no sense. It was fully developed way before the axumite inscriptions as noted by ullendorf and schneider and many others. Anyhow, since there is no interest in factual information. The page will be reviewed and deleted Rania212 (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The have chosen to be inflammatory and edited the information to further their cause by putting it was the official language rather than the administrative language. This article therefore is agenda driven and not factual Rania212 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It really should be removed, there are no basis for the claims and the intention is npot be to be factual here. At no point does Greek precede Ge'ez and we find evidence of Ge'ez in Dm't let alone Axum. Rania212 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The only person here who has not proven his claims, through valid citations, is you Rania; you, writing under several IP addresses, have continually written nonsense here and on other articles, continually attempted to remove cited content, while providing no valid citations for your beliefs.

This is the onus of proof; you need to provide clear evidence, rather than just rambling. These are the standards and requirements of Wikipedia- verifiability. Anything claimed without valid citations is "original research." Aearthrise (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually have if you see above. So your claim that I have not is open for everyone to see. You state that Ezana promoted the Ge'ez script and made it the official language alongside Greek which is incorrect and absolutely no source props up your claim, it also makes no sense because his predecessor wrote in Ge'ez. Ge'ez was always the official language and the other individual completely blew your comment out of the window. You have yet show me that Greek preceded Ge'ez. We needn't go back and forth I will get your page deleted since you inflated information and completely misunderstood what you have read. Rania212 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You claim there is no source, but all you have to do is read the citations listed to find the sources:

From the U.S. Government Printing Office:

The beginnings of Ethiopian literature go back to the early part of the Christian Era when the introduction of Christianity into the Axumite Kingdom, the precursor of modern-day Ethiopia, stimulated the production of religious works in Geez (Ethiopic), the language then spoken by the people of Axum. The large body of writings now extant in Geez, almost entirely in manuscript form, constitutes the country's traditional literature.

Ezana, the greatest Ethiopian king of the Axumite period, reigned in the fourth century A.D. According to most sources, he made Geez an official language with its own script, which refined the Sabaean system of Arabic, and he extended Axum's power in all directions.

From Introduction to Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez):

Classical Ethiopic, or Ge'ez, is the literary language developed by missionaries for the translation of the scriptures after the Christianization of Ethiopia in the 4th century. The new written langauge was presumably based on the spoken language of Aksum.

From the Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa:

We have no reason to think Sabaean was one of the official languages of the early Aksumite kingdom. One of the three texts of Ezana psuedo-trilingual (in fact, Ge'ez-Greek bilingual) is written in later Himyaritic script and has some exaggerated peculiarities of Sabaeo-Himyaritic orthography. The same script is used in three other royal inscriptions in Aksum by Ezana, Kaleb, and Wa'azab. Thus together with an inscription at Tsehuf-Emni (Erythrea) we have five 'pseudo-Himyaritic' texts from Ethiopia. Their language is Ge'ez with very few Sabaean words.

The subculture of the Aksumite monarchy was not only national but also international in character. Side by side with Ge'ez, the Greek language was used as a state and international language. Kings like Za-Hekale and Ezana knew Greek (the Periplus reports that 'king Zoscales' was literate in Greek, and Ezana's mentor, a Graeco-Phoenician, Frumentius, later the first bishop of Aksum).

Obviously, you couldn't be bothered to read any of the citations, or you wouldn't have said that "no source props up your claim."

Further, you call this page "mine" and that you will get it deleted? With this comment, you demonstrate that you don't know what Wikipedia is. These articles are a community effort, and not individual projects. Aearthrise (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, your last quote echoes what I wrote and your first is from the US Printing Office (clearly a reliable source) has their information rather muddled. Ezana made Christianity the state religion not the language and script! Getting rather confused. His predecessors were Using Ge’ez and Ge’ez was developed in the Proto-axumite and Pre-axumite period with numerous distinctions between the two script of SA.

Somewhat later, Greek became one of the customary languages for Aksumite inscriptions and coins, since it was the lingua franca of the countries with which they traded.

Aksum An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity Stuart Munro Hay

Greek was used in Axum for diplomacy and commerce with the Roman Empire from at least the first century AD to the end of antiquity and is found on inscriptions and coins.

Stanley Burstein, When Greek was an African Language

Chapter 11 The Aksumites in South Arabia: An African Diaspora of Late Antiquity

and indeed Greek continued to be used in royal inscriptions, side by side with Geʿez, down to the 4th century. Thus, far from being barbarian marauders, the Aksumites who intervened militarily—and at times settled—in South Arabia hailed from an affluent, cosmopolitan kingdom that engaged in long-distance trade. Material evidence of this affluence survives in the form of large-scale elite residences and tombs at Aksum, 18 as well as archaeological and numismatic evidence for trade with the Roman Empire and India.

George Hakte

https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004425613/BP000015.xml?language=en

Your claim that Ge’ez was invented in the 4th century is a serious lack of knowledge on the language and there is no proof of Greek preceding it. Rather you have used Wikipedia to skew facts in which the unquestioned learner will believe. The periplus is not evidence, you need actual evidence to support the claims. No historian or archaeologist has found trace of a Ptolemaic colony in Adulis/Ethiopia. If indeed Ge’ez was said to be writing in Sabaic, (differences between two scripts) then the same can be said for Greek which modified the Phoenician alphabet to write their own. Terrible hypocrisy and sources. It should read Greek was used as a mercantile and diplomatic language' as Munro Hay states, since it was the lingua franca of the countries they traded. Rania212 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All you do is ramble and without making a coherent point.

None of the quotes you shared support what you're saying, rather they corroborate what other sources here say, and what is already written in the article.

Further, you're twisting words and making strawman arguments:

"Ezana made Christianity the state religion not the language and script!" - Sources indicate that it was Christian missionaries who developed the Ge'ez script, the language was already spoken before by the Agaazi people, and has prior attestations in Himyaritic-Sabaic script.

"Your claim that Ge’ez was invented in the 4th century" - No, I don't claim Ge'ez was invented in the 4th century. Sources clearly show Ge'ez was already spoken prior to the 4th century. However, it's the Ge'ez script that was developed by Christian missionaries to help spread Christianity in Axum during the 4th century.

You claim that there is no evidence of Greeks in Adulis or Ethiopia; sources show the opposite:

Contact with the Aksumite kingdom was not limited to that with the Yemen tribes. It also included Greeks, the most prominent example being the Ptolemaic dynasty, which established the commercial port of Adulis.

During Ptolemaic times, the Greek communities in Aksum, Adulis, and other major towns were significant and, as a result, their culture permeated Ethiopia giving to the country its Greek tongue as the official and literary language.

Commencing with a description of the shores of Annesley Bay, he stated that the ancient Greek city of Adulis, the emporium of Greek trade in the time of the Ptolemies, formerly stood close to the shorel but the ruins were now at a distance of four miles.

After perhaps 20 years a move was made to the new port some 100 miles south of Ptolemais and 20 miles south of the present Massawa. It was probably originally called Berenice; later, after the end of Ptolemaic rule, it was known as Adulis, a name still preserved in that of the modern village of Zulla.

Since Egyptian trading stations existed all along the Red Sea coast of East Africa, the main task was to organize, capture, and transport. Ptolemy II selected two ports, Ptolemais Theron, near the present-day town of Aqiq, and Adulis, near Massawa. The elephants were caught in pits and taken to Egypt in specially constructed boats. Ptolemy III Euergetes was particularly fond of using elephants.

You also posted a half-quote, trying to make it seem like Greek disappeared after the 4th century:

"and indeed Greek continued to be used in royal inscriptions, side by side with Geʿez, down to the 4th century."

Here are sources that help us better understand your cherry-picked half-quote:

Some inscriptions, almost all royal, are written in Greek. Those that can be dated were written before the end of the fourth century. They go back to the reign of Ezana (polytheist or Christian) or of previous kings. Greek thus stops being used in monumental inscriptions relatively early, while it continues being preferred to Ge'ez on coin legends, especially gold and silver issues.

King Zosikles of Ethiopia could speak Greek, while in the early sixth century Cosmas Indicopleustes records copying a Greek inscription for the Ethiopian Axumite king Elesbaan. Coin legends were also in Greek, and though Ge'ez replaced Greek for public inscriptions from the fourth century, several earlier Greek-Ge'ez royal inscriptions are known.

As we can all see, Rania, you're just making baseless arguments, and you're not providing any valid evidence to support your claims. If you want to continue this discussion, you need to provide valid sourced evidence. Aearthrise (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The quotes very much go against what you have written and you have not adequately addressed them whatsoever, rather you chose to use ad hominems for the lack of push back. Your sources are poor and you have not addressed any of our points.

The quote by George Hakte was not a cherrypicked quote, who has written extensively about the history he accurately states the use of Greek alongside Ge'ez ( as do the others) and then goes on to speak further about the nature of the inscriptions. You then combat it with another quite which basically echoed what I wrote in a strange manner, that did nothing to dispute what I quoted in the first place.

Even in a Christian context Ge‘ez was certainly used earlier than that. We have inscriptions from King Ezana of Aksum (fl. 350) written both before and after he converted to Christianity and his predecessors like Ouazeba and Mehadeyis(who used Ge'ez on coins) It was well in use before the reign of Ezana. your understanding of the script is less than and that is why the state of this page is the way it is. I suggest you read up on the linguistics like Ullendorf and Schneider to start with. Now what the nine saints did was learn Ge'ez and translate texts in to Ge'ez that has nothing to do with the script being used prior and neither was it developed by them, you're getting your information muddled up and it is no wonder when one uses the US printing office as evidence.

No one is denying Greek being used or their presence that is not the point. You stated it was an official language which is false and neither did it precede Ge'ez which you have failed to show. All of the quotes I shared completely combat what you wrote in which you tried to inflate Greek as being the main language, it was used for trade and diplomacy and that is how it should be written. Absolutely no evidence of it being used in pre-axumite sites or solely in the early stages.

As for Adulis we already established a pre-plotemaic foundation.

The local inhabitants of the area call it Azuli, which literally means “white colored” [to refer to the white sands]. Based on the ethnographic assessment conducted in 2013, the surrounding people called the port city Azuli because the first boat that had been transhipped around the Red Sea Coast of the Gulf of Zula was named Azuli. There is absolutely no evidence it was founded by the Ptolemies or that they ruled as discussed thoroughly here. No archaeologist supports such and no basis for it whatsover.

https://www.academia.edu/14539137/Punt_and_Aksum_Egypt_and_the_Horn_of_Africa

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327036533_Seafaring_Expeditions_to_Punt_in_the_Middle_Kingdom

https://www.persee.fr/doc/topoi_1161-9473_2007_num_15_2_2269

K. Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies, Louvain

7. Entry no. 30 in Appendix III lists Burstein 1993, Casson 1981 and Kortenbeutel 1931 as bibliography for Berenike-by-Sabae. Burstein 1993 has no discussion of Berenike-by-Sabae or the location of Adulis, and indeed mentions the latter only in passing, in a transcription of a panel discussion. (Burstein 1989, 9 n. 5, cited by Mueller elsewhere, thinks that Adulis is « possibly identical » with Berenike-bySabae, citing Tscherikower and Desanges). Casson 1981 also makes no mention of Berenike-by-Sabae, but discusses both modern Massawa and Zula as possible locations for Adulis. He notes that Zula had « no Ptolemaic remains » (p. 121 n. 12), and says nothing at all about Ptolemaic remains or lack thereof at Massawa. Kortenbeutel accepts the identification of Adulis and Berenike-by-Sabae without comment, and like Burstein, cites even earlier literature. This is a bibliographical muddle, complicated by irrelevant citations. Glazier and Peacock (in Peacock and Blue 2007, p. 7) remain agnostic on the issue. compte rendu 681 Two interconnected problems have received attention from Ethiopianists : 1) the location of Adulis and 2) the original nature of the settlement. Modern consensus has favored identification of Adulis with Zula, a village in Eritrea near the head of Annesley Bay. But Ptolemaic remains have yet to emerge at Zula, a troubling silence given the extensive pre-classical and Christian finds at the site 18. If Adulis was a Ptolemaic foundation despite this silence, its emergence as a major port city in the Roman period suggests that it may have had origins more complex than as a « mere by-product » of elephant hunting. And was Berenike-by-Sabae a new foundation or a refoundation ? Some Ethiopianists have supposed a native settlement at Adulis prior to Ptolemaic contact 19. But the site’s very name, Berenikê hê Kata Sabas, as Strabo has it, suggests something different, a settlement named in conscious contradistinction to an earlier site nearby. The Monumentum Adulitanum provides the most interesting piece of this puzzle. When Cosmas Indicopleustes visited Adulis in the sixth century CE, he copied two inscriptions he mistook for one : 1) a basalt stela from the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes detailing the role of African elephants in the Third Syrian War (246-241 BC) and 2) a triumphal inscription on a marble throne alternatively taken as erected by an Axumite or south-west Arabian king 20. The Ptolemaic victory monument seems strangely out of place, attested as it is so far from the victory in question and any extensive Ptolemaic ruins to place it in context. Indeed, its strange location is directly relevant to the question of the « otherness of dynastic settlement ». Who was the monument’s intended audience ? If we imagine the erection of a monument for the sake of Greeks from Egypt and elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, we must imagine a larger and more permanent settlement than the apparent lack of Ptolemaic remains would permit. If we imagine the erection of a monument to impress the local people, we must imagine that the process of 18. See originally Anfray 1968 and now Peacock and Blue 2007, which publishes the results of a survey begun at Adulis in 2004. The report concludes (p. 11) that « the existence of a Ptolemaic port at Adulis must remain speculative at best ». 19. Opinion is divided. Munro-Hay 1991, p. 45 associates the rise of Adulis only with the presence of the native Adulitae present in Ptolemy’s Geography 4.6 and is skeptical (52) about any significant contact between Adulis and the Ptolemies. Kobishchanov 1979, p. 35 and 185 supposed the rise of Adulis directly connected to Ptolemaic colonization. 20. Cosmas Christian Topography 2.54-63 in Wolska-Conus 1968, p. 364-379. Basalt stela : OGIS 54 with a translation at Burstein 1985, p. 99 ; for the propaganda value of Ptolemaic titulature in this inscription, specifically megas Ptolemaios, see Hölbl 1992, p. 47ff and Beyer-Rotthoff 1993, p. 64. Marble throne : see Kirwan 1972 for extensive discussion favoring the south-west Arabian thesis, and Munro-Hay 1991, p. 79 and Kobishchanov 1979, p. 45ff assuming the Axumite thesis without comment. 682 g. ruffini linguistic Hellenization was proceeding faster and earlier than any scholars have supposed 21. I intend this extended discussion of Red Sea settlement, inconclusive though it is, as a contrast to the quantitative and theoretical analyses that form the bulk of Mueller’s work. Quantitative analyses can be useful for generating previously unnoticed patterns in large amounts of data. But the patterns Mueller hopes to find do not provide complete answers to the questions she poses. To understand the role of Ptolemaic dynastic settlements in Hellenistic colonization more generally, and to understand the extent to which multicultural input created multiple forms of settlement, more information is needed than population sizes, settlement areas and urban layouts can provide. Here, the qualitative information that papyrological and epigraphic evidence provides is simply indispensible. Conclusion A few minor issues of clarity must be raised. A number of the book’s figures omit information necessary for their interpretation. Figure 2.1 (45) asserts that Ptolemaic rule over Ethiopia was continuous from the mid-third century to nearly the end of the first century BC. This claim seems wild, and needs to be proven rather than assumed ; while one first century papyrus may attest to a Ptolemaic official in charge of the Red Sea trade, if correctly restored, this is a far cry from formal rule 22. In any event, it seems unlikely that the Ptolemies had the resources to spare in preserving rule in Ethiopia at the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries, when large portions of Egypt itself fell out of their control 23. Table 2.3 (80) tabulates the « Regional distribution of Ptolemaic foundation methods ». It details only 84 settlements, while Mueller’s Appendix III gazetteer includes 89 (86 of which are numbered, and an additional three of which appear only with an asterisk). Which settlements have been left out of the count, and why ? A number of aspects of the book, including the figures, are marred by mistakes that ought to have been caught at the editorial stage. Figure 2.5 (68) has two typographical errors in the label for LR2, the second late Roman period in the Canadian Palaipaphos Survey Project. Figure 2.6 on the following page has duplicate copies of the Keos Survey abandoned sites chart and omits the Methana Survey new sites chart altogether. Map 5 has what appear to be typesetting errors 21. Greek royal inscriptions and Axumite coinage with Greek text indicate considerable linguistic Hellenization in Axumite territory in late antiquity, but evidence is sparse for earlier periods ; see generally Kobishchanov 1979, p. 62-66 and Munro-Hay 1991, p. 221ff. 22. SB 5.8036. For a first century BC date, see Mooren 1972. 23. For revolts against the Ptolemies in Egypt, see McGing 1997 and Veïsse 2004.

https://journals.openedition.org/cy/2818

GW Bowersock, The Throne of Adulis: Red Sea Wars on the Eve of Islam

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.28.530428v1.full

You have clearly made attempts to falsify the history and your understanding of it is poor. Rania212 (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Your claim that Ge’ez was invented in the 4th century" - No, I don't claim Ge'ez was invented in the 4th century. Sources clearly show Ge'ez was already spoken prior to the 4th century. However, it's the Ge'ez script that was developed by Christian missionaries to help spread Christianity in Axum during the 4th century.

You wrote that Ge'ez came into use in the 4th century AD and was invented then, developed and invented are two different things and it is completely false. It was used prior using Ge'ez characters before his reign not in the sabaic script! Rania212 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They state that Ezana promoted the script and language and it became the official language alongside Greek which is completely false. The script was in use before Ezana hence why the origins of the vocalisation exist and there is no proof that Greek was used prior based on evidence. It is clear the motivation is not to write anything factual but to inflate information and suppress the role Axumites had on their own civilisation. Rania212 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Map

@Havenzeye That map you made is not correct. The borders you drawn are heavily exaggerated, youve expanded it to include all of Ethiopia and a large chuck of modern Somalia. In the 3rd century southward expansions, the Aksumites did not expand south of Lake Tana [1]. Begemder was described as being a frontier province of the Axumite empire hence it defintely didn't expand past that. [2] These campaigns are mentioned in the inscription of Monumentum Adulitanum, you can find of more accurate map of its borders here[3]. You also include a map of Zagwe which is incorrect aswell, Taddesse Tamrat made a much more accurate map of Zagwe, which is included in this pdf on page 16 [4]. There is no evidence that it controlled Somaliland either, please provide academic sources for your map and make the necessary changes. Also the quality of your map seems poor compared to the other images. محرر البوق (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be ill-informed about Axumite reach and power. Firstly, Axumite power went much further south of Lake Tana, this can be supported by quite a lot of churches located there, like Washa Mikael Rock Hewn Church, dating to the 4th century with Axumite features. There is also evidence that Axum controlled the region that is modern day Somaliland before the advent of Islam to which I will provide sources.

[5]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10437-015-9184-9

This essentially talks about archaeology in Somaliland specifically concerning Axumite burial sites and Christian carvings. Here is a snippet which directly supports my claim that Somaliland was under Axum pre-Islam

Here is a snippfrom the site et whidirectly supports my ou.

[6]https://www.somalispot.com/attachments/upload_2019-11-21_1-54-16-png.82361/

I agree that the map of the Zagwe dynasty is pretty rushed and innacurate and the map was of a low quality which i'll fix up but the rest of your claims are just false. Feel free to refute me if you can though. Havenzeye (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Havenzeye The Washa Mikael church was not built by the Aksumites. Academic research has debunked this many times and instead dates it to the medieval period. "It appears that whoever carved the Washa Mika'el's sculptures used a similar method to that employed in Lalibela on the bas-relief above the western porch of the Beta Maryam church, which hypothetically dates from the thirteenth century."[7]. A French exaction teams also dates the church to around 1450 AD during the era of Zara Yakob. "We estimate that the attribution of the digging of Yekka-Mikael to Zara-Yacob, around 1450, is plausible. It would facilitate the explanation of the non-completion works and the strange shape of the arch windchests. Failure to complete could indeed be explained by the disinterestedness of the successors of Zara-Yacob for the monolith construction method." [8] There is no archeological or academic evidence that the Aksumites were in Shewa. You've even expanded it to include modern day southern and western Ethiopia which is completely ridiculous.

Please read page 38 of Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity by Stuart C. Munro-Hay. "The Aksumite cultural province, as far as reported sites can indicate, was centred in Eritrea and Tigray, particularly the districts of the Akkele Guzay, Agame, and the region around Aksum, Adwa, and Shire. Traces have also been found in Enderta, Hamasien, Keren, and as far as the Rore Plateau, and even in Wollo. Some of the largest extensions suggested for the kingdom seem unlikely; Doresse, for example, includes among ‘the largest Aksumite ports’ not only Adulis but Deire, on the coast at the Bab al-Mandeb, and also notes Mathew’s statement that a structure excavated at Amoud south of Berbera suggested Aksumite building work. Such ideas, probably based on the Monumentum Adulitanum account of the campaigns of an Aksumite king, cannot yet be confirmed. [9]. محرر البوق (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Those sources doesn't explain the presence of Sabean artefacts also found in the site of the Washa Mikael Church. By the time Lalibela or Zara Yacob ruled, Sabean was completely phased out of Ethiopia. Hence, it would make sense the Axumites built that church. Havenzeye (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Havenzeye Where is your source for Sabean artefacts being found in the church? Even if that was true, it still doesn't change the fact that there is academic consensus that this church was built in the medieval period. Not the Aksumite era. The Aksumite Empire controlled the areas of Tigray, Eritrea, Wollo, and Begemeder. Everywhere else was either peripheral or never controlled by them at all. محرر البوق (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This conversation seems a little more heated than necessary. I want to note the relevance of WP:OR for this conversation and particularly WP:SYNTH. These are recurring problems for user-made maps. Pathawi (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

These maps are problematic the Axumite state did not control the areas indicated on the maps. One of the maps claims it controlled modern eastern Ethiopia in 6th century however another state existed during that time see Harla Kingdom. Aksum did not hold southern nor east Ethiopia, see its extent according to Encyclopædia Britannica in the 6th century. [10]. The other map highlighted in blue is even more ridiculous implying it occupied nearly the entire Horn of Africa, Aksum did not even occupy modern Somalia. Per map from Simon Fraser univeristy [11] the current maps constitute original research. Magherbin (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Erroneous information

Was alerted to this page by a discussion on twitter, claiming that Greeks founded Axum based on the material here. Firstly the claims that Greek was the official language or somehow preceded Ge'ez is false. I can not see any evidence that supports that claim. There are claims by the same user of a colony in Ethiopia by the Plotemies of which there is no evidence. Why is this information still standing. Habesha212 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Habesha212 it seems most helpful if you were to provide sources for your claims, rather than dismissing the sources put up by others out of hand. Remsense诉 09:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

A horse drinking water.

1.This is article doesn't claim that Greeks founded Axum.

2.You say you "cannot see any evidence that supports that claim." This topic has been touched ad nauseam under Talk:Kingdom of Aksum#Greek. Since you already responded to the arguments there, you've clearly had the chance to read the information and sources provided there.

To claim there is no evidence is you acting like an ostrich sticking your head in the sand and calling the world a desert; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Aearthrise (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No there is no evidence whatsoever and the sources are poor, you have also not adequately challenged the concerns. So I will ask you, since you state there is a plethora of evidence can you provide one inscription at least that predates Ge'ez and the evidence for it being used in an official capacity since we know that the script predates Ezana. Habesha212 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're making a contradictory statement in this first sentence "no there is no evidence whatsoever and the sources are poor". You can't claim there is no evidence, and at the same time say that sources (i.e. provided evidence) are poor. Which one is it?

Also, I can count about 20 different citations provided there, including those from the US government, UNESCO, and Axumite/Ancient Ethiopian scholarship. Aearthrise (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The US government! hence why I state your sources are poor and therefore lacking. Absolutely no one that has thoroughly studied the history states that Ezana promoted the script and made it an official language, that makes utterly no sense. Do you actually have any credible sources or not and can you answer the questions posed to you Habesha212 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Again if there is a plethora of evidence you should have no issues Habesha212 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You also make strange claims that Ezana promoted the script, he did no such thing rather it developed under him and even those developments are said to be prior to his rule. Habesha212 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources provided show that Ge'ez script developed under Christian missionaries to help in Christianization of Axum, and that Ezana elevated this script, especially in the usage of monument building. From the discussion under Talk:Kingdom of Aksum#Greek:

The beginnings of Ethiopian literature go back to the early part of the Christian Era when the introduction of Christianity into the Axumite Kingdom, the precursor of modern-day Ethiopia, stimulated the production of religious works in Geez (Ethiopic), the language then spoken by the people of Axum. The large body of writings now extant in Geez, almost entirely in manuscript form, constitutes the country's traditional literature.

Classical Ethiopic, or Ge'ez, is the literary language developed by missionaries for the translation of the scriptures after the Christianization of Ethiopia in the 4th century. The new written langauge was presumably based on the spoken language of Aksum.

Ezana, the greatest Ethiopian king of the Axumite period, reigned in the fourth century A.D. According to most sources, he made Geez an official language with its own script, which refined the Sabaean system of Arabic, and he extended Axum's power in all directions.

After Ezana the oldest core of Ethiopic literature gradually took shape in the form of translations from the Greek (in turn sometimes a rendering from Hebrew or Aramaic). This literature, preserved and recopied in churches and monasteries during a long "dark age" when the rise of Islam in Arabia and the Red Sea area effectively cut Ethiopia off from the rest of the Near Eastern Christian world, includes an Ethiopic translation of the Bible and accompanying apocrypha (in particular a long, complete version of Enoch), many liturgical texts, some lives of saints, some patristic fragments (a few unattested elsewhere), and a version of monastic Rules of Pachomius.

The subculture of the Aksumite monarchy was not only national but also international in character. Side by side with Ge'ez, the Greek language was used as a state and international language. Kings like Za-Hekale and Ezana knew Greek (the Periplus reports that 'king Zoscales' was literate in Greek, and Ezana's mentor, a Graeco-Phoenician, Frumentius, later the first bishop of Aksum).

Some inscriptions, almost all royal, are written in Greek. Those that can be dated were written before the end of the fourth century. They go back to the reign of Ezana (polytheist or Christian) or of previous kings. Greek thus stops being used in monumental inscriptions relatively early, while it continues being preferred to Ge'ez on coin legends, especially gold and silver issues. Aearthrise (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What sources state that Ezana made it an official language? there is no evidence of such, which would be bizarre since it was used by Wazeba for example. Its development which I spoke about has been questioned by the likes of Schneider but it seems to have transformed into an abugida under Ezana, invented and origins are two different things. It states Greek was used side by side with Ge'ez at no point did it replace it in inscriptions or precede, no evidence for such. Stating almost all royal inscriptions are written in Greek does not correlate with the findings.

I mean this line here says it all and perfectly describes how poor this source is which refined the Sabaean system of Arabic that is a mess of a sentence and very misinformed. Habesha212 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• developed rather. You state that the script was invented under Ezana which is factually incorrect.

Habesha212 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

The wiki page is completely full of inaccuracies and a deliberate attempt to skew history.Ezana does not promote the script his predessors use it 51.190.236.134 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

There is a non-SI unit used in a paragraph. Change "Askum was also located on a plateau 6,562 feet above sea level, ..." to "Askum was also located on a plateau around 2000 m (6,562 feet) above sea level, ..." MatteSange (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No Heading Given

The first king of the Aksumite kingdom was Zoskales. He ruled the Axumite kingdom and government port of adulis.

The Aksumite kingdom started in the coastal areas of Eritrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:4F24:5000:AC3A:2690:A302:1C5C (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)