Talk:Sabean colonization of Africa

Discussion 1

This page is full of Eurocentric fallacies that have been refuted. There was no colonisation and no evidence of such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.190.236.134 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Flagrant misinformation

The previously established assumptions that south Arabians had influenced the Ethiopians for the rise and development of the civilization were reversely argued. Pirenne (1988) for example argued that the cultural expansion did not take place from Yemen to Ethiopia, but conversely, from Ethiopia to Yemen. This theory accepts the presence of Sabeans in Ethiopia whose reason of entering Ethiopia was differently postulated. These Sabeans would have then left for Yemen taking with them the technique of architecture and writing system which they had mastered in Ethiopia. On the other hand, Isaac and Felder (1988) postulate that cultural developments may have occurred concurrently on both sides of the Red Sea region. Similar dating of some monuments falling in the 5th century BC in Ethiopia and South Arabia on the basis of palaeographical study (Munro-Hay, 1991), and the contemporaneous dating of between 7th-5th centuries BC of the Yeha Great Temple and some of South Arabian Temples (Robin and Maigret, 1998) may strengthen the view of Isaac and Felder. It has been believed by some scholars (e.g. Fattovich, 2004) that the Sabeans had also influenced the Da‟amat state by means of direct political control. Some inscriptions from Da‟amat sites of Ethiopia may, however, help to disprove this notion. The translation of an inscription on an incense burner from Addi Akaweh relates that a king known as Rd’m was “King of Da‟amat, its East and its West, its Sabaeans and its immigrants, its Red and its Dark” (Gajda and Yohannes, 2009: 52). It can evidently be deduced from this inscription that the Sabeans had no political control over Ethiopians, and even rather it seems that the land of Saba and its people was under the control of the king of Da‟amat, as the phrases “its East”, “its Sabaeans…”, and “its Red” most likely referring to the people of South Arabians and Sabeans across the Red Sea region. So far, there is no proof of south Arabian political domination on the Ethiopians (Munro-Hay, 1991).

Clearly no direct rule 94.8.242.219 (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it scholarly consensus that da'mat is a Sabean colony or is it dispute? 2A04:7F80:20CF:AC00:15AE:6B9C:2B64:1F63 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It is universally agreed by scholars Dm't was an independent state. Apprentix (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but is this is not a colonisation, there's not one source out of the 600 Sabaic Manuscripts mentioning an Imperial colonisation into Africa, Requesting a Title change or a page deletation because there's absoulutely no context whatsoever its misleading.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User:Apprentix was blocked as a sock Abo Yemen✉ 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but is this really a colonisation, there's not one source out of the 600 Sabaic Manuscripts mentioning an Imperial colonisation into Africa, Requesting a page deletatuon change because its misleading and was probably made by Yemeni nationalists, the first time Ethiopia was mentioned in Yemeni sources was almost 1000 years after this supposed "colonisation" Apprentix (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

was probably made by Yemeni nationalists
article was made by @Yubudirsi, not a Yemeni nationalist Abo Yemen✉ 06:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This person has been warned many times for his vandalism for Ethiopian pages and a lot of his edits have been reverted multiple times, even if he's not a Yemeni nationalist then he's most likely a Somali Nationalist and he made this page to slander Ethiopians, in addition it doesn't change the fact this page is complete crap and doesn't provide any evidence of a colonisation. Apprentix (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we not talk about the person but talk about the actual text? It violates WP:PERSONALATTACKS. The article is very well sourced and I see nothing wrong with it Abo Yemen✉ 16:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of issues with it, for starters its crappy, secondly there's no historical backing that it was a colonization and is just backed on the basis of a few scholar, no historical rulers, coins, settlements etc which is typical for a colony, This is clearly a defimation and is a shaming that you cannot hide your bias as you support this stupidity. If you are honest you will agree with me that this wasn't a colonisation and the fact that they're trying to portray it as such is clearly bullshit. Apprentix (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

for starters its crappy
That is not a valid reason to delete(ig that is what you want?) the article
is just backed on the basis of a few scholar[s],
what else do you need, backing from god? Abo Yemen✉ 16:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you name a single king or vassal ruler? are you that biased? Apprentix (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would i know any? Abo Yemen✉ 16:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no PROOF historically that this was a colonisation such as sending an army, etc. which is normal for to notice in ancient colonization sources, and stuff the Sabaens mentioned when they colonised the neighbouring tribes but this was never the case in this context nor mentioned, hence it's clearly something that's never happened as its never been recorded, and has most likely been brought up after the upspring of Yemeni nationalism in the recent decades.Apprentix (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Read the history section of the article as it answers your main question and is enough proof Abo Yemen✉ 16:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Dude, yet again it doesn't prove anything as it has no historical events or historical source backing it, people migrate and bring their culture with them, there's I think you're confused what a migration and colonisation is or your hiding that, a valid proof of colonziation is historical basis not a hyopthetical census by one lowly qualified historian without any historical basis but by scribes, events, battles, etc. and its frankly tiring as you're defending something that is clearly not true and has not been mentioned once in history, I'm going to ask you this one more time can you name me one King or Vassal ruler or anything that can actually prove of a colonization? Apprentix (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know any as ancient history is not my thing, but how will naming a King or Vassal ruler prove that this is a colonization?
This article is well-sourced and covers all points of views by including a criticism section. If your problem is with the article name, if you can prove that most Wikipedia:Reliable sources refer to it as a migration then you can perform a requested move Abo Yemen✉ 17:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There's many fallacies, not just one factor. Wikipedia pages based on events like this are ascribed to historical events and this page doesn't list one historical event or a historical battle which proves it's just a farce. Fallacy after fallacy, and no historical backing shows that this page doesn't deserve to be up on Wikipedia and that's my point, final. And btw going back on your point, it doesn't cover all points of views as non of the sources describe it as a "colonization" at most a MIGRATION, even in the criticism section says migration not a colonization as what you are referring to, this page deserves to be deleted. Just compare this to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania and you can see how poor this page is. Apprentix (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages based on events like this are ascribed to historical events and this page doesn't list one historical event or a historical battle which proves it's just a farce. Fallacy after fallacy, and no historical backing shows that this page doesn't deserve to be up on Wikipedia and that's my point, final
apart from the nonsense you're saying, this article is supported by multiple sources. Claiming that there is "no historical backing" is simply false.
And btw going back on your point, it doesn't cover all points of views as non of the sources describe it as a "colonization" at most a MIGRATION, even in the criticism section says migration not a colonization as what you are referring to, this page deserves to be deleted.
you said it yourself. There is a criticism section covering your point of view of the migration hypothesis. And no this page doesn't deserve to be deleted
Just compare this to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania and you can see how poor this page is.
Yeah let's compare a big article about a huge event in the history of Spain and the Islamic world with a relatively small article about a less-documented colonization attempt as if that's the norm on wikipedia Abo Yemen✉ 06:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a documented colonization, that's my point. that's why you can't find sources on it. Can we talk about how the migration section was covered by imposter sources? And this page isn't suitable for a "migration" as scholars attribute the migration process taking place in separate waves and is debated by scholars hence doesn't have enough clarity to be on wikipedia. This page is clearly a hoax and needs to be reviewed for deletation. Apprentix (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

that's why you can't find sources on it.
I never bothered finding sources on it in the first place. Sources ar referenced with exact page numbers and ill be reviewing the sources that I have access to in a moment.
Can we talk about how the migration section was covered by imposter sources?
Just went thru the page history and found out that it was added by a sockpuppet account that was, ironically, an Ethiopian nationalist.
This page is clearly a hoax and needs to be reviewed for deletation.
And the sources used are also a hoax? btw removed the PROD tag and go to AfD as I mentioned below Abo Yemen✉ 08:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

And I'm sure you knew this that's why you requested this talk page for a speedy deletation. Apprentix (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

? Abo Yemen✉ 06:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROD:
"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion."
This article does not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion.
undo your edit @Apprentix Abo Yemen✉ 08:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Abo Yemen✉ 08:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Apprentix according to the PROD rules you cannot restore the tag but you can go to AfD Abo Yemen✉ 08:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Im talking about your attempted deletation of the talk page, not the article you tried deleting because somehow the deletation tag insulted you from what I'm getting was an attempt to try silence me or block me from this issue Apprentix (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I attempted deleting a redirect talk page as you have messed up the article links, making the article have two names. This was quickly resolved by @Queen of Hearts Abo Yemen✉ 08:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources review: (Please note that these summaries were generated by jstor itself by asking the following two questions: did the Sabeans colonize Africa? and was it a migration or a colonization?)
Source one: Japp, Sarah; Gerlach, Iris; Hitgen, Holger; Schnelle, Mike (2011). "Yeha and Hawelti: cultural contacts between Sabaʾ and DʿMT — New research by the German Archaeological Institute in Ethiopia". Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. 41: 145–160. ISSN 0308-8421. JSTOR 41622129.

The document suggests that the Sabaeans established an autonomous realm known as DʿMT in the Abyssinian Highlands, which indicates a form of colonization. It mentions that larger Sabaean groups migrated into the region, and an acculturation process occurred between the Sabaeans and the local population. This process involved the adaptation of foreign elements into a unique local style, indicating a significant presence of Sabaean settlers in northern Ethiopia and southeastern Eritrea from the early first millennium BC.

However, the document does not provide a definitive answer to whether this constitutes colonization in the traditional sense, as it also discusses the blending of cultures and the presence of indigenous elements alongside Sabaean influences. The document presents two perspectives regarding the presence of Sabaeans in the Abyssinian Highlands.

1. Migration: It suggests that there was a migration of larger Sabaean groups into the region, which indicates a significant movement of people across the Red Sea into the Abyssinian Highlands. This migration is supported by the presence of architectural and cultural elements that reflect a blend of foreign and local influences.

2. Colonization: The document also discusses the idea of Sabaean colonization, particularly in the context of establishing an autonomous realm known as DʿMT. This perspective implies that the Sabaeans not only migrated but also settled and established a political system in the region.

Source 5:
D'Andrea, A. Catherine; Manzo, Andrea; Harrower, Michael J.; Hawkins, Alicia L. (2008). "The Pre-Aksumite and Aksumite Settlement of NE Tigrai, Ethiopia". Journal of Field Archaeology. 33 (2): 151–176. doi:10.1179/009346908791071268. ISSN 0093-4690. JSTOR 25608503. S2CID 129636976.

The document does not provide clear evidence that the Sabeans colonized Africa. It mentions that some have suggested that colonists were not present and that instead, indigenous elite groups in the highlands adopted various South Arabian prestige items. This indicates a lack of consensus on the presence of Sabean colonists in the region.

The document suggests that the arrival of South Arabian migrants to northern Tigrai prior to 500 B.C. involved land clearance, but it does not clearly demonstrate the existence of large numbers of South Arabian colonists. This indicates that the situation may not fit neatly into the categories of migration or colonization, as the evidence is not definitive for either.

Thus, it appears to be more complex than a straightforward case of migration or colonization, with strong indigenous African cultural influences also playing a role.

Source 6:
Curtis, Matthew C. (2008). "Review of Changing Settlement Patterns in the Aksum-Yeha Region of Ethiopia: 700 BC-AD 850". The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 41 (1): 123–126. ISSN 0361-7882. JSTOR 40282460.

does not mention anything about the Sabeans.(note that the source isn't used to cite anything about colonization or migrations in the article)

(Other sources should be later reviewed) Abo Yemen✉ 09:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop deleting the deletation tag, the lead section can be replaced, it is clearly not a legitimate lead section as the source sited doesn't mention it being the "oldest colonization process" Apprentix (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Apprentix please discuss stuff here before removing it. Abo Yemen✉ 09:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

or else this will turn into an edit war and can lead to getting blocked Abo Yemen✉ 09:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Apprentix how is this poorly cited?? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=next&oldid=1263037181
You are removing paragraphs that are well-cited and are edit warring even after I have warned you above.

You are also still adding the PROD tags after I have told you multiple times to bring it up at WP:AfD. This is getting ridiculous. Abo Yemen✉ 09:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

the paragraphs are garbage, the kingdom of Dmt has nothing to do with this "colonization" which was an independent state. This deletation tag was up for hours and YOU are the one edit warring. Apprentix (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

the kingdom of Dmt has nothing to do with this "colonization" which was an independent state.
It was cited. Can you not remove cited text? Also can you not remove the lead section? You are trying to make the article look shitty on purpose at this point Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because it was cited it means nothing, Dm't was a kingdom founded hundreds of years laters and has nothing to do with this hypthesis, The WP:AFD supports removing unnecessary content that's there to make the page look more legitimate even though its just an imposter content. Apprentix (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hypothesis or fact?

Pagewatchers, I had a look at the article during the AfD discussion and and think it might be better to present the Sabean colonisation of Africa as a hypothesis rather than a fact. What do you think and what do other recent sources say?

For example Japp et al (2011) describe two "research opinion[s]", one based on archaeological and epigraphic finds, assumes a Sabaean colonization of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in the first millennium ВС and the South Arabian origin of the political system during that period. The other emanates from contacts between the Abyssinian Highlands and South Arabia. A powerful, indigenous elite is supposed to have arisen, which adopted some South Arabian features as a manifestation of their power.

D'Andrea et al (2008) say Inscriptions make reference to a kingdom named Daamat, which has been described as an Ethio-Sabaean state, but the nature and extent of this polity remains uncertain and others have suggested that colonists were not present, and instead endogenous elite groups in the highlands adopted various South Arabian prestige items.

References

TSventon (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)