 |
ARKAMANI Sudan Electronic Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology |
AKSUM AND THE END OF MEROE
Michael H. Zach (Vienna)
[THIS
IS ONLY A DRAFT VERSION OF THE FINAL TEXT]
One of the most
enigmatic and rather controversial discussed topics within Meroitic history
concerns the involvement of Aksum in the so-called “end of Meroe”. For almost
one century, several models have been presented according the respective
sources available, whose scale increased more or less continuously in the past
decades.
Sources (in supposed chronological order)
|
Source |
Origin |
Dating |
|
Fragmentary
Inscription FHN 286 |
Meroe |
ca. 300 AD |
|
Fragmentary
Inscription FHN 285 |
Meroe |
reign of Ousanas I.
(ca. 320 AD) |
|
Inscription
DAE 11 (including two fragmentary additional versions, e.g.
FHN 299) |
Aksum |
reign of Ezana (ca.350
AD) |
|
Graffito |
Kawa |
reign of Ezana (or earlier) |
|
Graffito |
Beg N 2 |
late 4th
century AD |
|
Coin |
Meroe |
post 402 AD |
Theories
|
1. One raid by Ezana |
|
1.a. Meroe captured
and destroyed: Sayce, Dunham, Arkell, Bersina |
|
1.b. Meroe captured,
leaving dynasty tributary to Aksum: Reisner |
|
2. Two raids by
Ezana and one of his predecessors |
|
2.a. Meroe destroyed and ending dynasty before
Ezana: Monneret de Villard, Hintze |
|
2.b. Meroe subjected by one of Ezana’s
predecessors, continuing to exist as Aksumite vassal state:
Kirwan, Shinnie,
Adams, Burstein, Hägg, Török |
|
3. One raid by one
of Ezana’s predecessors exclusively |
|
3.a. Ezana’s campaign did not touch the middle
Nile Valley: Behrens, Bechhaus-Gerst |
Despite the
argumentation by some scholars that the somewhat meagre evidence relating to
Aksumite presence in the middle Nile Valley does not support Meroe’s vassal
status prior and subsequent to Ezana’s incursion, consideration of additional
Meroitic and especially Aksumite material may well support that theory. The
faience statuette Garstang photo E 224 from Meroe representing a woman (queen
?) clearly reflects Aksumite influence based on South Arabian prototypes (e.g.
Addis Abeba J.E. 1657, 1555 and 3) and obviously dates around 300 AD.
Furthermore, analysis of Aksumite coinage shows the adaption of the Meroitic
uraeus diadem in royal iconography from the reign of Aphilas (beginning of 4th
century AD) onwards, expressing Aksum’s supremacy. As for the inscriptional
records, the Aksumite kings from Ousanas I. (fl. 320 AD) till Wazebas (fl.
540 AD) also call themselves “kings of Kush”, demonstrating their somewhat
continuous legal claim on the middle Nile Valley. In that connection, the
Aksumite coin from Meroe can not be brought into any connection with Ezana as
usually proposed, but follows a Byzantine pattern appearing in 402 AD first,
clearly suggesting a later date.
Conclusions
1.
Meroe had been
subjugated by Aksumite forces during the reign of Aphilas and was transformed
into a tributary vassal kingdom.
2.
Ezana’s campaign
formed only one of several incidents in the process of Aksumite expansion into
the middle Nile Valley.
3.
The Meroitic empire
did not collapse with Ezana’s incursion, but remained – probably in local
remnants – existant for some decades, as shown e.g. by continuation of:
a.
Meroitic funerary rites
(e.g. El Hobagi, Umm Makharoqa)
b.
Meroitic
language/script – at least on highest social level (REM 0094, 1222)
c.
Meroitic ranks, as
e.g. a hegemon of (Lower ?)Nubia (=
pesto ?) still acting in 348 AD (P. Ammon) and a “high king” Yisemeniye,
referred to in the Kharamadoye inscription (REM 0094) around
ca. 400 AD.
4.
At least some of the
late Meroitic rulers may have descended from the Northern part of the empire,
as e.g. indicated by the name component
yesebohe
(Aryesebohe, Yeseboheamani). Admittedly hypothetical, their
kingship could have been based on military strenghth.
5.
The so-called
“invasion” of the Noba did not cause the end of Meroe, but in contrast they
seem to have served as its allies (comparable to Rome’s barbarian
foederati) against Aksum’s rising pressure.