The spanish team new paper

[NidarNidar]

Diridhaba international View attachment 358254

That is Ras(cape) Siyyan. It was a small port of Bab EL Mandeb called "Dire" (or a variation like "Dirye" or "Dirir"). It had limited freshwater and lacked rivers, restricting large-scale settlement. It was probably one of the crossings the Dir used to come over 2,500 years ago.

edit you'll find it shown on much older maps aswell, but then it disappears, it was used as a small port or fishing village.

 

[Idilinaa]

I don't understand why you're being so aggressive towards @Duubpon. He didn't say anything trolly, imho. If anything he complimented you and the rest of us in saying that we should publish like these people are to counter them and their nonsense.

Ironically, that is exactly something you have advised me and advised knowledgeable Somalis in general do. Take it easy, walaal. Feel like you're too often in a state of dagaal.

I get what you're saying, walaal, but I don't think my response was aggressive just direct. If someone wants to encourage serious discourse, they should do so without adding exaggerated hypotheticals that serve no real purpose beyond stirring emotions.


I’m all for countering revisionism with research and publications, and I’ve said so before, but I also think it’s important to call out unnecessary rhetoric when I see it. No hard feelings on my end just keeping the conversation focused where it matters

She's definitely pissed I called out her and her victim-blaming Kacaanist brethren.

I’ve never debated or discussed anything Kacaan-related with you, nor have I seen you bring it up in conversation with me.

I approach it as just one period in Somali history, the same way I discuss other historical eras. I don’t fixate on any single period, and I also analyze present-day realities just as much.

 

[cunug3aad]

That is Ras(cape) Siyyan. It was a small port of Bab EL Mandeb called "Dire" (or a variation like "Dirye" or "Dirir"). It had limited freshwater and lacked rivers, restricting large-scale settlement. It was probably one of the crossings the Dir used to come over 2,500 years ago.

View attachment 358255

Does that mean evidence of arab ancestry??
Also If say theres a clan who claims ancestry from carabi ibn aqiil how does the arab ancestry track? because if hes one arab ute who marries somalis/protosomalis who marry more somalis/protosomalis then only one of his fifty tousand of ancient qaraabo is arab? Wouldnt the gene be lost or washed out over time and you cant detect it anymore Or is there a way to find the carab gene

 

[Idilinaa]

Does that mean evidence of arab ancestry??
Also If say theres a clan who claims ancestry from carabi ibn aqiil how does the arab ancestry track? because if hes one arab ute who marries somalis/protosomalis who marry more somalis/protosomalis then only one of his fifty tousand of ancient qaraabo is arab? Wouldnt the gene be lost or washed out over time and you cant detect it anymore Or is there a way to find the carab gene

None of those Somali clans actually claims Arab ancestry in a literal, genealogical sense.

Throughout Islamic history, "Arab" was not strictly a lineage-based identity but rather a cultural and linguistic one. This was well understood and expressed in classical sources:

''Arab is not from any of you the mother or father, but it is the language, so whoever speaks Arabic is an Arab''

With this in mind, it’s clear that Aqili lineage claims were not about ethnic Arab identity but rather an expression of Islamic affiliation intended to forge a stronger connection to religious heritage.


Further reinforcing this, external Arabic texts often referred to Somalis claiming Aqili lineage as Al-Ajam (non-Arabs). Additionally, they carried nisba names that tied them to their cultural homeland, such as Al-Zayla’i, Al-Jabarti, Al-Maqdishi, and Al-Sumali. This suggests they went out of their way to distinguish themselves culturally rather than assimilate into an Arab identity.


As for the genetic question, intermarriage with a single Arab ancestor centuries ago would have an extremely diluted impact today so much so that it would be nearly undetectable in modern DNA testing. The overwhelming majority of one’s ancestry would still be Somali, as genetic inheritance follows a broad and continuous process rather than being preserved in a single distinct "Arab gene."

So, while some Somalis may claim distant Arab or should i say prophetic lineage as a reflection of religious heritage, their cultural and historical identity has always remained distinctly Somali.

 

[NidarNidar]

Does that mean evidence of arab ancestry??
Also If say theres a clan who claims ancestry from carabi ibn aqiil how does the arab ancestry track? because if hes one arab ute who marries somalis/protosomalis who marry more somalis/protosomalis then only one of his fifty tousand of ancient qaraabo is arab? Wouldnt the gene be lost or washed out over time and you cant detect it anymore Or is there a way to find the carab gene

More likely Mesopotamian, the term Arab just means a desert-dwelling => nomad just like Somali, both societies had settled people who shared common language but have been called something else. The earliest written records date back to about the 9th century BCE in Syria from Assyrian inscriptions mentioning Arabu paying tribute in camels and spices.

Some Somali clans claim ancestry from Aqil ibn Abi Talib, like the Dir and Hawiye and the Darood, These claims are just myths since the tmcra of E-Y18629 is commonly found in Somalis has a formation date of 4,800 -3,200 YBP (years before present) and a TMRCA of 3,300 -2,300 YBP, meanwhile T-BY181210 formation dates to 2,900 - 2,200 and TMRCA of 2,100 - 1,600 ybp.

The laas geel cave painting are estimated to been made about 3,500-2,500 BCE most likely by southern cushites, it shows mostly cattle and a single camels, these camles were probably wild.

@alchemist wrote this already so won't deleve deeper into it.

The word for camel was in the land since before the Rendille ancestors moved south. So we can look at a 2000-year-old phenomenon or older. Glottochronology shows that the word was nested thrugh descent not contact during roughly that time:

This goes well with genetic influence, intesification of economic relations with Southern Arabia, probaby drying of the region and expansions of economic internal logistics, as camels revolutionized the caravan industry wheras the donkey would probably be the chief beast of burden for taking goods from one region to another.

Also here is a good read.

 

[Shimbiris]

More likely Mesopotamian, the term Arab just means a desert-dwelling => nomad just like Somali, both societies had settled people who shared common language but have been called something else. The earliest written records date back to about the 9th century BCE in Syria from Assyrian inscriptions mentioning Arabu paying tribute in camels and spices.

 

[NidarNidar]

 

[KingKalbi]

will also say that people make big deal out of Axumite monuments when it was really just a large palace or church largely surrounded by a sea of huts that commoners lived in. It actually shows you a culture driven less by commercial activity or trade, as well as high wealth inequality and lack of distribution of resources. Axum as an inland city did not maintain local industries, produced nothing of value in terms of tradable commodities, was not attached to a port anywhere near its immediate vicinity, only Adulis was a trade hub

There have been quite a few stone structures discovered at Axum at this point, there is no shortage of em even Ona sites in Asmara Eritrea show more than simple stone palaces surrounded by huts.

You need to read actual archeological papers on the city of Axum if you did you would know this is baseless.
Axum produced high quality iron probably the best in the Red Sea region minus Egypt, they also produced some ivory objects found in England

 

[Ella Amida]

Yes, Axum was landlocked and Adulis was semi-autonomous. Axum had no ships or any maritime domains, it relied on Adulis.

Not only that them conquering Yemen is also exaggerated they got help from the Romans who also supplied them with ships and troops. So it wasn't necessarily a pure display of Axum outwards power projection or might.

Considering Aksum had already been active in Yemen centuries before any direct Roman involvement, I'd say its likely that they had their own motives and resources for crossing the Red Sea. In the 3rd century, the Monumentum Adulitanum II, shows an Aksumite king boasting of sending a fleet and an infantry force from near the Gulf of Aqaba down into Saba. A fragmentary Greek text RIE 269 found in Aksum, not Adulis, talks about conquering territory “across the sea,” likely referencing that same campaign:

Although they were pushed out by the end of the 3rd century, kings like Ezana kept making irredentist claims on the other side of the Red Sea straight through the 4th century so by the time you get to the famous 6th century intervention, Aksum already had a history of projecting power in Yemen. They definitely weren’t just showing up because the Byzantines told them to. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the invasion in question was actually Kaleb's second campaign - there was an earlier one prior to the rise of Yūsuf Nuwās that had nothing to do with the Romans.

There would have been strong economic and political motives as well. Yūsuf had apparently blockaded the Red Sea harbor of Mandab and gone after Aksumites living in Himyar, which undercut Aksum’s access to the lucrative Red Sea–Indian Ocean trade routes. So, while the Byzantines did send diplomatic support, and some sources indeed frame it as purely a religious struggle, it was in large part Aksum’s own interests ie: securing trade, reclaiming “lost” territory, and protecting its people that would have driven Kaleb to invade Himyar for possibly the second time.

Also, going back to Monumentum Adulitanum, prior to his invasion, Kaleb specifically asked Cosmas to copy it as it basically glorified the earlier aforementioned conquest of Yemen. By doing that, Kaleb was referencing what he would have believed to be his ancestral claims across the Red Sea. It shows he saw himself as continuing the same legacy of expansion that dated back to the 3rd century. I don't see how you can ignore this context and reduce this to simply taking orders from Byzantium. The fact that there was a larger backdrop of Byzantine-Persian conflict doesn't nullify the local complexity at play.

On the topic of Adulis, I don't disagree that it was likely semi-autonomous but you're speaking as though it were totally so. All the major primary sources I've read point to Adulis functioning as the port city of Aksum rather than some independent maritime state. The Periplus explicitly calls Adulis an emporion (“emporium”) that was legally regulated by the king, describing it as a week's journey inland to the main city of Aksum. Monumentum Adulitanum II combined with RIE 269 and subsequent Aksumite claims make it likely we're referring to an Aksumite ruler. Adulis consistently appears as Aksum’s port of departure for any activity across the Red Sea. There is not really any reason to think Adulis was running campaigns by itself but rather acting as an essential gateway for Aksum’s overseas ventures, whether military or commercial. So I'm not seeing how you could argue that Aksum was landlocked.

 

[Som]

Not really bothered by this, to be honest. The only people reading this are those deeply interested in the niche that is Horn history, like us. And if anyone tries to quote this nonsense to push an agenda (even on Wiki), it’s easy to shut down. Just point out the countless counter sources—“No settlements before the 12th century? Then what about these archaeological sites mentioned by other scholars? What’s the Periplus talking about? Or other Greco-Roman sources? All made up?” Same goes for the Islam claims. A quick skim through the medieval Arab sources on the Horn and Somali territories makes the idea that Islamization wasn’t complete, even in Afar lands, by the 16th century laughable.

What baffles me is this team, especially that individual @The alchemist pointed out—a genuinely racist scumbag and fanboy of Richard Burton. They really can’t be this dense? Someday, when actual Somalis or even serious Western scholars conduct proper analyses, these frauds will be exposed. And if anyone digs up the kind of dirt Alchemist did on them, their whole career gets flushed down the toilet of history. Just weird. Not serious people, wallahi.

Islamization was a gradual process everywhere. There are 98% + Muslim nations like Morocco or Tunisia who still took 2-3 centuries after hijra to become completely islamized so it's not unlikely that Islamization took a while. I'd definitely dismiss that it started in the 12th century in the interior but I would not be surprised if there were non Muslim somalis in the 13-14th century.

 

[Shimbiris]

Islamization was a gradual process everywhere. There are 98% + Muslim nations like Morocco or Tunisia who still took 2-3 centuries after hijra to become completely islamized so it's not unlikely that Islamization took a while. I'd definitely dismiss that it started in the 12th century in the interior but I would not be surprised if there were non Muslim somalis in the 13-14th century.

Sure but I think you're missing that they made a strong claim (16th century non-Muslims all over the Eastern Horn) with ZERO evidence to support it. They are seriously just making up history and do this all the time with their writings, as opposed to the plausible and cautious thinking you're applying.

 

[Som]

I mean we have to big props to the akaumite steale. They are incredibly massive and I can't imagine how much labor it took to build them .

Though I do suspect the lalibella churches are more of a natural formation than actual churches dug underground. I think I remember it mentioned somewhere on twitter that these used to be inhabited by troglodgye cave dwelllers.

Bro come on lalibella has literally cross shaped churches , they are quite good works of architecture. There are rock churches elsewhere that are simple caves on the mountains used as churches but the lalibella main church complex is nothing like that

 

[Som]

Sure but I think you're missing that they made a strong claim (16th century non-Muslims all over the Eastern Horn) with ZERO evidence to support it. They are seriously just making up history and do this all the time with their writings, as opposed to the plausible and cautious thinking you're applying.

i didn't read the whole thing. Could you point out the exact quote?

 

[Idilinaa]

Islamization was a gradual process everywhere. There are 98% + Muslim nations like Morocco or Tunisia who still took 2-3 centuries after hijra to become completely islamized so it's not unlikely that Islamization took a while. I'd definitely dismiss that it started in the 12th century in the interior but I would not be surprised if there were non Muslim somalis in the 13-14th century.

I get your point about gradual Islamization in places like Morocco and Tunisia, but that model doesn’t really fit Somalia’s social and geographic context.

Somalis have always been highly mobile across the Horn of Africa , there weren’t rigid urban-rural or coastal-inland divides like in North Africa. Clan-lineage/family structures also meant that once a leader converted, entire groups followed quickly. Islam spread much faster because society was so interconnected.

Archaeological findings also challenge the idea of slow Islamization. In the deep interior (Ogaden), they've found evidence of a halal-compliant diet dating back to the 8th–9th centuries ,50,000 animal bones butchered according to Islamic law, plus imported fish from the coast. https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/05/early-muslims-in-africa-had-a-cosmopolitan-halal-diet/129456

That's long before the 12th-century mosques and burial sites we usually hear about. It shows Islam was already deeply rooted even far from the coast within 100–200 years of its arrival.

So no, Somalia wasn't a place where Islam took 400 years to slowly trickle inland like in North Africa. The mobility, clan structures, and archaeology all point to a much faster, widespread adoption

 

[Idilinaa]

Considering Aksum had already been active in Yemen centuries before any direct Roman involvement, I'd say its likely that they had their own motives and resources for crossing the Red Sea. In the 3rd century, the Monumentum Adulitanum II, shows an Aksumite king boasting of sending a fleet and an infantry force from near the Gulf of Aqaba down into Saba. A fragmentary Greek text RIE 269 found in Aksum, not Adulis, talks about conquering territory “across the sea,” likely referencing that same campaign:

View attachment 358653
Although they were pushed out by the end of the 3rd century, kings like Ezana kept making irredentist claims on the other side of the Red Sea straight through the 4th century so by the time you get to the famous 6th century intervention, Aksum already had a history of projecting power in Yemen. They definitely weren’t just showing up because the Byzantines told them to. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the invasion in question was actually Kaleb's second campaign - there was an earlier one prior to the rise of Yūsuf Nuwās that had nothing to do with the Romans.

There would have been strong economic and political motives as well. Yūsuf had apparently blockaded the Red Sea harbor of Mandab and gone after Aksumites living in Himyar, which undercut Aksum’s access to the lucrative Red Sea–Indian Ocean trade routes. So, while the Byzantines did send diplomatic support, and some sources indeed frame it as purely a religious struggle, it was in large part Aksum’s own interests ie: securing trade, reclaiming “lost” territory, and protecting its people that would have driven Kaleb to invade Himyar for possibly the second time.

Also, going back to Monumentum Adulitanum, prior to his invasion, Kaleb specifically asked Cosmas to copy it as it basically glorified the earlier aforementioned conquest of Yemen. By doing that, Kaleb was referencing what he would have believed to be his ancestral claims across the Red Sea. It shows he saw himself as continuing the same legacy of expansion that dated back to the 3rd century. I don't see how you can ignore this context and reduce this to simply taking orders from Byzantium. The fact that there was a larger backdrop of Byzantine-Persian conflict doesn't nullify the local complexity at play.

On the topic of Adulis, I don't disagree that it was likely semi-autonomous but you're speaking as though it were totally so. All the major primary sources I've read point to Adulis functioning as the port city of Aksum rather than some independent maritime state. The Periplus explicitly calls Adulis an emporion (“emporium”) that was legally regulated by the king, describing it as a week's journey inland to the main city of Aksum. Monumentum Adulitanum II combined with RIE 269 and subsequent Aksumite claims make it likely we're referring to an Aksumite ruler. Adulis consistently appears as Aksum’s port of departure for any activity across the Red Sea. There is not really any reason to think Adulis was running campaigns by itself but rather acting as an essential gateway for Aksum’s overseas ventures, whether military or commercial. So I'm not seeing how you could argue that Aksum was landlocked.


View attachment 358652

This is filled with a lot assumptions and secondary aspersions. Because Axum is never mentioned in the inscription.

The Monumentum Adulitanum, was an ancient inscription depicting the military campaigns of an anonymous king. The original text was inscribed on a throne in Adulis. Although the inscription has never been discovered by archaeologists, it is known about through the copying of the inscription by Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th-century Greek traveler-monk. The text narrates the king's military campaigns in the African continent and in the Arabian peninsula.


The first key factor to determine who was this so called "anonymous" king on that inscription is the language it was written in; Cosmas says it was written in Greek, and not in Ge'ez as we see in actual Aksumite inscriptions like the Ezana stone.

The events on the stone were not happening anytime close to cosmas's lifetime, by the time he was noting down the inscriptions at Adulis, part of the throne was damaged and a small part of the inscription where the name of the ruler was inscribed was missing, certainly broken off/deteriorated over the centuries.

When he comes back to Adulis he even offers sacrifices to Greek gods such as Zeus and Ares.

Here is a map of the conquest illustrated, the ruler sets out from Adulis to eventually comes back to Adulis, after his African campaign he even subjugates the Sabaeans and Himyarites in Yemen,

The inscription likely dates back to pre-Aksumite era as well. that the "unnamed" ruler in the inscription used the title 'Basileus Basileuon', a Greek term and title that has been used by sovereigns and other persons of authority in ancient Greece, the Byzantine emperors, and the kings of modern Greece.

It was probably Ptolemy III who was the author of the inscription not an Axumite king.

 

[Ella Amida]

This is filled with a lot assumptions and secondary aspersions. Because Axum is never mentioned in the inscription.

The Monumentum Adulitanum, was an ancient inscription depicting the military campaigns of an anonymous king. The original text was inscribed on a throne in Adulis. Although the inscription has never been discovered by archaeologists, it is known about through the copying of the inscription by Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th-century Greek traveler-monk. The text narrates the king's military campaigns in the African continent and in the Arabian peninsula.


The first key factor to determine who was this so called "anonymous" king on that inscription is the language it was written in; Cosmas says it was written in Greek, and not in Ge'ez as we see in actual Aksumite inscriptions like the Ezana stone.

That it was written in Greek isn't evidence against Aksumite authorship or for Greek authorship. There are multiple examples of Aksumite kings using Greek for monumental inscriptions, including the Sembruthes inscription and Ezana's inscriptions. As I'm sure you know, Greek was as a prestige language, especially for documents intended for international audiences. The fact that it was written in Greek actually supports its diplomatic and international significance for an Aksumite king establishing regional dominance.

The events on the stone were not happening anytime close to cosmas's lifetime, by the time he was noting down the inscriptions at Adulis, part of the throne was damaged and a small part of the inscription where the name of the ruler was inscribed was missing, certainly broken off/deteriorated over the centuries.

Irrelevant. We agree that the events described are prior to Cosmas' lifetime. However, you bizarrely want to push it back to the 3rd century BC without evidence where there is nothing in the pre-Aksumite material record thus far that supports any kind of Greek military presence in the region though there is plenty of Greek influences meditated through trade.

When he comes back to Adulis he even offers sacrifices to Greek gods such as Zeus and Ares.

We know Aksumites and even Adulites like Zoscales were Hellenized. This isn't a surprise. Even Kings like Ezana in the 4th century reference Greek deities in his Greek inscriptions.

Here is a map of the conquest illustrated, the ruler sets out from Adulis to eventually comes back to Adulis, after his African campaign he even subjugates the Sabaeans and Himyarites in Yemen,

It was probably Ptolemy III who was the author of the inscription not an Axumite king.

I'm glad you shared that map as it clearly illustrates campaigns designed to gain control of the maritime and overland trade routes in the Red Sea and its hinterlands and securing peace and order along these trade routes. Interestingly, the map campaigns near but not really through Aksum itself - perfectly logical if the author were the king of Aksum.

The King establishing headquarters at Adulis upon returning from campaigns in South Arabia to suppress revolts in Africa aligns perfectly with Aksumite strategic interests in the 3rd century and even also references from the likes of Mani which seem to corroborate Aksumite expanding influence during this period - also attested by the South Arabian inscriptions mentioned in my previous post.

By the way, the goal of controlling the route to Egypt also corresponds perfectly with the documented Blemmyes/BeJa incursions into Roman Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia starting in the mid-3rd century CE, which would have been driven by Aksumite expansion from the south during this period.

Even more damning for your Ptolemy theory is when the inscription tells us:

"Having subdued the Atalmo, the Bega, and with them all the Taggaite peoples who occupy territories leading to the frontiers of Egypt, I made travel overland feasible along the route leading from the territories of my kingdom as far as Egypt."

If this were Ptolemy, wouldn't Egypt itself be his territory? The author's kingdom was clearly a kingdom to the south that was establishing a secure route toward Egypt - exactly matching Aksum's position.

"I am the first and the only one of my line to have rendered subject all these peoples and for this I gave thanks to the greatest of my gods, to Ares who begat me and who has enabled me to extend my sway over all the peoples neighbouring my country, to the east as far as the Land of Incense, to the west as far as the territories of Ethiopia and Sasu..."

This describes a realm centered in the Horn of Africa region, with conquests extending outward in multiple directions - fitting perfectly with Aksum but making absolutely no sense geographically for Ptolemaic Egypt.

The inscription also mentions peoples like the Kinaidokolpites (identified with the Kinana tribe) who are first mentioned in Ptolemy's Geography in the 2nd century CE - several centuries after Ptolemy III. (3rd century BC).

There is also the fact that Ptolemy III died at the beginning of his 25th or 26th regnal year, whereas the Monumentum Adulitanum was set up in the 27th regnal year of the author.

The uncontroversially Ptolemaic inscription copied by Cosmas is also apparently smaller and written in 3rd person whereas the larger Aksumite inscription is larger and written in 1st-person. Clearly two different authors.

I could go on some more but you get the picture. I might have maybe been slightly more amenable if you were arguing for authorship by a non-Aksumite Hellenized Adulite or even the South Arabian King theory but your latching on to this outdated theory of Ptolemaic authorship is just not in line with the evidence.

 

[Idilinaa]

That it was written in Greek isn't evidence against Aksumite authorship or for Greek authorship. There are multiple examples of Aksumite kings using Greek for monumental inscriptions, including the Sembruthes inscription and Ezana's inscriptions. As I'm sure you know, Greek was as a prestige language, especially for documents intended for international audiences. The fact that it was written in Greek actually supports its diplomatic and international significance for an Aksumite king establishing regional dominance.


Irrelevant. We agree that the events described are prior to Cosmas' lifetime. However, you bizarrely want to push it back to the 3rd century BC without evidence where there is nothing in the pre-Aksumite material record thus far that supports any kind of Greek military presence in the region though there is plenty of Greek influences meditated through trade.

We know Aksumites and even Adulites like Zoscales were Hellenized. This isn't a surprise. Even Kings like Ezana in the 4th century reference Greek deities in his Greek inscriptions.



I'm glad you shared that map as it clearly illustrates campaigns designed to gain control of the maritime and overland trade routes in the Red Sea and its hinterlands and securing peace and order along these trade routes. Interestingly, the map campaigns near but not really through Aksum itself - perfectly logical if the author were the king of Aksum.

The King establishing headquarters at Adulis upon returning from campaigns in South Arabia to suppress revolts in Africa aligns perfectly with Aksumite strategic interests in the 3rd century and even also references from the likes of Mani which seem to corroborate Aksumite expanding influence during this period - also attested by the South Arabian inscriptions mentioned in my previous post.

By the way, the goal of controlling the route to Egypt also corresponds perfectly with the documented Blemmyes/BeJa incursions into Roman Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia starting in the mid-3rd century CE, which would have been driven by Aksumite expansion from the south during this period.

Even more damning for your Ptolemy theory is when the inscription tells us:

"Having subdued the Atalmo, the Bega, and with them all the Taggaite peoples who occupy territories leading to the frontiers of Egypt, I made travel overland feasible along the route leading from the territories of my kingdom as far as Egypt."

If this were Ptolemy, wouldn't Egypt itself be his territory? The author's kingdom was clearly a kingdom to the south that was establishing a secure route toward Egypt - exactly matching Aksum's position.

There is no mention of Axum or an identification of a King by any name. So you are casting your own aspersion onto it. There is no evidence that the inscription was left behind by an Axumity king, thats why it's relevant to mention that it was written in Greek. If it was written in Geez it would have left little doubt at the identity and authorship of it.

Also the opinion of it being an inscription by Ptolemy the 3rd was expressed by Kosmas who drew and recorded inscription.

"I am the first and the only one of my line to have rendered subject all these peoples and for this I gave thanks to the greatest of my gods, to Ares who begat me and who has enabled me to extend my sway over all the peoples neighbouring my country, to the east as far as the Land of Incense, to the west as far as the territories of Ethiopia and Sasu..."

Did you even read this? He is praying to a Greek God as thanks, if that wasn't obvious enough.

Also conquest began at Adulis and he returned to Adulis.

The land incense was Southern Arabia which is located to east of Adulis

This describes a realm centered in the Horn of Africa region, with conquests extending outward in multiple directions - fitting perfectly with Aksum but making absolutely no sense geographically for Ptolemaic Egypt.

The inscription also mentions peoples like the Kinaidokolpites (identified with the Kinana tribe) who are first mentioned in Ptolemy's Geography in the 2nd century CE - several centuries after Ptolemy III. (3rd century BC).

There is also the fact that Ptolemy III died at the beginning of his 25th or 26th regnal year, whereas the Monumentum Adulitanum was set up in the 27th regnal year of the author.

The uncontroversially Ptolemaic inscription copied by Cosmas is also apparently smaller and written in 3rd person whereas the larger Aksumite inscription is larger and written in 1st-person. Clearly two different authors.

I could go on some more but you get the picture. I might have maybe been slightly more amenable if you were arguing for authorship by a non-Aksumite Hellenized Adulite or even the South Arabian King theory but your latching on to this outdated theory of Ptolemaic authorship is just not in line with the evidence.

If you look at the rest of the inscription, it's pretty obvious it was Ptolemy the 3rd. Cause it was a conquest that stretched into Asia

 

[Ella Amida]

There is no mention of Axum or an identification of a King by any name. So you are casting your own aspersion onto it.

Also the opinion of it being an inscription by Ptolemy 3 was expressed by Kosmas who drew and recorded inscription.

An Aksumite king bragging about his conquests West and East wouldn't need to mention his own capital. The absence of Aksum from the military campaigns is powerful evidence for Aksumite authorship, not against it.

In fact, even in the Victory Stele of King Piye which details the 8th century BC conquest of Egypt by the Kushites, I see no explicit reference to Kush, Napata etc, at least not in the translations I'm seeing. These monuments need not always explicitly mention the the ruler's capital or kingdom. It's also the case that some of the text is missing - but even if it's truly not mentioned, that's not really a problem.

And yes and pretty much every scholar knows that Kosmas was mistaken in that identification in large part for the following reasons.

If you look at the rest of the inscription, it's pretty obvious it was Ptolemy the 3rd. Cause it was a conquest that stretched into Asia

OK let me be more clear - there were two different monuments. The Monumentum Adulitanum I and II. One is the uncontroversially Ptolemaic inscription detailing the Asian conquests you are referring to. It's smaller and written in 3rd person as you can see in your own screenshot. The other is the Aksumite inscription , which much larger, and as you'll notice, written in 1st person. It's also written in the 27th year of the King's reign which Ptolemy III never had. Kosmas assumed that this inscription was as a continuation of the former without the benefit of modern historical knowledge - we can clearly see now that they are clearly written by two different authors.

Did you even read this? He is praying to a Greek God as thanks, if that wasn't obvious enough. Also conquest began at Adulis and he returned to Adulis.

As I've already told you, Pre-Christian Aksumite rulers were plainly Hellenized and so regularly incorporated Greek deities in their inscriptions. Even Ezana's pre-Christian inscriptions invoked Greek deities.

Also, there is no historical evidence that I know of a Ptolemaic invasion of the Horn of Africa and South Arabia launched from Adulis, certainly nothing in the pre-Aksumite material culture which does shows trade with Kush The scenario you're suggesting is based on an outdated assumption and absurd.

The land incense was Southern Arabia which is located to east of Adulis

Which makes perfect sense because in contrast to your outdated theory, there is ample evidence of an Aksumite presence in 3rd century South Arabia which is when it's agreed upon that the inscription dates to.

As I've explained, we have Aksumite inscriptions like RIE 269 which seem to reference a campaign across the sea, South Arabian inscriptions like Ja 576 and Ja 577 which attest to an Aksumite military presence at that time, the MA containing references to peoples like the Kinana who are an Arabian tribe who don't appear on record until the 2nd century (centuries after the Ptolemaic period but right before this conquest), Mani's 3rd century reference to Aksum as a major power, the Blemmyes' incusions into Lower Nubia / Upper Egypt during this time which fits well with being pushed north during the aftermath of the described conflicts.

We have Aksumite kings in subsequent centuries like Ezana continuing to make irredentist territorial claims to South Arabia culminating in Kaleb's 6th century conquest which you seem to want to credit totally to the Byzantines. According to your scenario, why would Kaleb would have even asked Kosmas to copy this inscription by a Ptolemaic conqueror? It would make little sense.

Whether it's attributing the conquests of the Monumentum Adulitanum to the Ptolemies or Kaleb's invasion totally to the Byzantines, you clearly have some deeper bias going on. Unless you have some new and serious counter-arguments, I'll just leave it here.

 

[Shimbiris]

There is no mention of Axum or an identification of a King by any name. So you are casting your own aspersion onto it. There is no evidence that the inscription was left behind by an Axumity king, thats why it's relevant to mention that it was written in Greek. If it was written in Geez it would have left little doubt at the identity and authorship of it.

Also the opinion of it being an inscription by Ptolemy the 3rd was expressed by Kosmas who drew and recorded inscription.

View attachment 358923




Did you even read this? He is praying to a Greek God as thanks, if that wasn't obvious enough.

Also conquest began at Adulis and he returned to Adulis.
View attachment 358922

The land incense was Southern Arabia which is located to east of Adulis
View attachment 358927



If you look at the rest of the inscription, it's pretty obvious it was Ptolemy the 3rd. Cause it was a conquest that stretched into Asia
View attachment 358924
View attachment 358925

Walaal, he is correct. No Greeks ever perpetrated conquests in the Horn. That belief that it's a Ptolemaic inscription is outdated and based on the misunderstanding @Ella Amida explained. I think we can agree that Aksum's size and power is somewhat exaggerated but let's not go too far here.

 

[Idilinaa]

Walaal, he is correct. No Greeks ever perpetrated conquests in the Horn. That belief that it's a Ptolemaic inscription is outdated and based on the misunderstanding @Ella Amida explained. I think we can agree that Aksum's size and power is somewhat exaggerated but let's not go too far here.

My point was that it wasn't an Axumite King and there is no evidence to support it. The strongest evidence shows it could be a greek or at most a greek influenced ruler.

It was Komas who found that inscription and attributed it to Ptolemy the 3rd. But yeah i wont beat a dead horse, we will perhaps never know for certain who was that anynomous ruler