Revision as of 19:27, 2 June 2023 editPetra0922 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,973 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:32, 17 August 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,297,944 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Amhara people/Archive 3) (bot | ||
(37 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=horn}} | ||
{{Talk header|wp=yes|search=yes |
{{Talk header|wp=yes|search=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Ethiopia |
{{WikiProject Ethiopia|importance=Top}} | ||
{{WikiProject Africa |
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Top|Ethiopia=yes|Ethiopia-importance=Top}} | ||
{{Ethnic groups |
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archive = Talk:Amhara people/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Amhara people/Archive %(counter)d | ||
|algo = old(90d) | |algo = old(90d) | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 3 | ||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
|minthreadsleft = 3 | |minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Misinformation == | |||
== Re adding origin theories in the history section. == | |||
The page of the Amhara people is constantly being violated by specific agenda of a user, Socialwave597. He used to had an Arabic user name and now he changed it to English. He deleted various informations from the page - Including Amhara relationships to the Aksum empire. And he is editing stuff based on his own agenda. Nobody is stopping him. He writing stuff which don’t even mentioned in the source, and deleted other information from other sources which doesn’t soothe his narrative. For example he wrote that it is “believe that the Christianisation of Amharas begin in the Late Aksum empire period”. Believed by who? And that is just a single example. How come no one is stoping him and letting him do as he wish? ] (]) 21:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{re|Materialscientist}} I added this ] back in November 2021. ] is twisting sources to push a theory in the history section. Sources Bender, Aron Butts and Reinecke supports an Proto Agaw, but also mention Amharic as a descendant of an Ethio-Semitic language that is related to Geez through an Ethio-semitic ancestor (Hetzron theory, which is still the most common theory to this day). ] (]) 23:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The source is referring to the Christianization of ] (South Wollo), where the Amhara expanded out of. The source is the first volume of ] and is accessible in virtually every major university institution. ] (]) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'm twisting sources to push a theory but the claim that "The Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire." doesn't seem uncontroversial to you? | |||
:Your bias is showing. | |||
:] (]) 19:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Christianization part == | |||
::@] Your twist (in the form of Appiah source) is that the Proto-Agaws were semiticed by Geez speakers from Aksum, which is not supported by Reinecke, Aron Butts source. South Ethio Semitic speakers were already present. Geez played a role in the Christianization of the area later on. The sources mention Hetzron theory which classifies ] to this day as a South Ethio Semitic language, still the most mainstream theory. It's not a direct descendant of Geez, Proto-Amharic and Geez had a common Ethio-Semitic ancestor according to this theory. However, Geez influenced the lexicon of Amharic due to it's status as a sacred church language. ] (]) 10:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Hello, @]. Taddesse Tamart was talking about the Agaw in Wag and Lasta. Here is what he wrote about Amhara; “Amhara troops of Tigre ancestry” meaning that according to Taddesse Tamart (which he himself mentioned) Amhara originated from Axum (what is now Tigray/Tigre). This disproves your claim. Please read carefully his works. ] (]) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::No it doesn't, Aksum played a role in Christianization of the region. Amharas form the largest Orthodox Christian community in Africa. Golden age of Geez literature was during the Amhara Solomonic Dynasty not Aksumite period. In that case Amharas are heirs. ] (]) 10:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::It absolutely is, there is no evidence to suggest that Amharas are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. ] in his book "The Ethiopians" on page 35 121 claim the the Tigrinya speaking people of Tigrai and Eritrea are the "authentic carriers of the historical and cultural traditions" of the Aksumite Empire. Most sources state that Tigrayans are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire, not Amharas. | |||
:::Even if you choose to not believe this, this is evidence that Amharas are NOT universally considered to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire and the claim of being the heirs of the Aksumite Empire is very much contested. This is why I accused you of being biased because you removed my edits but you didn't remove that (which I also believe was added by a sock). ] (]) 20:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:@] Where does he say that? He actually says that the Christianization of Amhara took place during the ninth century (late Aksumite period), "According to the Life of Tekle Haymanot (c. 1215-1313) the advent of his ancestors to Amhara and Shewa is connected with Digna-Jan’s programme of evangelization of his southern provinces. This brings Digna-Jan to the first half of the ninth century." (page 68-69). The modern Amhara are a mixture of various peoples (similar to the Oromo), whose ethnogenesis took shape during the post-Aksumite era, its possible that some Amhara are of "Tigrayan" or Aksumite ancestry due to assimilation, but not the group as a whole. ] (]) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
My edit back in 2021.. | |||
::Firstly, in what page does he state this exact claim? | |||
::Secondly on page 72 Taddesse Tamart clearly wrote “and his Amhara troops of Tigre ancestry”. The term Tigre in this context is in reference to the area in specific Aksum. In addition I have reviewed the source you sent. The pages 68-69 have nothing written about “Amhara becoming Christians in the 9th century”. The only thing he mentioned was the fact that the ancestors of Saint Tekle Haymanot migrated to the province of Amhara/Bete Amhara during the reign of Digna Jan. Furthermore a well reliable source, Professor Mordechai Abir of the Hebrew university of Jerusalem clearly shows that Amhara became Christians in the 4th century. | |||
::This can be proven with other sources such as: The Encyclopedia of African Peoples, Pg 29 The Diagram Group which state “After Syrians convened Ezana. King of Axum 320-55, to Christianity, the Amhara gradually adopted the religion too. The spread of Islam in surrounding areas from the seventh century resulted in the isolation of the Amhara…”; | |||
::Ethiopian Review vol 4 1994 state, “During the following 800 years, the Amharas never forgot their original home, Aksum. Their emperors considered their dynasty as the continuation of the Solomonic Dynasty. They returned often to Aksum to be coronated in accordance with the tradition of their ancestors, the …”; | |||
::Ethiopia: the land, it's people, History and Culture Yohannes Mekonnen, Page 250 states: “The Amhara have an ancient Christian tradition that traces its roots to the Aksumite Empire. In the fourth century, the emperor Ezana left behind inscriptions that mention the titles "Lord of Heaven" and "Lord of the Earth," Which indicates his conversion to the Christian faith. | |||
::Ezana's Christianity is confirmed by the coins minted during his reign: earlier coins bear a crescent and disk, whereas later ones depict the cross, a symbol of Christian penetration in the Amhara region. | |||
::There are many more sources I can bring, but I think you get the point. Please take this seriously and quit manipulating sources to fit in your imaginary narratives. ] (]) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Well then you misread it. Tamrat is clearly saying that the ancestors of Tekle Haymont arrived in the region of Amhara to Christianize it, this is again reiterated on page 229 "According to some versions of the tradition of Dignajan, King of Aksum, the ancestors of Tekle-Haymanot are said to have been sent to Amhara and Shewa with numerous other priests to evangelize the region". The original Amhara are not of "Tigre origin" either (I believe you are engaging in ] here), as linguistic analysis shows they branched off some 2,800 years ago. The Amhara originate more southward then Lasta and Wag, in modern day South Wollo (Bete Amhara), hence it makes no sense for them to adopt Christianity prior to the 6th century before the Agaw, even this article on the "Ethnogenesis" tab says that they adopted Christianity after the 7th century. ] is obviously not a reliable source, and neither is "Ethiopia: the land, it's people, History and Culture", if you read here the author even forgot to remove the Misplaced Pages citations. Please don't refer to ] that you found on google books and try reading some peer reviewed scholarship on this topic. ] (]) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I did not misread it. Taddese tamrat is the same scholar which stated that Pre-Amharic or an Amharic-like language already existed in the northern part in early times and according to Aleqa Taye, there is evidence from the names of some kings of the Axumite Empire, that they fall to Amharic. From this we can clearly see that Taddese Tamrat believes the ancestors of the Amharas were indeed the Aksumites. I have read the pages 68-69 which you asked to check. It does not state what you claimed. It only says and I quote; “According to the life of Tekle Haymanot (c.1215-1313)) the advent of his ancestors to Amhara/Bete Amhara and shewa is connected with Digna Jan’s program of his evanglizatgion of his southern people.” As you see, nothing about Amhara people becoming Christians at that time whatsoever. | |||
::::In your own quote “"According to some versions of the tradition of Dignajan, King of Aksum, the ancestors of Tekle-Haymanot are said to have been sent to Amhara and Shewa with numerous other priests to evangelize the region".” It states the ANCESTORS of Tekele haymanot were sent to the area of Amhara and Shewa to evangelize, so how could the ancestors of Tekele haymanot (who is an Amhara) be sent to a region to evangelize his own people? That doesn’t make any sense. This is based off you reading into the text and misinterpreting it. | |||
::::In addition to this you misread what I said leading to a complete shift in topic. One, the term “tigre” in this context is not in reference to the people, but rather to the modern region in reference to Aksum, so what it is trying to say is that the ancestors of the Amhara (Aksumites) came from that area. | |||
::::We are not talking about languages but if you insist then you should note that Tigrinya and Amharic have a difference of less than 10% Ge’ez lexicon difference so it is not enough to be used as evidence in your claim. | |||
::::Once again your claim that the Amhara didn’t become christian until the period between the 7-9th century is based off the assumption that the Amhara were not the Aksumites (Agazi) which is not true as I have proven already. Your capability of not being able to disprove our claims is shown by saying the sources brought are “unreliable” even though they are a variety ranging from self published and non self published sources. | |||
::::Also you did not mention to one of the sources I gave. Professor Mordechai Abir of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote that Amhara became christian in the 4th century. Is he also not reliable? | |||
::::In the chronicles of King Gelawdewos (1540-1559) it is stated that Amhara was “land of the Aga’azi” who were the Aksumites showing that the Amharas were the descendants of. I will provide a plethora of sources which are reliable and undeniably proof that the Amhara were Christian since the 4th century AD. | |||
::::-Source: “Native Peoples of the World: | |||
::::An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues”, by Steven L. Danver | |||
::::“The Amhara have an ancient Christian tradition that traces its roots to the Aksumite Empire. In the fourth century, the emperor Ezana left behind inscriptions that mention the titles "Lord of Heaven" and "Lord of the Earth," indicating his conversion to the Christian faith. | |||
::::Ezana's Christianity is confirmed by the coins minted during his reign: earlier coins bear a crescent and disk, whereas later ones depict the cross, a symbol of Christian penetration in the Amhara Region.” | |||
::::-Source: Oil, Power and Politics: | |||
::::“Conflict of Asian and African Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem”, by professor Mordechai Abir | |||
::::“The main recipients of the 'semitic' cultural influences were the people today called Amhara and Tigreans,' who from the fourth century A.D. became Christians and more or less dominated the history of Ethiopia. Ironically, the foundations of the kingdom of Ethiopia were laid in the area which now is partly Eritrean and which local secessionists wish to tear away from Ethiopia.” ] (]) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::@] I don't want to side track on this and instead would like to focus on your edits on the article (i.e Christianization of Amhara). Now, Taddesse Tamrat without any doubt says that Amhara was Christianized during the reign of ], if you can't, don't, or won't understand his words then perhaps we should request a third opinion here. The established fact is the Amhara were originally concentrated in a smaller province in South Wollo prior to the 14th century, and according to traditions this province and its people were evangelized during the reign of Degna Djan. (pg 87) "Christianity soon became the central component of the ethnic identity of the Aksumites and their descendants, the Tigreans. By the end of the first millennium groups of the Amhara were also beginning to embrace Christianity." Mordechai Abir's quote is just a passing line without an analysis of the primary sources, and Danver's source is just a broad encyclopedia of various different ethnic groups (]). The royal chronicles are a primary source, so we can't use that per ]. I don't want you to think that I will concede based on fringe sources you find, you can find sources for anything nowadays this isn't a reference competition, its differentiating between what is mainstream academic opinion and what's not. | |||
::::::"Your capability of not being able to disprove '''our''' claims | |||
:::::"Our"? Who are you arguing on behalf of? ]? ] (]) 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::@] I am starting to get tired of this discussion. Clearly you are denying every source I give which state that the Christianization of the Amharas began in the 4th century and then bring other sources that do not mention what you claim. How can you even deny that the coins minted in Emperor's Ezana reign displayed Christian symbols? You asked me for "some peer reviewed scholarship on this topic" and I did, giving you multiple of well known and reliable sources, yet you continue to deny them left and right, with random excuses. | |||
::::::Once again you are changing topics, ""Our"? Who are you arguing on behalf of? WP:MEATPUPPET?" I used the term "our" in reference to my claims and the sources. I understand that you are trying to find anything you can, as little as it might be, to bring me down but that doesn't look good on you. ] (]) 12:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Please request a third opinion then. ] (]) 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== A third opinion === | |||
There's a generally agreed consensus that the genesis of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Agaw<ref>{{cite book |last=Butts |first=Aaron Michael |author-link= |date=2015 |title=Semitic languages in contact |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/semitic-languages-in-contact/oclc/1083204409 |location=Leiden, Boston |publisher=Brill |page=18 |isbn=}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Bender |first=M.L |year=1972 |title=Searching for Creolization in South Ethio-Semitic |publisher=Southern Illinois University |publication-place=Carbondale |page=B |url= |access-date=}}</ref>, or Proto-Agaw<ref>{{cite book |last=Butts |first=Aaron Michael |author-link= |date=2015 |title=Semitic languages in contact |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/semitic-languages-in-contact/oclc/1083204409 |location=Leiden, Boston |publisher=Brill |page=21 |isbn=}}</ref> that gradually semiticized through interaction with various Semitic-speaking peoples.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Reinecke |first1=John E |author-link1= |last2=Gilbert|first2=Glenn G|date=1987 |title=Pidgin and Creole languages : essays in memory of John E. Reinecke|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/pidgin-and-creole-languages-essays-in-memory-of-john-e-reinecke/oclc/13332183|location=Honolulu|publisher=University of Hawaii | page=44 |isbn=}}</ref> | |||
I'm responding to request from {{u|Javext}} for a third opinion. I've been slow to respond since I wanted to do some research first, & apologize if this inconvenienced anyone. Further, I feel it is only fair to all parties that I mention the rules about ]. It would be a loss to Misplaced Pages were an edit war to leave this article in ]. It appears that this disagreement is primarily over the conversion of the Amhara people to Christianity; it is this point I offer my opinion. | |||
First, it needs to be emphasized that the question about the conversion of the Amhara falls in a dark period of Ethiopian history: the years between the end of the Aksum kingdom & the foundation of the Zagwe dynasty are poorly documented. There is a single inscription, some mentions in the histories of the Coptic/Egyptian church, & mentions by contemporary Muslim writers. (The lists of rulers & Abbas/Metropolitans is not trusted by many historians.) So the archeological record -- the study of man-made things -- is important here. | |||
VS your twist | |||
Next, the work of Dr. Taddesse Tamrat has been cited often in this discussion, unfortunately from his doctoral thesis ''not'' his published book. There are significant differences between the two, most importantly that he acknowledges that he had additional input that went into his published book from such luminaries as Richard Pankhurst & Stanislaw Chojnacki. The drawback is that Dr. Taddesse's published book is out of print, while his doctoral thesis is available online. (Fortunately thru the School of African Studies, & the British Library website which went offline due to hackers.) Despite this limitation, I will be citing Dr. Taddesse's published book here. | |||
There's a generally agreed consensus that the ancestors of the Amharas were group(s), who spoke an old form(s) of Cushitic ],<ref>{{cite book |last=Butts |first=Aaron Michael |author-link= |date=2015 |title=Semitic languages in contact |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/semitic-languages-in-contact/oclc/1083204409 |location=Leiden, Boston |publisher=Brill |page=18 |isbn=|oclc=1083204409 }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Bender |first=M.L |year=1972 |title=Searching for Creolization in South Ethio-Semitic |publisher=Southern Illinois University |publication-place=Carbondale |page=B |url= |access-date=}}</ref> or Proto-Agaw<ref>{{cite book |last=Butts |first=Aaron Michael |author-link= |date=2015 |title=Semitic languages in contact |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/semitic-languages-in-contact/oclc/1083204409 |location=Leiden, Boston |publisher=Brill |page=21 |isbn=|oclc=1083204409 }}</ref> These indigenous Agaws were then semiticized through intermarriage with Semitic ] speaking settlers from ] who gradually migrated southwards towards the modern Amhara homeland during the 9th century AD.<ref name=eoaamhara-quote>{{cite book|first1=Anthony|last1=Appiah|author2= Henry Louis Gates|title=Encyclopedia of Africa|url= https://www.google.com/books?id=A0XNvklcqbwC&pg=PA96| year=2010| publisher=Oxford University Press| isbn=978-0-19-533770-9|page=96|quote=The origins and early history of the Amhara remain the subject of some speculation. Archaeological evidence suggests that sometime before 500 B.C.E. a Semitic-speaking people, from whom the Amhara are descended, migrated from present-day Yemen to the area of northern Ethiopia that would become Aksum. These Himyarites, as they have come to be called, intermarried with indigenous speakers of Cushitic languages, such as Agaw, and gradually spread south into the present-day homeland of the Amhara. Their descendants spoke Ge'ez, an ancient Semitic tongue that is no longer spoken but remains the official language of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Reinecke |first1=John E |author-link1= |last2=Gilbert|first2=Glenn G|author-link2=|date=1987 |title=Pidgin and Creole languages : essays in memory of John E. Reinecke|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/pidgin-and-creole-languages-essays-in-memory-of-john-e-reinecke/oclc/13332183|location=Honolulu| publisher=University of Hawaii |page=44 |isbn=|oclc=13332183 }}</ref> | |||
{{u|Socialwave597}} believes that Dr. Taddesse "without any doubt says that Amhara was Christianized during the reign of ]". I have not read his thesis in full, but from my understanding of his published work he was at least ambivalent about when the Amhara were converted. He does not explicitly raise the issue when the Amhara were converted, but can assume he believed they were converted at the same time as the inhabitants of Tigray were -- or that they were concerted later. Perhaps his opinion was mixed because it is part of Amhara identity that they can trace their roots to the kingdom of Aksum, the earliest African kingdom to accept Christianity, & Christianity is an important part of defining who the Amhara are. In his book at one point he admits "Traditional material on the Amhara is lacking and it is impossible here to give any specific dates for their origin." (p. 37) Nevertheless he states further on in his book | |||
{{quote|The Amhara had long been the advance guard of Christian expansion in the south. We have already referred to an early Muslim tradition of the armed conflict between them and the Warjih pastoralists in the Shawan region, in A.D. 1128. There are traditions of a slow movement of isolated Christian families from Amhara to the region of the Shawan plateau. A military expedition by a Zagwe monarch into the "kingdom of Damot" is also referred to elsewhere.|source=pp. 64f}} | |||
So is there any evidence suggesting that the Amhara did convert at an earlier time then, say the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty? | |||
{{talk-reflist}}<!-- Please add comments in this section above this line. New sections should be started below this line. --> | |||
First we need to define what is meant by "Amhara people". Are we talking about a people who are related somehow to the Tigrayan people, or about a people who live in the Amhara area, the Bet Amhara, & came to speak the Amhara language & profess Christianity? That is an issue I don't know if you have or can agree about, but for simplicity I'm assuming it refers to the people who live in that area & speak the language as well as profess Christianity. If either of you disagree, then I guess what I'm about to say will not be of value. But if we agree to that, then archeological evidence can help because we can then turn to the study of the ancient churches of Ethiopia. | |||
== Aksum heirs claim == | |||
These ancient churches show in many ways demonstrate a continuation of traditions rooted in the kingdom of Aksum, such as a basilica floor plan, & a form of construction known as "monkey-head". Many ancient churches with these features are found in the Tigray Region, which is where Christianity first entered the Horn of Africa; those to the south of Tigray would then be considered influenced by Aksumite Christianity. And there are several. (I'm excluding here the famous churches of Lalibela, since many experts believe these were secular structures later converted to churches.) The best known of these are Yemrehanna Krestos, Kankart Mika'el, & Bilbola Tcherqos. Now these have been dated to that dark period between the kingdom of Aksum & the Zagwe dynasty by David Phillipson in his ''Ancient Churches of Ethiopia'' (2007): Kankart Mika'el (which he calls the oldest such church in Amhara) to between AD 800 & AD 1000, Bilbola Tcherqos to between 900 & 1025, & Yemrehanna Krestos to between 1025 & 1150) (p. 190). This archeological evidence supports Dr. Taddesse's statement about the Amhara being the advance guard for the southern advance of Christianity. | |||
@] The source referenced for the statement that Amharas are the heirs of the Aksumite Empire does not provide any evidence or explanation as to why they are. The source cited is an Encyclopedia and hence a tertiary source. Using this source alone would be against Misplaced Pages policy see ] and ]. Ullendorf's source is much more reliable then this and should be preferred as it is reputably published. There is no evidence that Amharas are the "cultural heirs" to Aksum. Your edit summary is your opinion alone and is not stated by any material. If you choose to include that in this article that would be ] and original research. | |||
So it would appear that the expert consensus is that the Amhara converted either around the same time as their northern neighbors, or within a few generations after. Conversion was a slow process: according to Dr Taddesse, Christianity was limited to the royal court & other major population centers along the road linking Aksum & Adulis (p. 23); it wasn't until the advent of the Nine Saints towards the end of the 5th century that Christianity spread into the countryside. (Dr. Taddesse dates this to the late 5th century, while I've seen other authorities who date this a little later, to the 6th century; as Dr. Taddesse commented the evidence for this period is limited.) We do have evidence that despite having gone into a decline after AD 600, the Aksum kingdom had still some importance as late as AD 770, when Arab writers tell of Aksumite naval battles in the Red Sea (Taddesse, p. 32). | |||
Seeing what google books have to say, most sources (admittedly, I have no idea if theyre reliable or not) suggest that Tigrinya and Tigre speakers are the heirs of Aksum. Or at best they group up Amharas and Tigrayans together and say that they together are the inheritors of Axum. Very few if any say that Amharas are the inheritors or "cultural heirs" of Aksum alone. ] (]) 00:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
I'd like to comment on a few more points raised in this discussion. One is that, according to my understanding of the ''Galla'' of saint Tekle Haymanot, that his ancestors who were asked by king Digna Jan to go south and evangelize were living in Amhara & proceeded to Shewa. (Tekle Haymanot was born in Silalish, between the Jamma & Mugar rivers, which I believe is south of Bet Amhara.) But I could be wrong. Another is about the use of ] concerning Ge'ez, Tigray & Amhara. I had always believed from my reading that the three languages had a similar relationship to each other as Latin, Spanish & Portuguese respectively. I was surprised to read from the article Socialwave cited that Ge'ez was considered a sister language to the two, & that the split between Tigrayan & Amharic was dated to 850 BC. (The table in the article should not be read as "2800 BC", but "2800 Before Present"; Before Present is measured back from AD 1950, which calculates to 850 BC.) This is the first source I've seen that promotes such a view. Now I happen to know that the results of glottochronology are at best controversial -- please see the Misplaced Pages article -- so unless other authorities independent of glottochronology confirm such an early date, I wouldn't rely on that source overmuch. Perhaps not more than in a footnote noting this dissenting POV. | |||
@] You are either not reading the abundant sources available or simply are pushing a minorty narrative. My edit summary is common fact, you don't seem to know much about this subject, they are overwhelmingly Orthodox Christians (not Mohammedans), the largest in Ethiopia, even Oromos and Tigrayans put together can't even come close to the number of Amharas adhering to Orthodox Christianity. Amharas remember their history and their wars against Arab influence and Mohammedans enchroachment. Amharic fidal is a modified script derived from Geez, and Geez golden age of literature happend during the Solomonic Dynasty not Aksum. There are plenty of sources that can back this up. ] (]) 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
I must thank anyone who has read this far in my essay. I wrote more than I had planned to on this subject. -- ] (]) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] You can read about Tigrayans being the successors of the Aksumite empire here. I can provide significantly much more sources (you can easily took this up yourself) but it seems like this isn’t a minority narrative. So what if Amharas are overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian? That literally does not make any sense as to why they are the “heirs of Aksum”. By that logic Latin Americans are the heirs of the Roman Empire because they are overwhelmingly Catholic and outnumber European or Italian Catholics. Also if you want to still want to argue this Tigray is over 95% Orthodox Christian and is more Orthodox then Amhara percentage wise as Amharas have a significant Muslim minority. The point is Amharas are absolutely NOT universally considered the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. This is a heavily disputed statement and is not common fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Tigrayans are the successors to the Aksumite Empire you are clearly pushing some nationalistic perspective that has no consensus. | |||
:] (]) 19:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Hello @]. Thanks for replying. I agree that the period between the fall of Aksum and the Zagwe period is a dark age of Ethiopian history and like you said, there are little to no inscriptions from that time, that talks about this topic and others. I also agree with what you said regarding the source socialwave597 brought up and his misinterpretation of the glottochronology. The split of languages specifically wouldn’t have any major input in this topic since we are more focusing on the people not their languages. On the topic of who the Amhara people are, I agree with what you said on their location (bet/bete Amhara), language (Amharic) and their religion (Christianity). However, one vital piece of information is that they are the heirs of Aksum. The reason why this is vital, is because it would mean that the proto amhara (ie people living with the Aksumite period and would later become to be known as the Amhara) lived further north. | |||
::] A totally pointless discussion and a total waste of time with you, please bring this forward to one of the dispute settelements, the sources are provided in the article, i'm not going to add a dozens of more available sources just to humour you. What the hell is your point anyways? Your are just pov pushing trying to portray Tigrayans as the sole succesors, when that is NOT the case. If you are referring to the 2007 census it mentions the faith of whole regions and zones, not specific ethnic groups. The Amhara region has mohammedan minorites such as the Oromo's and Argobba. Amharas are much larger group than Tigray and have many more Orthodox Christians, in fact Amharas formed the vanguard of Christianity in the region so much that term Amhara was synomous with being Christian. It clears you are not bothering to read the sources or are ]. Aksum was a spiritual source of Christianity reaffirmed in the Kebra Negast togehter with the Solomonic Dynasty which Amharas dominated, plentiful sources say Amharas are heirs/inheritors of aksum, and continued their traditions (which means Orthodox Christian traditions, and the use of Geez as church language).<ref>{{cite book |last=Simpson |first=Andrew |author-link= |date=2008 |title=Language and National Identity in Africa |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Language_and_National_Identity_in_Africa/AfUTDAAAQBAJ?hl=nl&gbpv=1&dq=term+amhara+christian&pg=PA272 |location= |publisher=OUP Oxford |page=272 |isbn=9780199286744}}</ref> ] (]) 21:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:This can be proven by various sources and traditions such as: | |||
:::@] That is the case and I’ve already provided tons of sources proving that Tigrayans are considered to be the direct successors of the Aksumite Empire more so then Amharas and that nobody except for crazy nationalists believes in that theory. | |||
:1. Ethiopian kings carrying out the tradition of coronation within Aksum. Spearheading the Ge’ez language renaissance in the 14th century during the reign of emperor Zara ya’qob, the deployment of military tactics from the days of Aksum (sewa regiment) by emperors most notably Amde seyon I. These traditions alone show that the Amhara identity is rooted within its Aksumite history. Alongside I have sources to back this up. Here are some: -"Encyclopedia of the Stateless | |||
:::The source you cited for Donald Levine on pg 33 says this: “is that these influences were absorbed primarily by the Aksumites and their cultural heirs, the '''Tigreans and Amhara'''” ] | |||
:Nations: Ethnic and | |||
:::”The Amhara region has mohammedan minorites such as the Oromo's and Argobba. Amharas are much larger group than Tigray and have many more Orthodox Christians, in fact Amharas formed the vanguard of Christianity in the region so much that term Amhara was synomous with being Christian.” None of this matters, please reread my previous comment about the Latin American analogy. You seem to be in complete denial that Amhara Muslims exist and exist in large numbers. 17% of the Amhara region are Muslims making them a significant minority. I’m not gonna respond to these ridiculous statements anymore if you continue to trick yourself into thinking that Amhara Muslims are some teeny tiny insignificant minority then that’s your problem. | |||
:National Groups Around the World", James Minahan • 2002 (p. 104) - The Semitic Aksumites eventually split into two related but distinct nations, the Amhara and the Tigreans. The Amhara spread from their *traditional lands* to conquer much of the highlands. | |||
:::My point is again, that Amharas are not considered to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire. That is an incredibly controversial statement and is ]. The so called “plentiful sources” that you provided can be easily refuted by my sources (which I provided earlier) suggesting that Tigre and Tigrinya speakers are the successors. Also the ] was propaganda piece written by the Solomonic kings in the 14th century to establish their legitimacy. By that logic Amharas are the heirs of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Why don’t you add that in? | |||
:-“Native Peoples of the World: | |||
:::More sources; | |||
:An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues”, by Steven L. Danverl -Oil, Power and Politics: | |||
:::“The Tigrayans who consider themselves to be the heirs of the Aksumite Empire”<ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=W-Ec7HX-40YC&pg=PA95&dq=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8rJuWmK3-AhV4MjQIHd0IA_o4ChDoAXoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=tigrean%20heirs%20of%20aksum&f=false</ref> | |||
:“Conflict of Asian and African Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem”, by professor Mordechai Abir. | |||
:::“The Tigreans , the direct descendants and cultural heirs of ancient Aksum”<ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=1OAkAQAAIAAJ&q=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&dq=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiazKvllq3-AhWlGjQIHcx6A20Q6AF6BAgIEAM#%20heirs%20%20aksum</ref> | |||
:Additional source: Dr. Girma Demeke in his book, Origin of Amharic, explicitly states this speaking a Semitic language is slightly different from that of Geez. According to the pidgin hypothesis, the Semitic tongue spoken by the commanders was the one that provided the Semitic features to Amharic. Indeed, there is historical support for the existence of such a Semitic tongue before the administrative shift took place from the North, Axum, to the South, Zague. Pre- Amharic or an Amharic-like language existed in the northern part in this early times, according to Alega Taye (1964 E.C: 52) "as evidenced from the names of some kings such as ጉም (721-725), አስጎምጉም (725-730), ለትም (730-746) and ተላተም | |||
:::And many more!<ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=ezQOAQAAMAAJ&q=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&dq=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiazKvllq3-AhWlGjQIHcx6A20Q6AF6BAgCEAM#direct%20heirs%20Aksum%20culture</ref><ref>https://books.google.ca/books?id=jJhxAAAAMAAJ&q=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&dq=tigrean+heirs+of+aksum&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiazKvllq3-AhWlGjQIHcx6A20Q6AF6BAgKEAM#%20Tigreans</ref> | |||
:(746-767) of the Axumite Empire. As Aleqa Taye (Ibid) also points out, such names do not fall to any of the present ES, but to Amharic." | |||
:::] (]) 01:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 01:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
: | |||
:Would It be possible to restore the page back to my version? Once again thanks for replying. ] (]) 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Girma Demeke never says that Amharic was "lightly different from that of Geez" nor did he believe in the pidgin hypothesis. I'm getting signals that you never read his book. ] (]) 04:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Girma Demeke clearly states in his book: "speaking a Semitic language slightly different from that of Ge'ez". | |||
:::I also never said he believed in the Pidgin hypothesis. | |||
:::Now, whether or not you are purposely misinterpreting my statements, I don't know. However, I will assume it's good faith. | |||
:::- ] (]) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:That archeological evidence you referenced is situated in the province of ] (which was primarily inhabited by the ]) not Bete Amhara, however I am willing to concede and change the sentence to "during the Aksumite period" or something along those lines, but not during the reign of Ezana as proposed by ]. This is my proposal. ] (]) 04:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] Hello! I apologize if I am bothering you, however It is been a week since my last reply and I haven't got an answer yet. Would you be able to restore it to my version? Thanks. ] (]) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] I am willing to concede and change the sentence to "the Amhara embraced Christianity sometime during the Aksumite period" or some type of variation of that sentence. We can leave out the century or what king it occurred under since the sources seem to be divergent about that, but they are in general agreement that it occurred during the Aksumite era. ] (]) 03:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::All right, seems good to me. I will change it. ] (]) 10:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Misinformation == | |||
::::] Take this to a one of the dispute boards, waste of my precious time dealing with you. You will find a very time to convince most editors that the successorship to Aksum are exclusively to Tigrayans-Tigre i can tell you that already. | |||
This content is primarily compiled by people whose primary objective is to divide and weaken integrity of the Amhara people. Much of the content is not based on fact but merely on individuals skewed view of the Amhara people. | |||
::::Orthodox Christianity DO MATTERS a lot for Amharas, it's part and parcel of their lives and the history of their forefathers. Amhara region doesn't mean all are Amharas, 91.47% of Amhara region are Amharas, there are other tribes as well. The census of religion is based on zones and districts not ethnic groups! The figure of 17% you are blabbing about doesn't mean Amharas are 17% mohammedans, far from it. For instance, the ] are more than 85% Oromo's, but are 97% muslim. You have the ] more than 95% Argobba and more than 96% muslim. That one zone and special woreda takes 3% off the region's figure, not to mention dozens of other tribes who live in the rest of the zones. Figure of 17% is mathematically impossible, closer to ten percent, maybe? Still Amharas have numerically more Orthodox Christians than Oromos and Tigrayans combined. I don't care if you don't respond anymore, in fact please don't respond you damn mohammedan, go read the census properly and stfu. | |||
This content need to be edited making it free of individuals subjective perceptions. ] (]) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Your Latin American analogy was ignored because it's simply an idiotic comparison, and even more moronic for you to mention it twice, you simply had no clue about the history of the Roman Empire before you made that ridiculous comment. Roman Empire continued without Rome. Ge'ez is no longer a spoken language, neither Tigrayans speak it, nor Amharas, both use it as a church language, both of their script are influenced by Ge'ez script. | |||
::::I don't care about your point, you are pov pushing that Tigrayans are the only heirs of Aksumite Empire, when sources disagrees with you. Go ahead and take it to the notice boards. ] (]) 23:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::@] Blah blah blah blah, not going to address those completely irrelevant off topic arguments. | |||
:::::For the last time YOU ARE POV PUSHING. There is contradicting sources about the statement that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum. Yet you present it as a fact. “Amharas are considered to be the heirs of Aksum” by who? Themselves? You? We’re both familiar with the people of this region and we both know that if you tell a Tigrayan or an Eritrean that Amharas are the successors of Aksum they’ll laugh in your face. You have absolutely no idea what POV pushing is, please look at ]. “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.” and “Avoid stating opinions as facts.” The claim that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum is an opinion and is disputed by several other authors, the statement is also seriously contested but you present it as a fact. Maybe Tigrayans are the only successors maybe they’re not, but that theory is out there and should not be ignored. By ignoring the sources that consider Tigrayans to be the heirs and only including the ones that state Amharas are the heirs you are POV pushing, end of story. | |||
:::::'''you damn mohammedan, go read the census properly and stfu.''' This is a new low, even for you. Seems like a bigoted personal attack. DO NOT address me or Muslims as “Mohammedans”, that’s offensive as it comes from the false connotation that Muslims worship the Prophet Muhammad. Are you that stubborn that you cannot handle well cited opinions that are different to yours? Stop with these fucking temper tantrums and grow up. ] (]) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{talk-reflist}}<!-- Please add comments in this section above this line. New sections should be started below this line. --> | |||
==Edit warring ]== | |||
Already left a note to {{u|محرر البوق}} talk page with a recommendation to include the opposing views and the contentious nature of the historical accounts in the body of the article. I have manually edited and brought back the version (contents and sources) that {{u|محرر البوق}} kept removing.] (]) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:@] This dispute is not over FYI. If you continue to ignore my replies on my talkpage, I will interpret that silence as you no longer objecting to the edit you reverted. ] (]) 23:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::@] The previous editor added adequate sources and I also proposed additinoal supporting reference to the content. Please note that you persistently reverted edits for the third time while others disagree, and it is not clear why you made inaccurate edit summary when making the third revert claiming consenus was reached. Please note that this edit will be reverted back to the version where discussion was opened.] (]) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::@] I never claimed that consensus was reached. You stopped responding to my replies for whatever reason, this article says I can do that. ] Also can you please stop saying that this statement is supported by “adequate” sources, I already explained to you why those sources are NOT adequate. Using a tertiary source to make a very controversial statement is against Misplaced Pages guidelines. ] I was always ready to discuss and find a consensus on this article hence I feel like your just looking for problems where there isn’t any ] (]) 17:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::This similar note was also left on @] talk page as well. @], are you seriously citing the “isolated study” of Wood's ambitious and ignorant "work" that completely dismisses the existence of nations and their core values? The argument and tendency to trash home “grown” authentic sources while presenting poorly researched Western materials as a standard and benchmark and taking them as a caliber for right or wrong becomes a series problem in some of editing processes. My suggestion is to open a new discussion on reliability of local literary works and manuscripts that are crucial to Ethiopian society. I believe, your argument seems to weigh on- literary works published by a certain non-Western country isn’t reliable unless the West verifies it. See ]. I will copy this same message to the talk page for recording purposes. ] (]) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::@] We are not going to discuss about the reliability of "local literary works" because according to Misplaced Pages policy using a primary source without a reliable secondary source backing it up is not prohibited (]) and like I said before the Kebra Nagast does not state that the Amhara ethnicity are the successors to Axum, so that would be essentiality a waste of time. You argue that I'm dismissing non western sources, which is not true, I am dismissing primary sources that have not been supported by any reliable authority. You have completely misunderstood my argument. What I'd like to remind you is the current sources are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, see ] and ]. One of the sources does not state that Amharas are the heirs to Axum and the other 2 are tertiary sources (for disputed statements you can't use tertiary sources exclusively). You are straight up ignoring this because your so insistent to keep that statement up for whatever reason. ] (]) 22:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Engaging in such debate is optional but i see the relevance of discussing foreign/Ethiopian sources (]) here or in similar talk pages. This is not the first time it came up and will continue to show up.] (]) 13:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::@] What do you mean by Ethiopian/foreign sources? Do you mean secondary works published by reputable Ethiopian scholars? Or do you mean medieval-era documents like the Kebra Nagaset? ] (]) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::@], my take is that the scope and timeline need to be reasonable, and diverse enough, although this can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Again the serious watch out is framing ancient foreign publications and all literary works as irrelevant. ] (]) 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::@] Well that's just Misplaced Pages policy. You shouldn't cite primary works for disputed statements like that. Because it's prohibited by Misplaced Pages, I don't think such a discussion would be relevant. The problem is that the sources that are currently cited are not sufficient enough to justify including such a statement. I'm not saying that the Kebra Nagast is irrelevant, but per ] you should only use reliable scholarly work ] (]) 05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::@] I am done with your delaying tactics, either provide a reliable source for that statement or I will remove it again. ] (]) 03:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::What tactic you are referring to? This doesn’t help at all. It seems this discussion consists of two topics: 1) a sort of debating sources for content added by another editor which you had a conflict with. The article reflects that you already added the Dubious tag for it which potentially invites other editors to look into the subject. This is the area where you reverted contents three times and now you are insisting for the fourth time on top of the tags, right? | |||
:::::::::2) is a question of identifying sources of foreign origins which seems to be an important topic, to establish/identify sources from Ethiopia as primary and secondary. What is raised here is only one book, Kebre Negast but I haven’t seen any consensus on the general criteria for overall source identification related to materials originating from Ethiopia. That is why it is important to keep this discussion open- so other editors, preferably, those with background on the subject of the material participate.{{pb}}Although the question of determining the specific foreign sources stays open, I want to correct you that Primary sources can be used carefully, on a case-by-case basis: ].] (]) 14:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::This tactic is called ]. And I've already explained that the sources that are being cited are not sufficient enough to justify including that controversial statement, please see ]. The Kebra Negast is a primary source, so it is against wikipedia policy to include it without conjecture with another secondary source (]). Perhaps we should request a third opinion (]) to finally resolve this dispute, whatever that opinion is, I will accept. ] (]) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::@] ] (]) 18:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::As a warning, you need to stop attacking other editors, presenting baseless accusations and starting another conflict. You do realize that Misplaced Pages editors are volunteers and majority aren’t full time? The key point here is it is important to engage/invite more SME participants to debate on sources derived from foreign materials (exactly what is happening for the debated content) and establish a consensus for determining /identifying Ethiopian sources that are primary and secondary, noting that all the sources you and Dawit had been discussing are derived from foreign sources.] (]) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::I read a lot about primary, secondary and tertiary sources here. Taking about primary ones now: where do we use the Kebra Nagast as a direct source in the article? As in {{tq|blah blah blah (statement in Wikivoice)<sup></sup>}} with reference: 1.^ ''Kebra Nagast''? This would be pretty much a no-go for historical topics. We don't prune data from primary sources and present them at face value to our readers. We cite from secondary scholarly sources that critically evaluate these texts. Scholarship. Modern scholarship. Not "western" scholarship. (There is a big difference between let's say {{tq|Muhmammad is the messenger of God<sup></sup>}}, 1.^ ''The Holy Qur'an'' {{nay}} and {{tq|The Qur'an describes Muhmammad as the messenger of God<sup></sup>}}, 1.^ Secondary source. {{y}}) {{ping|Petra0922}}, if you are in doubt about it, you can bring it to the ]. | |||
:::::::::::::But still: do we actually do this in the current version of the article? ], you have deplored the use of the ''Kebra Nagast'' as a primary source: help me out, as I can't find it. ''If'' you refer to the passage {{tq|Many centuries later, the religious paramountcy of the Amhara received official sanction in the final redaction of the Kebra Negast, the Ethiopian national epic. It reaffirmed Aksum as the spiritual source of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Solomonic Dynasty of the Amhara as Aksum's rightful heir}}, that's not what we call citing a primary source. The ''Kebra Negast'' is <u>mentioned</u> in-text based on secondary sources, and this is fine in principle. (It would be perfectly fine, weren't it for the unencyclopedic peacock wording especially in the last sentence which drifts into Wikivoice. It is an obivous fact that the ''Kebra Nagast'' served as an important vehicle to construe the legitimacy of the Amhara-speaking Solomonic Dynasty as a successor of Aksum, but this doesn't mean that we can ascribe objective factuality to it based on the text alone, and also on further historical records which were produced in the same context. But that's another story.) –] (]) 20:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Thanks for you comment @]. But the reason why I explained to @] that the Kebra Nagast was not a sufficient source is because I believed that he was proposing to add the Kebra Nagast as a reference for that statement, as he previously expressed the need for adding more sources. (Admittedly, I could be completely mistaken in interpreting his statements). That source you just cited, The Peopling of Africa, is an encyclopedia of various ethnic groups in Africa, and hence a tertiary source. I did not believe that it was good enough to justify including that statement due to the lack of scholarly sources (]). I talked about this a lot more on my talk page with Petra. ] (]) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::@], I guess this discussion now could go somewhere. I would say it is best to leave the Kebra Nagast discussion aside for now- there are still mentions of the book by scholarly works as the translation of others and a collection of prior works which I think begs the question weather the book could be a secondary source by itself. That is where SMEs may help and need a closer look at the material, which i plan to do as well. Focusing to the key point, the currently blocked editor (DSG, above) who had conflicts with @] added the legitimacy of the Semitics people (Amhara + Tigray) as heirs of the Aksumite kingdom and provided sources which I believe are adequate although I also discovered an additional source and shared on محرر البوق talk page. In addition, numerous scholarly sources support the topic of Amhara and Tigray as heirs and that clearly present the controversial and exclusionary nature of legitimacy for Cushitic people (Agew) as descendants of Aksum, but not to the Semitic groups. | |||
::::::::::::::Here are the publications that align with the existing content and already added sources:{{pb}} | |||
::::::::::::::#] Research Division. ]: {{tq|The Tigray and ''Amhara'', who saw themselves as heirs to Aksum, denied the Zagwe any share in that heritage and viewed the Zagwe as usurpers.}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|Moreover, for the ''Amhara'' dynasty, the most popular religious book of tabot Christianity is the Psalms of David, because the Amhara dynasty is said to have descended from Solomon, and as such, monarchs were claimed to be the ''legitimate heirs of the kings of Aksum''.}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#Danver literally that {{tq|the ''Amhara'' people are considered the ''heirs'' of Axumite Empire….}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|''Amharas'' are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group indigenous to Ethiopia that trace their ancestry to the founders of the Empire of ''Aksum''}}: St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. Russia, Izd-vo Evropeĭskogo doma, St. Petersburg Association of Scientists, 1993. (p.97); {{pb}}Shack, William A.. The Central Ethiopians, Amhara, Tigriňa and Related Peoples: North Eastern Africa Part IV. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017. | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|…continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to ''Aksum'' and its ''Amhara'' and Tegre ''heirs''}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|…continuous strife with the Agaw of central Ethiopia, often disastrous to ''Aksum'' and its ''Amhara'' and Tegre ''heirs''}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|Over the following centuries, however, the Christian ''successors'' to the Aksumite kingdom gradually moved the political centres of their realms southwards.}}, which is the current day Amhara and generally south of Ethiopia: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|These ''Axumite descendants'' developed a separate identity known as ''Amhara''}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|Aksum itself was in rapid decline and t''he political capital was transferred to the southeast''}}, which is Amhara. | |||
::::::::::::::#Unlike the other Semitic Aksum heirs (Amhara + Tigray}, the Agew were the ones discussed as illegitimate although this changed around the 7th / 8th century onward: {{tq|the dynasts, called the Zagwe, have been identified as ethnically Agäw and speakers of a Cushitic language, ''unlike their Semitic-speaking Aksumite predecessors''. …. due to these different cultural and regional origins, the Zagwe have been characterized as a usurper dynasty, ''illegitimate'' heirs of the Aksumite rulers}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|..Tigrais still live in the area of the ancient Aksum kingdom, the ''Amharas and Gurages have expanded inland''}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#Although the portion of Syrian introducing Christianity to the Axum kingdom is questionable, this source also discusses both Amhara and Tigray as descendants of Akumites, {{tq|..when Syrian missionaries brought Christianity to ''Aksumites and to their descendants'', the Tigrais and the ''Amharas''}}: | |||
::::::::::::::#{{tq|The resulting economic downturn resulted in Aksum drastically reducing in size and losing its status as capital by AD 800. During the ''Post-Aksumite period authority shifted to the south''….}}, which is the current date Amhara: . {{pb}} Overall, unless محرر البوق is pushing for some "isolated works", majority of the sources discuss the Aksumite kingdom as Semitic (mainly Amhara + Gurage + Tigray), and the Zagwe dynasty as Cushitic (mainly Agew). ] (]) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} To help closing this discussion, these are some of the scholarly sources and publications that state Amhara as heirs of Aksum (Axum).] (]) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::@] There’s a difference between being the descendants vs being the heirs/inheritors of a people or a polity, I already explained this to you on my talk page. We’re not discussing if Amharas are the descendants of Aksumites, but we’re talking about whenever the statement “Amharas are the heirs of Aksum” is correct. Only one out of the eight sources you cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. This is called ]. ] (]) 00:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::@], both heir and descendants are stated in the sources unless you don't want to read. Sources show both are the semitic legitimate heirs of Akumites but the Amhara continued the same kingdom taking it to the south and central part of Ethiopia for several centuries. Besides, Tigray is a present-day name given to a collective of ethnic groups living in the modern-day Tigray region. Based on these sources, I see the importance of correcting Misplaced Pages contents that describe the Tigray ethnic groups as sole heirs and if they specifically exclude Amhara. ] (]) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::@], like I said before. Only one out of the 8 sources you’ve cited explicitly state that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum. You cannot combine multiple sources together to state a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. This is called ] and is strictly forbidden on Misplaced Pages. That source says BOTH Amhara and Tigray are successors to the Aksumites, if you are going to mention that then do no omit Tigray (or gurage or other semitic groups mentioned). Tigray is also an ethnic group, not everyone who lives in Tigray is a “Tigray”, by your logic Amhara is a name given to multiple ethnic groups that live in the present day Amhara region, which is preposterous, nevertheless I’m not sure why you made that claim anyways. The current statement in the article implies that Amharas are the sole successors to Aksum by omitting other ethnic groups even though they are mentioned in the sources, which I believe violates ]. Especially if you consider ]’s opinion that Tigrayans are the successors to Aksum (the most reliable scholar who explicitly talked about this) ] (]) 05:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::These sources are sufficient to keep as well as expand the content or section related of Semitics are heirs of Axum. At this stage it is obvious that your are pushing for: 1) ] and 2) ]. Tigray isnt an ethnic group rather a name of a place that describes a group of various ethnicities such as Irob, Kunama and many others.... ] (]) 13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::@] No they're not. Only one out of the eight sources you cited say that Amharas are the heirs of Aksum, and "countrystudies.us" is not a reliable source, please find some actual scholarly sources. The rest are just original research (please read ]) because they do not explicitly state that Amhara are the heirs of Aksum. When we're talking about "Tigray", we are referring to the Tigrayan ethnic group, not the Tigray region and everyone inside of it. I'm not gonna play semantics with you. ] (]) 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::This is becoming a discussion with yourself, and need to close since direct and scholarly sources such as the one pulled out from the Library of Congress are already given (). Additional publications ( and ) also literally discuss the topic specifying Amhara as the ''legitimate heirs'' of Aksum. See the additional sources given above, 1 to 13. In a different note, who is "We"? You cant do ] here.] (]) 13:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::::@], we don’t need to close this discussion because we have not found consensus yet. I noticed that you are attempting to argue that Amharic speakers plus other Ethio-Semitic speakers are the “descendants of the Aksumites”, I initially didn’t want to argue about this to avoid prolonging this discussion, however this theory is outdated and largely been abandoned. Linguistic studies shows that Amharic and other South Ethio-semitic languages such as Gurage do not come from the Aksumites (who were North Ethio-Semitic speakers), these two groups diverged in around 2000 BCE Amharic is not a descendant of Ge’ez but rather they share a similar ancestor according to ] , Amharas aren’t the descendants of the Aksumites, they were most likely a peripheral peoples of Aksum according to Ronald Oliver. Infact according to Girma Demeke in his book “the origin of Amharic” (page 133-138), Amharas only came into contact with the Aksumites somewhere after the 7th century AD. Amharic is descended from a mixture of proto Ethio-Semitic and a indigenous highland east Cushitic language and significantly differs from Ge’ez and other north ethio-semitic languages according to Aaron Butts(pg 18). I could add significantly more scholarly sources but it seems like this isn’t some "isolated works", and instead the predominant view among most academics. This is already discussed in the “ethnogensis” section of this article, so there is no reason to add two separate origin theories in the article that contradict each other. Secondly, the library of congress source (we definitely should not take some area handbook over modern scholarship but whatever), says both Amharas and Tigrayans are the heirs of Aksum, if you are going to add that source and Levine’s source, you should include Tigrayans unless you wanna violate the ]. ] (]) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{outdent}} To help closing this discussion, scholarly sources that state Amhara as heirs of Aksum (Axum) are provided (1 to 13; text quoted further above) .] (]) 18:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:To help to get this discussion to a more advanced level: I question that being "heirs" of an ancient civilization or empire is an objective concept that can be stated as such in ]. Dynasties, ethnicities etc. might claim such a role for themselves, but this is essentially an ideological construct. Yes, Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum, and manifested this in hagiographies, genealogies and epics. This fact is easily sourced. But this a ''construed'' legacy, not an objective one. Much of it was produced retroactively (in the same way as e.g. Jesus from Nazareth is described as a descendant of David in the Gospels to strengthen his legitimacy by construing a fulfilment of ancient prophecies). Likewise, linguistic continuity from Ge'ez to Tigrinya does not make Tigrayans "heirs of Aksum". Obviously, these things matter for present-day ethnic groups (or rather, certain factions within them) since "ownership" of a glorious past can be instrumentalized to elevate the status of one's ethnic group. But we don't portray history in encyclopedic text from the emic perspective. Unless, of course, we explicitly flag it as emic: we can certainly say that group A or group B have claimed or still claim for themselves the role of "Aksum's rightful heir". But we won't state this as an objective fact. –] (]) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::@], this discussion is not going to be closed until consensus is found, no need to be so impatient. The sources you cited are not sufficient aswell, the new source you added cites page 52-54 of ]'s "Islam in Ethiopia" for that statement, I checked the reference that it was citing (35/148) and ] does not state that the Amharas are the heirs of Axum, infact he doesn't even mention Amharas but rather refers to the Semitic speaking inhabitants of Ethiopia as "Abyssinians" to differentiate them from the Cushitic-speaking Agaw of Zagwe. The other source talks about the "Amhara dynasty" which is obviously referring to the Solomonic Dynasty, and not the entire Amhara ethnicity. The source from the Library of Congress is apart of a collection of various handbooks, I'm not sure how one would be able to provide a ] of this source, snice there is no reputable scholar to whom it could be attributed to. The rest of the sources you cited are ] nonsense and not worth looking into. Amharas and other south ethio-semitic speakers being the descendants of the Aksumites is a largely outdated theory according to modern linguistic research (not saying that this means that tigringa speakers are the "heirs of aksum" but rather Petra should stop propagating this theory). | |||
::Before you start looking for more questionable references for me to verify (which are abundant) I would like to remind you that you have admitted that there is no academic consensus on Amharas being the heirs of Aksum and that such statement is disputed, hence you should read ] if you are still insistent on keeping that statement. @] also brought up a very good argument that you should respond to before attempting to plug your ears and close this discussion. I also brought this up with Dawit, but "Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire" is largely an opinion (a disputed one), and should not be presented as factual, per Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 01:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::@], plenty of strong and solid scholarly sources already given in this talk page that discuss Amhara as heir as well as a specific and arguably sole ethnic group that continued the Aksumite kingdom until modern days. If needed a long list of sources can be cited to also demonstrate that Amhara legitimate descendants of Axum still live in our present days although the point isn’t to discuss the modern day political aspect. Most of these sources directly/literally state the content in ] article and further confirm that Amhara re-gain heir after Zagwie (Zagwe); and ruled until 1974 with no mention of specific ethnicity from Tigray region who ruled after Zagwe except one ruler, Emperor Yohannes. In addition, there is no source that confirms the existence of a specific Tigryan ethnic group (see above for source)- rather it is a name derived (it adapted some Amharic linguistic elements), and a common description constructed to refer to a collection of ethnic groups in the area. {{pb}} Again, based on these sources it is not obvious which ethnic group in the constructed Tigray umbrella are actual heir of Aksum. As for continuing this discussion, sure, but as @] mentioned, the current content of the article, Amhara as heir is well-sourced. However, this discussion cannot be dragged forever to satisfy your ].] (]) 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Most of what you said was already previously addressed or outside the scope of that edit. I feel like we're just running around in circles here. We might need to request a dispute resolution, also Austronesier never said that Amharas were the heirs. ] (]) 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::You keep making such inaccurate and general statements (such as "already addressed") that could mislead other editors instead of providing scholarly sourced counterarguments specific to the ethnic group/s who were/were the legitimate heirs of Aksum for Tigray. You need to concisely discuss that. If you are confused, re-read Austronesier's reply and the source I already provided today. ] (]) 19:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::I said that the claim that "Amharas are the heirs of Aksum" is a disputed statement, and the sources you have provided for that are questionable at best. Please read ] again. I've already addressed those sources you've cited multiple times in this thread, I don't really feeling like repeating myself. ] believes that contemporary Tigrayans and Tigrinya speakers to be the successors of the Aksumites in his book "The Ethiopians".(pg 35 and 121), meaning that this heir claim is disputed. You can keep throwing sources around, but the reality is that claim is largely an opinion and not an objective fact, this is a textbook example of an ] violation. ] (]) 19:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::@]. I can agree with your take on the concept of "heirs" and possible impact on present day socio-politics. It warrants more discussion, as mentioned before involving participants/SMEs from ], ], and ]. Just to clarify & add some perspective, Ge'ez is the mother of Amharic language as well. On the other hand, the term Tigray itself isnt found in Ge'ez language, and per and other sources, “Tigray” is derived from Amharic elements. Source in this article (]) also discusses that it was possibly derived from "Tigrētai" which holds a different meaning. The source I incorporated right here explains it further: {{tq|Tigrinya derives by adaptation (cf. the English tigrinya or the French tigrigna). It is formed from a suffix -əñña used to indicate nouns of languages (cf. ənglizəñña for English, aräbəñña for Arabic, etc.), taken into borrowed from Amharic and then incorporated into the morphological system of Tigrinya, supplanting an older formation with the suffix -ay, from which the form derives təgray, now in disuse.}}.] (]) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Ge'ez is not the mother language of Amharic or Tigrinya, but it is significantly more related to Triginya then Amharic I already previously explained this. ] (]) 17:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Incorrect. Again, your synthesis on Ge'ez==> more Tigrigna==> modern-day Tigray==>Aksum heir... is a tenuous argument. That is why it is important to focus on reputable scholarly sources which clearly state that without a doubt Amhara are discussed as 1) legitimate heir 2), not only they are heirs but also they continued the kingdom until recently. ] (]) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::I never said that this makes Tigrayans the heirs of Aksum. This is an entirely different argument. ] (]) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Manual revert after], and persistent revert that involved ] and ] == | |||
As indicated in the edit history, brought back the {{oldid|Amhara people|1151460411}} version due ], and persistent revert that involved ] and ]. This version reflects the discussion opened on a contentious religious and historical topics and the related source reliability questions that may require further discussion to decide on ] of foreign sources.] (]) 15:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2023 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Amhara people|answered=yes}} | |||
The source for the statement "The Amhara people are considered heirs of the Aksumsite Empire" is (Steven Danver, Native Peoples of the World", p.15). | |||
- Change the sentence "Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group which is indigenous to Ethiopia" to "Amharas are a Semitic-speaking ethnic group indigenous to Ethiopia that trace their ancestry to the founders of the Empire of ]. (Sources: St. Petersburg Journal of African Studies. Russia, Izd-vo Evropeĭskogo doma, St. Petersburg Association of Scientists, 1993. (p.97); Shack, William A.. The Central Ethiopians, Amhara, Tigriňa and Related Peoples: North Eastern Africa Part IV. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2017. | |||
- Add ] (the Ethiopian scientist) under "notable Amhara people" (he's the son of well-known Amhara nobles) ] (]) 18:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The first source has been discussed here (]). The other two sources you listed also support the content in the article and will be added to the list of sources provided in this talk page as well (including Danver et al...). Let me try to find links for the last two.] (]) 16:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:{{outdent}}. A third editor confirmed existence of more than adequete sources for the disputed content and said, {{tq|Yes, Amhara-dominated Abyssinia construed a position of heirdom of Aksum, and manifested this in hagiographies, genealogies and epics. This fact is easily sourced.}}. Edits were made accordingly to the existing content in the article. ] (]) 18:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I think I have made it crystal clear that I object to using phrases like "the Amhara as Aksum's rightful heir" etc. in Wikivoice. This is based on the perspective from Amhara hagiography, but it's not something of an objective nature. Several sources are explicit about the fact that this is a ''claim'' since the times of the Solomonic dynasty. –] (]) 19:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::It seems similar terminologies ("authentic carriers", "successors"...) have already been used in articles that mention Aksum and ]and its "heirs." What do you think the better approch be to help resolving any possible ambiguity. Sorces repeatedly and directly stated the term although its current day implication is unclear.] (]) 19:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:32, 17 August 2024
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the talk page for discussing Amhara people and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views of this article over the last 180 days:
|
Misinformation
The page of the Amhara people is constantly being violated by specific agenda of a user, Socialwave597. He used to had an Arabic user name and now he changed it to English. He deleted various informations from the page - Including Amhara relationships to the Aksum empire. And he is editing stuff based on his own agenda. Nobody is stopping him. He writing stuff which don’t even mentioned in the source, and deleted other information from other sources which doesn’t soothe his narrative. For example he wrote that it is “believe that the Christianisation of Amharas begin in the Late Aksum empire period”. Believed by who? And that is just a single example. How come no one is stoping him and letting him do as he wish? 2A00:A041:E19A:2600:DDE7:776D:809B:6138 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The source is referring to the Christianization of Amhara Province (South Wollo), where the Amhara expanded out of. The source is the first volume of Encyclopaedia Aethiopica and is accessible in virtually every major university institution. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Christianization part
Hello, @Socialwave597. Taddesse Tamart was talking about the Agaw in Wag and Lasta. Here is what he wrote about Amhara; “Amhara troops of Tigre ancestry” meaning that according to Taddesse Tamart (which he himself mentioned) Amhara originated from Axum (what is now Tigray/Tigre). This disproves your claim. Please read carefully his works. Javext (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext Where does he say that? He actually says that the Christianization of Amhara took place during the ninth century (late Aksumite period), "According to the Life of Tekle Haymanot (c. 1215-1313) the advent of his ancestors to Amhara and Shewa is connected with Digna-Jan’s programme of evangelization of his southern provinces. This brings Digna-Jan to the first half of the ninth century." (page 68-69). The modern Amhara are a mixture of various peoples (similar to the Oromo), whose ethnogenesis took shape during the post-Aksumite era, its possible that some Amhara are of "Tigrayan" or Aksumite ancestry due to assimilation, but not the group as a whole. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Firstly, in what page does he state this exact claim?
- Secondly on page 72 Taddesse Tamart clearly wrote “and his Amhara troops of Tigre ancestry”. The term Tigre in this context is in reference to the area in specific Aksum. In addition I have reviewed the source you sent. The pages 68-69 have nothing written about “Amhara becoming Christians in the 9th century”. The only thing he mentioned was the fact that the ancestors of Saint Tekle Haymanot migrated to the province of Amhara/Bete Amhara during the reign of Digna Jan. Furthermore a well reliable source, Professor Mordechai Abir of the Hebrew university of Jerusalem clearly shows that Amhara became Christians in the 4th century.
- This can be proven with other sources such as: The Encyclopedia of African Peoples, Pg 29 The Diagram Group which state “After Syrians convened Ezana. King of Axum 320-55, to Christianity, the Amhara gradually adopted the religion too. The spread of Islam in surrounding areas from the seventh century resulted in the isolation of the Amhara…”;
- Ethiopian Review vol 4 1994 state, “During the following 800 years, the Amharas never forgot their original home, Aksum. Their emperors considered their dynasty as the continuation of the Solomonic Dynasty. They returned often to Aksum to be coronated in accordance with the tradition of their ancestors, the …”;
- Ethiopia: the land, it's people, History and Culture Yohannes Mekonnen, Page 250 states: “The Amhara have an ancient Christian tradition that traces its roots to the Aksumite Empire. In the fourth century, the emperor Ezana left behind inscriptions that mention the titles "Lord of Heaven" and "Lord of the Earth," Which indicates his conversion to the Christian faith.
- Ezana's Christianity is confirmed by the coins minted during his reign: earlier coins bear a crescent and disk, whereas later ones depict the cross, a symbol of Christian penetration in the Amhara region.
- There are many more sources I can bring, but I think you get the point. Please take this seriously and quit manipulating sources to fit in your imaginary narratives. Javext (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext Well then you misread it. Tamrat is clearly saying that the ancestors of Tekle Haymont arrived in the region of Amhara to Christianize it, this is again reiterated on page 229 "According to some versions of the tradition of Dignajan, King of Aksum, the ancestors of Tekle-Haymanot are said to have been sent to Amhara and Shewa with numerous other priests to evangelize the region". The original Amhara are not of "Tigre origin" either (I believe you are engaging in WP:OR here), as linguistic analysis shows they branched off some 2,800 years ago. The Amhara originate more southward then Lasta and Wag, in modern day South Wollo (Bete Amhara), hence it makes no sense for them to adopt Christianity prior to the 6th century before the Agaw, even this article on the "Ethnogenesis" tab says that they adopted Christianity after the 7th century. Ethiopian Review is obviously not a reliable source, and neither is "Ethiopia: the land, it's people, History and Culture", if you read here the author even forgot to remove the Misplaced Pages citations. Please don't refer to WP:SELFPUB that you found on google books and try reading some peer reviewed scholarship on this topic. Socialwave597 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I did not misread it. Taddese tamrat is the same scholar which stated that Pre-Amharic or an Amharic-like language already existed in the northern part in early times and according to Aleqa Taye, there is evidence from the names of some kings of the Axumite Empire, that they fall to Amharic. From this we can clearly see that Taddese Tamrat believes the ancestors of the Amharas were indeed the Aksumites. I have read the pages 68-69 which you asked to check. It does not state what you claimed. It only says and I quote; “According to the life of Tekle Haymanot (c.1215-1313)) the advent of his ancestors to Amhara/Bete Amhara and shewa is connected with Digna Jan’s program of his evanglizatgion of his southern people.” As you see, nothing about Amhara people becoming Christians at that time whatsoever.
- In your own quote “"According to some versions of the tradition of Dignajan, King of Aksum, the ancestors of Tekle-Haymanot are said to have been sent to Amhara and Shewa with numerous other priests to evangelize the region".” It states the ANCESTORS of Tekele haymanot were sent to the area of Amhara and Shewa to evangelize, so how could the ancestors of Tekele haymanot (who is an Amhara) be sent to a region to evangelize his own people? That doesn’t make any sense. This is based off you reading into the text and misinterpreting it.
- In addition to this you misread what I said leading to a complete shift in topic. One, the term “tigre” in this context is not in reference to the people, but rather to the modern region in reference to Aksum, so what it is trying to say is that the ancestors of the Amhara (Aksumites) came from that area.
- We are not talking about languages but if you insist then you should note that Tigrinya and Amharic have a difference of less than 10% Ge’ez lexicon difference so it is not enough to be used as evidence in your claim.
- Once again your claim that the Amhara didn’t become christian until the period between the 7-9th century is based off the assumption that the Amhara were not the Aksumites (Agazi) which is not true as I have proven already. Your capability of not being able to disprove our claims is shown by saying the sources brought are “unreliable” even though they are a variety ranging from self published and non self published sources.
- Also you did not mention to one of the sources I gave. Professor Mordechai Abir of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote that Amhara became christian in the 4th century. Is he also not reliable?
- In the chronicles of King Gelawdewos (1540-1559) it is stated that Amhara was “land of the Aga’azi” who were the Aksumites showing that the Amharas were the descendants of. I will provide a plethora of sources which are reliable and undeniably proof that the Amhara were Christian since the 4th century AD.
- -Source: “Native Peoples of the World:
- An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues”, by Steven L. Danver
- “The Amhara have an ancient Christian tradition that traces its roots to the Aksumite Empire. In the fourth century, the emperor Ezana left behind inscriptions that mention the titles "Lord of Heaven" and "Lord of the Earth," indicating his conversion to the Christian faith.
- Ezana's Christianity is confirmed by the coins minted during his reign: earlier coins bear a crescent and disk, whereas later ones depict the cross, a symbol of Christian penetration in the Amhara Region.”
- -Source: Oil, Power and Politics:
- “Conflict of Asian and African Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem”, by professor Mordechai Abir
- “The main recipients of the 'semitic' cultural influences were the people today called Amhara and Tigreans,' who from the fourth century A.D. became Christians and more or less dominated the history of Ethiopia. Ironically, the foundations of the kingdom of Ethiopia were laid in the area which now is partly Eritrean and which local secessionists wish to tear away from Ethiopia.” Javext (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext I don't want to side track on this and instead would like to focus on your edits on the article (i.e Christianization of Amhara). Now, Taddesse Tamrat without any doubt says that Amhara was Christianized during the reign of Degna Djan, if you can't, don't, or won't understand his words then perhaps we should request a third opinion here. The established fact is the Amhara were originally concentrated in a smaller province in South Wollo prior to the 14th century, and according to traditions this province and its people were evangelized during the reign of Degna Djan. (pg 87) "Christianity soon became the central component of the ethnic identity of the Aksumites and their descendants, the Tigreans. By the end of the first millennium groups of the Amhara were also beginning to embrace Christianity." Mordechai Abir's quote is just a passing line without an analysis of the primary sources, and Danver's source is just a broad encyclopedia of various different ethnic groups (WP:TERTIARY). The royal chronicles are a primary source, so we can't use that per WP:PRIMARY. I don't want you to think that I will concede based on fringe sources you find, you can find sources for anything nowadays this isn't a reference competition, its differentiating between what is mainstream academic opinion and what's not.
- "Your capability of not being able to disprove our claims
- "Our"? Who are you arguing on behalf of? WP:MEATPUPPET? Socialwave597 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Socialwave597 I am starting to get tired of this discussion. Clearly you are denying every source I give which state that the Christianization of the Amharas began in the 4th century and then bring other sources that do not mention what you claim. How can you even deny that the coins minted in Emperor's Ezana reign displayed Christian symbols? You asked me for "some peer reviewed scholarship on this topic" and I did, giving you multiple of well known and reliable sources, yet you continue to deny them left and right, with random excuses.
- Once again you are changing topics, ""Our"? Who are you arguing on behalf of? WP:MEATPUPPET?" I used the term "our" in reference to my claims and the sources. I understand that you are trying to find anything you can, as little as it might be, to bring me down but that doesn't look good on you. Javext (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please request a third opinion then. Socialwave597 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext I don't want to side track on this and instead would like to focus on your edits on the article (i.e Christianization of Amhara). Now, Taddesse Tamrat without any doubt says that Amhara was Christianized during the reign of Degna Djan, if you can't, don't, or won't understand his words then perhaps we should request a third opinion here. The established fact is the Amhara were originally concentrated in a smaller province in South Wollo prior to the 14th century, and according to traditions this province and its people were evangelized during the reign of Degna Djan. (pg 87) "Christianity soon became the central component of the ethnic identity of the Aksumites and their descendants, the Tigreans. By the end of the first millennium groups of the Amhara were also beginning to embrace Christianity." Mordechai Abir's quote is just a passing line without an analysis of the primary sources, and Danver's source is just a broad encyclopedia of various different ethnic groups (WP:TERTIARY). The royal chronicles are a primary source, so we can't use that per WP:PRIMARY. I don't want you to think that I will concede based on fringe sources you find, you can find sources for anything nowadays this isn't a reference competition, its differentiating between what is mainstream academic opinion and what's not.
- @Javext Well then you misread it. Tamrat is clearly saying that the ancestors of Tekle Haymont arrived in the region of Amhara to Christianize it, this is again reiterated on page 229 "According to some versions of the tradition of Dignajan, King of Aksum, the ancestors of Tekle-Haymanot are said to have been sent to Amhara and Shewa with numerous other priests to evangelize the region". The original Amhara are not of "Tigre origin" either (I believe you are engaging in WP:OR here), as linguistic analysis shows they branched off some 2,800 years ago. The Amhara originate more southward then Lasta and Wag, in modern day South Wollo (Bete Amhara), hence it makes no sense for them to adopt Christianity prior to the 6th century before the Agaw, even this article on the "Ethnogenesis" tab says that they adopted Christianity after the 7th century. Ethiopian Review is obviously not a reliable source, and neither is "Ethiopia: the land, it's people, History and Culture", if you read here the author even forgot to remove the Misplaced Pages citations. Please don't refer to WP:SELFPUB that you found on google books and try reading some peer reviewed scholarship on this topic. Socialwave597 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
A third opinion
I'm responding to this request from Javext for a third opinion. I've been slow to respond since I wanted to do some research first, & apologize if this inconvenienced anyone. Further, I feel it is only fair to all parties that I mention the rules about edit warring. It would be a loss to Misplaced Pages were an edit war to leave this article in wrong version. It appears that this disagreement is primarily over the conversion of the Amhara people to Christianity; it is this point I offer my opinion.
First, it needs to be emphasized that the question about the conversion of the Amhara falls in a dark period of Ethiopian history: the years between the end of the Aksum kingdom & the foundation of the Zagwe dynasty are poorly documented. There is a single inscription, some mentions in the histories of the Coptic/Egyptian church, & mentions by contemporary Muslim writers. (The lists of rulers & Abbas/Metropolitans is not trusted by many historians.) So the archeological record -- the study of man-made things -- is important here.
Next, the work of Dr. Taddesse Tamrat has been cited often in this discussion, unfortunately from his doctoral thesis not his published book. There are significant differences between the two, most importantly that he acknowledges that he had additional input that went into his published book from such luminaries as Richard Pankhurst & Stanislaw Chojnacki. The drawback is that Dr. Taddesse's published book is out of print, while his doctoral thesis is available online. (Fortunately thru the School of African Studies, & the British Library website which went offline due to hackers.) Despite this limitation, I will be citing Dr. Taddesse's published book here.
Socialwave597 believes that Dr. Taddesse "without any doubt says that Amhara was Christianized during the reign of Degna Djan". I have not read his thesis in full, but from my understanding of his published work he was at least ambivalent about when the Amhara were converted. He does not explicitly raise the issue when the Amhara were converted, but can assume he believed they were converted at the same time as the inhabitants of Tigray were -- or that they were concerted later. Perhaps his opinion was mixed because it is part of Amhara identity that they can trace their roots to the kingdom of Aksum, the earliest African kingdom to accept Christianity, & Christianity is an important part of defining who the Amhara are. In his book at one point he admits "Traditional material on the Amhara is lacking and it is impossible here to give any specific dates for their origin." (p. 37) Nevertheless he states further on in his book
The Amhara had long been the advance guard of Christian expansion in the south. We have already referred to an early Muslim tradition of the armed conflict between them and the Warjih pastoralists in the Shawan region, in A.D. 1128. There are traditions of a slow movement of isolated Christian families from Amhara to the region of the Shawan plateau. A military expedition by a Zagwe monarch into the "kingdom of Damot" is also referred to elsewhere.
— pp. 64f
So is there any evidence suggesting that the Amhara did convert at an earlier time then, say the beginning of the Zagwe dynasty?
First we need to define what is meant by "Amhara people". Are we talking about a people who are related somehow to the Tigrayan people, or about a people who live in the Amhara area, the Bet Amhara, & came to speak the Amhara language & profess Christianity? That is an issue I don't know if you have or can agree about, but for simplicity I'm assuming it refers to the people who live in that area & speak the language as well as profess Christianity. If either of you disagree, then I guess what I'm about to say will not be of value. But if we agree to that, then archeological evidence can help because we can then turn to the study of the ancient churches of Ethiopia.
These ancient churches show in many ways demonstrate a continuation of traditions rooted in the kingdom of Aksum, such as a basilica floor plan, & a form of construction known as "monkey-head". Many ancient churches with these features are found in the Tigray Region, which is where Christianity first entered the Horn of Africa; those to the south of Tigray would then be considered influenced by Aksumite Christianity. And there are several. (I'm excluding here the famous churches of Lalibela, since many experts believe these were secular structures later converted to churches.) The best known of these are Yemrehanna Krestos, Kankart Mika'el, & Bilbola Tcherqos. Now these have been dated to that dark period between the kingdom of Aksum & the Zagwe dynasty by David Phillipson in his Ancient Churches of Ethiopia (2007): Kankart Mika'el (which he calls the oldest such church in Amhara) to between AD 800 & AD 1000, Bilbola Tcherqos to between 900 & 1025, & Yemrehanna Krestos to between 1025 & 1150) (p. 190). This archeological evidence supports Dr. Taddesse's statement about the Amhara being the advance guard for the southern advance of Christianity.
So it would appear that the expert consensus is that the Amhara converted either around the same time as their northern neighbors, or within a few generations after. Conversion was a slow process: according to Dr Taddesse, Christianity was limited to the royal court & other major population centers along the road linking Aksum & Adulis (p. 23); it wasn't until the advent of the Nine Saints towards the end of the 5th century that Christianity spread into the countryside. (Dr. Taddesse dates this to the late 5th century, while I've seen other authorities who date this a little later, to the 6th century; as Dr. Taddesse commented the evidence for this period is limited.) We do have evidence that despite having gone into a decline after AD 600, the Aksum kingdom had still some importance as late as AD 770, when Arab writers tell of Aksumite naval battles in the Red Sea (Taddesse, p. 32).
I'd like to comment on a few more points raised in this discussion. One is that, according to my understanding of the Galla of saint Tekle Haymanot, that his ancestors who were asked by king Digna Jan to go south and evangelize were living in Amhara & proceeded to Shewa. (Tekle Haymanot was born in Silalish, between the Jamma & Mugar rivers, which I believe is south of Bet Amhara.) But I could be wrong. Another is about the use of glottochronology concerning Ge'ez, Tigray & Amhara. I had always believed from my reading that the three languages had a similar relationship to each other as Latin, Spanish & Portuguese respectively. I was surprised to read from the article Socialwave cited that Ge'ez was considered a sister language to the two, & that the split between Tigrayan & Amharic was dated to 850 BC. (The table in the article should not be read as "2800 BC", but "2800 Before Present"; Before Present is measured back from AD 1950, which calculates to 850 BC.) This is the first source I've seen that promotes such a view. Now I happen to know that the results of glottochronology are at best controversial -- please see the Misplaced Pages article -- so unless other authorities independent of glottochronology confirm such an early date, I wouldn't rely on that source overmuch. Perhaps not more than in a footnote noting this dissenting POV.
I must thank anyone who has read this far in my essay. I wrote more than I had planned to on this subject. -- llywrch (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Llywrch. Thanks for replying. I agree that the period between the fall of Aksum and the Zagwe period is a dark age of Ethiopian history and like you said, there are little to no inscriptions from that time, that talks about this topic and others. I also agree with what you said regarding the source socialwave597 brought up and his misinterpretation of the glottochronology. The split of languages specifically wouldn’t have any major input in this topic since we are more focusing on the people not their languages. On the topic of who the Amhara people are, I agree with what you said on their location (bet/bete Amhara), language (Amharic) and their religion (Christianity). However, one vital piece of information is that they are the heirs of Aksum. The reason why this is vital, is because it would mean that the proto amhara (ie people living with the Aksumite period and would later become to be known as the Amhara) lived further north.
- This can be proven by various sources and traditions such as:
- 1. Ethiopian kings carrying out the tradition of coronation within Aksum. Spearheading the Ge’ez language renaissance in the 14th century during the reign of emperor Zara ya’qob, the deployment of military tactics from the days of Aksum (sewa regiment) by emperors most notably Amde seyon I. These traditions alone show that the Amhara identity is rooted within its Aksumite history. Alongside I have sources to back this up. Here are some: -"Encyclopedia of the Stateless
- Nations: Ethnic and
- National Groups Around the World", James Minahan • 2002 (p. 104) - The Semitic Aksumites eventually split into two related but distinct nations, the Amhara and the Tigreans. The Amhara spread from their *traditional lands* to conquer much of the highlands.
- -“Native Peoples of the World:
- An Encyclopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues”, by Steven L. Danverl -Oil, Power and Politics:
- “Conflict of Asian and African Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem”, by professor Mordechai Abir.
- Additional source: Dr. Girma Demeke in his book, Origin of Amharic, explicitly states this speaking a Semitic language is slightly different from that of Geez. According to the pidgin hypothesis, the Semitic tongue spoken by the commanders was the one that provided the Semitic features to Amharic. Indeed, there is historical support for the existence of such a Semitic tongue before the administrative shift took place from the North, Axum, to the South, Zague. Pre- Amharic or an Amharic-like language existed in the northern part in this early times, according to Alega Taye (1964 E.C: 52) "as evidenced from the names of some kings such as ጉም (721-725), አስጎምጉም (725-730), ለትም (730-746) and ተላተም
- (746-767) of the Axumite Empire. As Aleqa Taye (Ibid) also points out, such names do not fall to any of the present ES, but to Amharic."
- -Here in annex is a document with the main sources:
- Would It be possible to restore the page back to my version? Once again thanks for replying. Javext (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Girma Demeke never says that Amharic was "lightly different from that of Geez" nor did he believe in the pidgin hypothesis. I'm getting signals that you never read his book. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Socialwave597 Girma Demeke clearly states in his book: "speaking a Semitic language slightly different from that of Ge'ez".
- I also never said he believed in the Pidgin hypothesis.
- Now, whether or not you are purposely misinterpreting my statements, I don't know. However, I will assume it's good faith.
- -The last screenshot of this document is from his book. Javext (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Girma Demeke never says that Amharic was "lightly different from that of Geez" nor did he believe in the pidgin hypothesis. I'm getting signals that you never read his book. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- That archeological evidence you referenced is situated in the province of Lasta (which was primarily inhabited by the Agaw people) not Bete Amhara, however I am willing to concede and change the sentence to "during the Aksumite period" or something along those lines, but not during the reign of Ezana as proposed by Javext. This is my proposal. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Llywrch Hello! I apologize if I am bothering you, however It is been a week since my last reply and I haven't got an answer yet. Would you be able to restore it to my version? Thanks. Javext (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext I am willing to concede and change the sentence to "the Amhara embraced Christianity sometime during the Aksumite period" or some type of variation of that sentence. We can leave out the century or what king it occurred under since the sources seem to be divergent about that, but they are in general agreement that it occurred during the Aksumite era. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- All right, seems good to me. I will change it. Javext (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Javext I am willing to concede and change the sentence to "the Amhara embraced Christianity sometime during the Aksumite period" or some type of variation of that sentence. We can leave out the century or what king it occurred under since the sources seem to be divergent about that, but they are in general agreement that it occurred during the Aksumite era. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Misinformation
This content is primarily compiled by people whose primary objective is to divide and weaken integrity of the Amhara people. Much of the content is not based on fact but merely on individuals skewed view of the Amhara people. This content need to be edited making it free of individuals subjective perceptions. 196.190.61.151 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: