Talk:Kingdom of Aksum

Article is full of deliberate fallacies

Awfully written and clearly agenda driven 94.8.242.219 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

'ākʷsəm redux

I semi-mistakenly said that I had started a Talk page discussion about this. I did, but had not realised that it had been archived (here). Here's the text from the earlier discussion from 17 August 2022:

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

I'll address the most recent edits in a comment below this. Pathawi (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yebrehu23 made this edit bringing in አኵስም ('äkʷsəm, so a little different), citing Kane's Amharic-English Dictionary page 1263 and Corpus scriptorum christianorum Orientalium: Scriptores aethiopici. The former citation does indeed check out, but it's an Amharic dictionary: Not Gəʕz. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Aethiopici is a publication series with 115 volumes, & I wasn't able to guess which one this might be. I think it's unlikely that any volume would be a more authoritative source than the Gəʕz dictionaries, however. Pathawi (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The word አኵስም appears in Kidne Wold-Kifle Ge’ez Dictionary (መጽሐፈ፡ሰዋስው፡ወግስ፡ወመዝገበ፡ቃላት፡ሐዲስ). The dictionary is not in English but it is written in the Amharic language. You can find it on ፪፻፲፱ or page 219. Yebrehu23 (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

My university library doesn’t have a copy of this dictionary. I’ll look into what to do about that. Can you give a volume for the Corpus citation? Which book in that series were you looking at? Pathawi (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

All right. I've looked at the book by Kidanä Wäld Kəfle. I read Gəʕz, but I only have the absolute most basic skills in navigating Amharic. From what I can gather, this entry is talking about the Cushites introduced in Genesis 10:7—not the city of Aksum. Am I misunderstanding this entry? Pathawi (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes read the second definition of the word. The entry starts with the word ዐማሮች and then continue on. Yebrehu23 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it’s volume 595 Yebrehu23 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

“Tomus 105” Yebrehu23 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is La «Vita» e i «Miracoli» di Libānos, edited by Alessandro Bausi. The book states that the narrative is recorded in multiple manuscripts. In the majority, the spelling is አክሱም 'äksum. Two manuscripts sometimes have አኵስም 'äkʷsəm. I don't think the purpose of this section is to record every variant that has occurred in some manuscript (especially as most manuscripts available to us were not written by native speakers). Pathawi (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you look over the second definition? The ancestors of the Amhara used to call it አኵስም. [1]http://www.gzamargna.net/html/gzmezgebeqalat193.html Yebrehu23 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I did. That’s an argument for an Amharic name. Pathawi (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ξ

@Remsense, @Kyoto Grand: Unless I’m reading WP:GREEK wrong, ξ probably should be x. Pathawi (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pathawi Basic familiarity with the Greek script says ξ should be x. I frankly don't see why it should ever be romanized as ks - yes it does represent /ks/ but so too does the letter X, and ks is fairly exclusively the domain of romanizations of scripts that don't have X contained in one letter. I'd like to hear Remsense's defense here. Kyoto Grand (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a court: A defense isn't necessary. We've got a guideline. Shouldn't be difficult to move forward. Pathawi (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

(Oh, I thought I had self-RV'd when this was first posted, but it must not have gone through. My bad!) Remsense诉 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article have semi-protection?

The title is self explanatory, but I've looked back through this article's history, and it says it was given semi-protection because it is a contentious topic. That doesn't make sense to me, why would an article about an ancient empire in Ethiopia be a contentious topic? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The history of the Horn of Africa is just as politically live as that of any other region. Recent disputes on this article have largely been rooted in the degree of Hellenic influence during antiquity, within what is held to be an autochthonous, uniquely African, uniquely South Semitic–speaking civilization. Remsense ‥ 论 23:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The responses from this recent anonymous account should be more than enough proof of what sort of fanaticism these people have; they don't care about learning facts, they prefer to attack and abuse the Wikipedia article rather than speaking and cooperating here to make the best possible article. Aearthrise (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Map isnt reliable

The map introduced into the article is not historically accurate simply because there's no archaeological evidence of axum in eastern Ethiopia nor northern Somalia. As described by Stuart Munro-Hay in his book "Aksum An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity" he states '"The Semitic speaking people called Aksumites or Habash (Abyssinians), centred at their capital city Aksum (Ch. 5) in the western part of the province of Tigray, from there came to control both the highland and coastal regions of northern Ethiopia. They were able to exploit a series of favourable situations, some of which we can only guess at at this stage, to become the dominant power group in the region and to develop their very characteristic civilisation in an area now represented by the province of Tigray, with Eritrea to the north where they gained access to the Red Sea coast at the port of Adulis"' see [2]. Ruins in northern Somalia point to 15th century origins and is not related to Axum, you can read more about that here [3] Magherbin (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fresco

Remsense The fresco from the "Painting of the Six Kings" is the only surviving painting visual depiction of an Aksumite king, making it a rare and valuable historical reference. The coin images are already well-represented. I understand your perspective, but I respectfully disagree. I believe the fresco adds significant value because like I said it's the only surviving contemporary painting depiction of an Aksumite king, and its inclusion alongside the coin images would provide a fuller representation of Aksumite history so I don't see how its totally unreasonable. JUMPp1harm (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I know the painting. You say you do, though I am not convinced that you understand the point I'm making: why are we okay with elevating a depiction belonging to another cultural tradition to be the primary visual representation of a period in a given civilization's history like this? Frankly, we learn far more about the fresco tradition than we do about Aksum by looking at the painting, and the Aksumite king is not even the primary subject of the work. It has the potential to come off as completely condescending, frankly. Remsense ‥ 论 23:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see your point that the fresco originates from a different cultural tradition and is not primarily focused on the Aksumite king, which could shift focus away from Aksumite civilization itself. However, my intent was not to elevate the fresco as the primary visual representation, but rather to complement the existing depictions by offering the only surviving visual representation of an Aksumite king that we currently know of. I understand it is from an external cultural context, but its value lies in showing how Aksumite rulers were recognized outside their native tradition, which I believe adds depth to the article. Again like I said the coins are already present on the pageJUMPp1harm (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter what your intent is, as I am telling you the inherent effect this image choice has whether you intended it or not. A piece of artwork from another culture is usually not an acceptable primary visual depiction of a civilization. Remsense ‥ 论 23:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but I must disagree with the assertion that a representation from another culture cannot serve as a visual depiction of the Aksumite civilization. The fresco in question provides a unique glimpse into how Aksumite kings were perceived in the broader cultural context of the time and is, and this interaction is part of Aksum's historical narrative. While I understand the desire to prioritize native representations, the fresco is historically significant and presents an opportunity to illustrate the interconnectedness of cultures in ancient times. Additionally, as I've mentioned multiple times, the coins depicting Aksumite rulers are already present on the page. It's not my intention to diminish the Aksumite civilization; rather, I believe it adds depth to the article by showing how Aksumite rulers were recognized and represented externally. Furthermore, the image is an accurate representation of an Aksumite king, as it features the distinctive head cloth that is also depicted on the coins of kings. This aspect of historical representation is significant and should not be overlooked. To be frank, your reasoning is very weak and isn't convincing JUMPp1harm (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I haven't addressed it yet, the "coins are already represented in the article" point doesn't matter. This is more important, and the remainder of the article can be adjusted if need be. You—or maybe ChatGPT, I'm not sure—repeated the same "foreign prestige" point from before three times in this paragraph. I don't get this: again, the Aksumite king is not even the primary subject of the painting, so his "international prestige" is pretty clearly not the clear theme of the work—quite the contrary. Even if this were convincing me, external conceptions are an inappropriate emphasis when visually introducing a people, civilization, or equivalent topic. The fact that this is your primary point of advocacy is really proving my point—this article is not about what others thought about the Aksumites, it is about the Aksumites themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 02:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't really have time to keep going back and forth on this. I addressed all your points already. The fact that the coins are already shown in the coinage section does matter, especially since the painting isn't represented on the page yet. Your argument about the fresco being inappropriate because the king isn't the primary subject is weak. Just because the painting includes other figures doesn't take away from its historical significance regarding Aksum. This fresco is a valuable piece of Aksumite history and should be included. Your reasoning overlooks the importance of the fresco as the only surviving contemporary visual depiction of an Aksumite ruler other than coins. It seems like you're just repeating the same points without considering the points I've made JUMPp1harm (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not convinced me or said anything that overrides what to me are clear priorities based in site policy regarding images and neutral point of view. You'll have to find others who agree with you in order to establish a consensus for the change. Remsense ‥ 论 02:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually did already address your points and explained why your reasoning is weak. You keep repeating the same arguments. For example, take a look at the Wikipedia page for Roderic, one of the kings featured in the fresco. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Roderic That page includes the fresco to highlight its historical significance. The painting is valuable piece of artwork. If you want to be stubborn go ahead. I am not going to look for others. I don't care that much. JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments did not adequately address my concerns. I don't care what another article does, as other articles can be wrong in violation of policy too, I would argue that it's less egregious there as the individual is being pictured directly, and the image is not a stand-in for representing a state representing centuries of civilization in a region. Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, we don’t actually know which specific Aksumite king is depicted in the fresco, as it simply uses the Ethiopian word for "king" to refer to him, unlike Roderic, which mentions him by name. As I said, if you want to be stubborn, that’s your choice. I’m not going to keep going back and forth, nor am I going to seek out others. While your reasoning is weak, I really don’t care that much to pursue it further. JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I really do not see how you can point out facts like We don’t actually know which specific Aksumite king is depicted, and then insist that it is a good image to represent this article! It's absolutely tangential to the subject! Remsense ‥ 论 04:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)