Tuesday 16 January 2024

لم يكن لمملكة أكسوم منفذ بحري خاص بها ولم تمتلك سفنًا

 

لم يكن لمملكة أكسوم منفذ بحري خاص بها ولم تمتلك سفنًا

رئيس الوزراء الإثيوبي ,آبي في خطابه المسجل للبرلمان الذي بُث في 13 أكتوبر من العام الماضي ادعى أن 'إثيوبيا' (لم تكن هناك دولة أو كيان يُدعى إثيوبيا آنذاك) كانت تمتلك تاريخيًا ميناءً على البحر الأحمر. مملكة أكسوم، التي كانت واحدة من أقوى الممالك في أفريقيا في ذلك الوقت، كانت تقع في تيقراي الحالية وجنوب إريتريا. ميناء أدوليس اي ميناء عزولي نفسه يقع في إريتريا الحالية. تم اكتشاف حضارة ما قبل أكسوم في إريتريا .الابحاث في حوض أسمرا، عاصمة اريتريا، يشير إلى إمكانية كبيرة لكشف أصول الحياة المستقرة في المرتفعات وتطور المجتمعات الحضرية المبكرة في القرن الأفريقي.[1] إذا كانت إثيوبيا الحالية تعتبران لها احقية تأريخية بمملكة أكسوم، فإن إريتريا واقليم تيقراي، لهما احقية أكبر. ميناء أدوليس نفسه يقع في إريتريا الحالية.

في عام 1994، أجرى المتحف الوطني الإريتري حفريات في جبل كوكن أظهرت نتائج مهمة حول الدور التاريخي لمدينة أغردات في غرب اريتريا. يعود تاريخ أغردات[2] إلى حوالي 2300 قبل الميلاد، وكانت مركزًا محوريًا في شبكات التجارة الإقليمية، تربط وادي النيل بالمرتفعات الإريترية والإثيوبية، حتى "الفترة ما قبل أكسوم" حوالي 400 قبل الميلاد.

تم إنشاء ميناء أدوليس من قبل الأسرة البطلمية التي حكمت مصر لما يقرب من ثلاثة قرون (305-30 ق.م)، وفي النهاية سقطت تحت سيطرة الرومان. استخدمت مملكة أكسوم، وكذلك السودان الحالي، الميناء لأغراض تجارية، لكنها لم تمتلكه. أقدم تاريخ مسجل عن أدوليس يُوجد في "بريبلوس البحر الإريتري: السفر والتجارة في المحيط الهندي" ويُعتقد أنه كُتب في عام 60 ميلاديًا بواسطة مؤرخ ومسافر يوناني،

وتم ترجمة الكتاب إلى الإنجليزية ونُشر بواسطة ويلفريد هارفي شوف[3] في عام 1912. يُذكر الكتاب اسم أدوليس 31 مرة.

وقامت مملكة أكسوم بغزو اليمن في القرن السادس بدعم من قيصر روما، الذي وفر للأكسوميين أسطولاً من السفن لنقل الجنود الأحباش إلى الساحل الغربي لليمن. كمملكة برية، لم تمتلك أكسوم سفنًا[4] ، ولكن كانت تتاجر عبر ميناء أدوليس. كان الجيش الأكسومي بقيادة أبرهة، نائب الملك الأكسومي في القرن السادس كاليب، الذي حكم اليمن أيضًا (هو وابنه) لمدة حوالي سبعين عامًا.

كان الغزو دعماً للمسيحيين الحميريين المضطهدين في نجران باليمن (والتي تعتبر حاليًا جزءًا من المملكة العربية السعودية)، الذين اعتبرهم الملك الحبشي ،كاليب، من المؤمنين بدينه. عندما أرسل الإمبراطور الروماني جستن الأول سفارة بقيادة نونوس إلى أكسوم لدعوة المشاركة في الحرب ضد الفرس، كانت المملكة لا تزال قوية وحربية، على الرغم من أن الملك، أسبها، توسل بأنه لا يمتلك سفنًا واقترض ستين سفينة من جستن[5]. ذو نواس، آخر ملوك الحميريين في اليمن، كان لديه تعاطف مع اليهود وكان مضطهدًا بارزًا للمسيحيين. أسبها من أكسوم، الذي ادعي لاحقًا أنه أصبح راهبًا، كان مسيحيًا متعصب، وغزي اليمن لنصرة المسيحيين هناك: والحملة التي جهزها لتخفيف معاناة أبناء دينه كانت ناجحة. تم قتل ذو نواس، وأصبح اليمن تابعًا لأكسوم مع تعيين حاكم من قبل الملك

مسيرة أبرهة مثيرة للاهتمام بشكل خاص بسبب حملته على مكة[6] في عام 570، والتي ذكرت في القرآن في "صورة الفيل". كانت مدينة سفار مقراً لكنيسة تم تدنيسها من قبل عرب قريش، وانتقاماً لذلك، توجه أبرهة إلى مكة، موقع حجر مقدس عرف فيما بعد باسم "الكعبة"، بثلاثة عشر فيلاً وجيش كبير. لكنه فشل حيث أصيب جيشه بالجدري.

 

يمكنك قراءة الكتاب، "البريبلوس للبحر الأريثري" على هذا الرابط

https://hedgait.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-periplus-of-erythrean-sea.html

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Schmidt, P. R., M. C. Curtis and Z. Teka (2008). The archaeology of ancient Eritrea. Trenton, NJ, Red Sea Press

[2] Brandt, S. A. M., A.; Perlingieri, C. (2008). Linking the Highlands and Lowlands: Implications of a Test Excavation at Kokan Rockshelter, Agordat, Eritrea. The Archaeology of Ancient Eritrea. P. R. Schmidt, Curtis, Matthew, Zelalem Teka. Trenton (NJ), Red Sea Press. : 33-47.

[3]. Wilfred Harvey Schoff, The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea: Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 60.

[4] Al-Shami, Al-Manhal Fi Tarikh Wa Akhbar al-Afar (Al-Danakil), 124–32.

[5] Paul A. History of the Beja, p. 48-49

[6] Paul A. History of the Beja, p. 49

Monday 15 January 2024

The Axumite Kingdom was a landlocked Kingdom and had no ships

 

The Axumite Kingdom was a landlocked Kingdom and had no ships

PM Abiy in his recorded speech to the Ethiopian Parliament aired on 13 October, last year claimed, ‘Ethiopia’ (there was no country or state called Ethiopia. then) had historically had a port on the Red Sea. The Axumite which was one of the strongest kingdoms in Africa at that time was  in current Tigray and Southern Eritrea. The port of Adulis itself lies  in current Eritrea. Pre-Axumite civilization has been uncovered in Eritrea. Research in the Asmara Basin suggests significant potential for uncovering the origins of settled life in the highlands and the development of early urban-like communities in the Horn of Africa. In research in the Asmara Basin suggests significant potential for uncovering the origins of settled life in the highlands and the development of early urban-like communities in the Horn of Africa[1].

In 1994, excavations conducted by the National Eritrean Museum in Kokan revealed significant findings about Agordat's historical role. Dating back to around 2300 BCE, Agordat was a pivotal centre in the regional trade networks, linking the Nile valley with the Eritrean and Ethiopian highlands[2], up until the "Pre-Axumite period" around 400 BCE.

The port of Adulis was established by Ptolemaic Dynasty that controlled Egypt for almost three centuries (305-30 BCE), eventually falling to the Romans. The Axumite Kingdom, as well as current Sudan used the port for commercial purposes, but did not own it. The earliest recorded history about Adulis is found in “The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea: Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean” believed to written in 60 CE  by a Greek historian and traveller and the book was translated to English and published by Wilfred Harvey Schoff in 1912. Adulis is mentioned 31 times in the book. Some excerpts from the book:

Adulis.—The present port is Massawa, centre of the Italian colony of Eritrea, which lies near the mouth of the bay of Adulis. The ancient name is preserved in the modern village of Zula. The location has been described by J. Theodore Bent, (&-cred City of the Ethiopians, London, 1896: pp. 228-230). It is on the west side of Annesley Bay, and numerous black basalt ruins are still visible there. Adulis was one of the colonies of Ptolemy Philadelphus and was always of commercial importance because it was the natural port for Abyssinia and the Sudan[3]. It seems to have been built by Syrian Greeks.” Some excerpts from the book:

“Below Ptolemais of the Hunts, at a distance of about three thousand stadia, there is Adulis, a port established by law, situated at the inner end of a bay that runs in toward the south. Before the harbour is the so-called Mountain Island, about two hundred stadia seaward from the very head of the bay, with the shores of the mainland close on both sides. Ships bound for this port now anchor here because of attacks from the land. They anchored at the very head of the bay by an island called Diodorus, which was close to the shore, but could be reached on foot from the land and by which means the barbarous natives attacked the island. Opposite Mountain Island, on the mainland twenty stadia from shore, was Adulis, a fair-sized village, from which it was a three-day journey to Coloe, an inland town and the first market for ivory. From that place to the city of the people called Auxumites was a five-day journey more. All the ivory was brought to that place from the country beyond the Nile through the district called Cyeneum, and thence to Adulis. Practically the entire number of elephants and rhinoceroses killed live in places inland, although at rare intervals they are hunted on the seacoast even near Adulis. Before the harbour of that market town, out at sea on the right are a great many little sandy islands called Alalaei. They yield tortoiseshell, which is brought to market there by the Fish-Eater[4]s.”

The Axumite Kingdom even invaded Yemen with the support of the Caesar of Rome, who provided the Aksumites with a fleet of ships to use to carry Abyssinian soldiers to the west coast of Yemen. As a landlocked kingdom, Aksum possessed no ships and had no maritime domains but did have limited access via the port of Adulis[5]. The Aksumites’ army was headed by Abraha, viceroy of the sixth-century Aksumite king Kaleb, who also ruled Yemen (himself and his son) for about seventy years. The invasion was in support of persecuted Himyarite Christians of Najran of Yemen (presently part of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), whom Kaleb considered coreligionists. When Roman Emperor Justin I sent sent an embassy under Nonnus, to Axum to invite participation in the war against Persia, the kingdom was still powerful and warlike, though the king, Asbaha, pleaded he had no ships and borrowed sixty ships[6] from Justin. Dhu Nuwwas , the last of Himyarite kings of Yemen, had Jewish sympathies and was a notable prosecutor of the Christians. Asbaha of Axum, who was alleged later to have become a monk, was an equally fanatic Christian and the expedition which he equipped for the relief of his co-religionists  was successful. Dhu Nuwwas was killed, and the Yemen became a dependency of Axum with a governor appointed by the king.

Abraha’s career is of particular interest on account of his expedition to Mecca in 570 which is mentioned in the Koran, as ‘Battle of the Elephant’. The town of Saphar was the seat of a Church desecrated by the Arabs of Quraish and in revenge Abraha marched to Mecca, the site of a sacred stone later to be famous as ‘Ka’ba’ with thirteen elephants and a large army. He failed as his army was smitten by smallpox.

 

You can read, the book, ‘ The periplus of the Erythrean Sea’ at this link:

https://hedgait.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-periplus-of-erythrean-sea.html

 

 



[1] Schmidt, P. R., M. C. Curtis and Z. Teka (2008). The archaeology of ancient Eritrea. Trenton, NJ, Red Sea Press

[2] Brandt, S. A. M., A.; Perlingieri, C. (2008). Linking the Highlands and Lowlands: Implications of a Test Excavation at Kokan Rockshelter, Agordat, Eritrea. The Archaeology of Ancient Eritrea. P. R. Schmidt, Curtis, Matthew, Zelalem Teka. Trenton (NJ), Red Sea Press. : 33-47.

[3] Wilfred Harvey Schoff, The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea: Travel and Trade in the Indian Ocean (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 60.

[4] Same book as above, p.22

[5] Al-Shami, Al-Manhal Fi Tarikh Wa Akhbar al-Afar (Al-Danakil), 124–32.

[6] Paul A. History of the Beja, p. 48-49


Wednesday 10 January 2024

A Tale of Two reform Movements in PLF/EPLF/PFDJ of 1973 and of 2001

 

A Tale of Two reform Movements in PLF/EPLF/PFDJ of 1973 and of 2001

This text looks at a comparison of two significant reform movements within the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), specifically focusing on the so called ‘Menkae’ or ‘destructive movement of 1973’ as labelled by the leadership of PLF, but a ‘Democratic Movement’ by others on one side, and the G15 demands of 2001. Both movements, despite being separated by 28 years, share striking similarities in their objectives and outcomes, particularly in their confrontation with a central figure, the accused and the perpetrator, Isaias Afwerki.

The Menkae movement of 1973, labelled as the "destructive movement" by the PLF leadership, was detailed in an extensive 86-page report. Notably, 23 pages of this report contained responses to the issues raised by the movement, written by Isaias Afwerki himself and endorsed fully by the leadership on November 6, 1973. The Menkae accused Afwerki of overstepping his bounds by interfering in various departmental functions, despite the presence of appointed heads. This accusation is encapsulated in Musie Tesfamichael's criticism, as cited by Mesfin Hagos (p. 88), where Tesfamichael likened Afwerki's handling of the revolution to the casual use of a handkerchief,  “You consider the revolution like a handkerchief, you fold it into your pocket or blow your nose with it when you chose.” The conflict took a provincial dimension, most of the Menkae group were from the highland province of Akle Guzai and most of the fighter of PLF 1 at that time were from Hamassein province by virtue of their location in the province. Traces of this provincial phenomena still haunts Eritrea.

Haile Menkerios, a new fighter then, who in 2001 was a member of the G 15,  described the division of a revolutionary front into three distinct groups during the 'Menkae uprising':

The Menkae Group: This faction consisted of educated fighters who criticized the front's leadership as backward. They advocated for a complete overhaul of the leadership, promoting scientific socialism as their guiding principle. Their aim was a national democratic revolution with socialist characteristics, ultimately leading to communism. This group was strongly leftist, sharing many beliefs with the general ideology of the front. They viewed the leadership as feudal and believed Isaias was aligned with feudalist perspective that a change was necessary.

Solomon’s Group: Originating from the Hamasien region, they initially sided with the Menkae but later opposed both them and Isaias. Initially, there were claims of Solomon being targeted for assassination, but his group refrained from glorifying him. They began to perceive Solomon as indistinguishable from the rest of the leadership, advocating for change. Eventually, Solomon shifted his allegiance back to the leadership, helping to form a united front against both the Menkae and his former supporters. He had a history of fluctuating alliances, initially attacking the Akele Guzai, then supporting the Menkae, and ultimately opposing both. Solomon was recognized for his effective organizational skills and began to imprison fighters.

The Third Group: This faction agreed that the leadership was feudalistic but argued for a systematic approach to change. They believed that a rapid overhaul would exacerbate the existing divide between the Hamasien and Akele Guzai regions, potentially leading to more significant issues. This group sought a more gradual and strategic approach to leadership transition, aiming to maintain unity and stability within the front.

Similarly, in 2001, the G15 group, comprising members of the leadership of the  People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), expressed concerns in an open letter. They criticized the President for acting in an illegal and unconstitutional manner, failing to consult, and highlighted the lack of oversight by legislative and executive bodies. Intriguingly, Petros Solomon, who was pardoned in 1973 during the Menkae movement, found himself again in the midst of controversy as part of the G15. Similarly, Mesfin Hagos, who had previously supported the PLF leadership's severe measures against the Menkae, joined the 2001 group, echoing similar demands for reform. The reformists of 1973 stated that it was important to form mass organizations and recruit through them to reduce the problem of enemy spies infiltrating the organization and indicated there was no unit established to address this issue. Ironically the unit called, Halawa Sowra (guardians of the revolution) was established after their purge and this unit became the main instrument of Isaias’s consolidation of power in the EPLF.

The Menkae criticised the leadership of the PLF, for lack of democratic practises, for lack of accountability, for failures in 7 battles that resulted in unnecessary death of fighters, for restrictions in the freedom of expression, for intimidation of those who challenged the leadership, for using force against the masses instead of dealing with them with respect.

The G15 additionally stated that confidence of the general membership of the front as well as the general public in the leadership and the party has been reduced, criticized the disastrous consequences of the border war with Ethiopia 1998-2000, indicated People want a transparent, accountable, institutionalized, and legal administration, asked for guarantee for human and democratic rights of citizens, expressed need for concrete measures to implement and guarantee their professed aims of establishing a constitutional government, establishment of a constitutional government through free and fair elections, and that differences inside the front and the government to be resolved peacefully, democratically and legally.

It is difficult to predict what would have happened if the reformists of 1973 would have won and Isaias’s ambitions were curtailed at an early stage; but one thing is clear, his absence would have set the Eritrean revolution in the right path.

Isaias created the perception that he was indispensable to the organization in both 1973 and in 2001. Mesfin Hagos recalled in his book (p. 234) that he several times thought of killing Isaias because he had continuously demonized  him, but later did not pursue that goal because as he stated, “at no point I could convince myself that the revolution could find a replacement for Isaias as half effective as he.” In 2001, many PFDJ  leaders may have stood with Isaias for the same reasons.

The fate of the reformists of both 1973 and 2001 was similar. As Isaias was not strong enough in 1973, the presumed ring leaders were arrested, investigated, and tried by committees loyal to the leadership and the final decision was approved by the leadership of the PLF.  The prominent leaders of  the movement were summarily executed. Isaias made sure since then that no one challenged him and if they did, they were eliminated. The G 15 members who happened to be in Eritrea and all those who were suspected to be their supporters have disappeared since their arrest on the 18th of September of 2001. Most are feared dead. Ten years later even some of the PFDJ leaders  who demonised the G 15, were suspected of involvement in the army uprising of 2013 and have since disappeared.

In the response Isaias gave to the reformists of 1973, on lack of democracy. He explained that in a revolutionary organization, all members of the organization, elect a legislative Council (LC) that represents them in a democratic way. This Council in turn formulates the political program and structure of the organization and elects an Executive Committee (EC), The Legislative Council  represents the highest power. The EC, based on the directives of the LC distributes the roles and responsibility and functions to each member of the organization. At the designated dates of the meetings, the EC presents its reports to the LC.

The G 15, in their open letter, highlighted the irregularities in the functioning of the Executive Committee and Central Council of the PFDJ (People's Front for Democracy and Justice). They pointed out that since 1994, the Executive Committee had met only 11 times instead of the scheduled 84, and the Central Council met just twice during the three-year war with TPLF, instead of nine times as scheduled. This lack of regular meetings effectively centralized decision-making power in the hands of the Chairman, leading to a decline in transparency, accountability, and democratic processes, particularly evident during the border war with Ethiopia.

But the domination of Isaias did not begin in 2001. Yemane Teklegergish reported that during the 2nd congress of the EPLF's clandestine party in March 1987 Isaias told the participants that the nine central committee (CC) members and two reserve members elected in 1976 never met, not even for a single day, and thus the CC did not do its job. When challenged to explain why the CC did not meet for ten years, Isaias responded by saying there were and still are contradictions among them, and those contradictions had spread to other members, but he did not elaborate what sort of contradictions those were. However, when pressed hard, Isaias told the gathering, “When I say that the CC did not meet, I do not mean that no work was done. Each of the members took instructions from me and worked.” Yemane interprets this to mean that Isaias was telling us he was the only one who worked in the party and the EPLF.

This narrative draws attention to the cyclical nature of political dissent and reform within the context of the Eritrean liberation struggle, highlighting the enduring issues of leadership, governance, and accountability.

 

The 2001, G 15 open letter to all PFDJ members in Tigrinya:
http://www.snitna.com/docs/Open_Letter_to_PFDJ_Members_by_G_15_tigrinya.pdf

The 2001, G 15 open letter to all PFDJ members in English:
http://www.snitna.com/docs/Open_Letter_to_All_PFDJ_Members_by_G_15_english.pdf

https://hedgait.blogspot.com/2023/11/haile-menkerios-on-plf-leadership.html

https://hedgait.blogspot.com/2016/03/1973-plf-2-isaiass-group-version-on-so.html

Mesfin Hagos with Awet Tewelde Weldemichael, 2023. An African Revolution Reclaimed: A memoir of an Eritrean Freedom, Red Sea Press

Teklegergish, Yemane, My Experience with the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF), Part 2 (Germany: 2018).

 


The Lutheran Church of Sweden and its Evangelical Mission in Eritrea 1866-1993

 

Sweden in Eritrea 1866-1993

Eritrea and Sweden share a history of more than a century and a half. On the foundation of religious, cultural, educational and health cooperation summarized in this report, today’s bonds between the two peoples are strong.

For centuries, Eritrea was colonized by successive external powers. In the shadow of Egyptian, Italian, British and Ethiopian rule, there was strong engagement in Sweden for the people of Eritrea.

The Lutheran Church of Sweden and its Evangelical Mission, particularly, worked for more than a hundred years to promote education and vocational training, typography and book printing, health care and opportunities for the deaf. Swedish civil society support for Eritrea’s independence struggle culminated in the official recognition of Eritrea as an independent state in 1993.

Download the report: Sweden in Eritrea 1866-1993