Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2017/October

Abyssinian people are the Amhara mainly
After reviewing many sources including the britanica page, it became apparent that Amhara people are the Abyssinians. This article is not highlighting this fact. @EthiopianHabesha, censoring sources is not the way to go about editing the encyclopedia. Duqsene (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Duqsene, the content you added is related to nomenclature and not within the scope of the article which is for an ethiosemitic ethnolinguistic group. The scope was decided by past Wikipedia editors (even before I joined here in 2015). A source using the term ‘Iranians’ to talk about the people found in Republic of Iran does not mean it is within the scope of the article for the the ethnolinguistic group Iranian peoples (for Iranian languages speakers ). Anyways, per NPOV I have balanced it by adding related sourced content that also defines Abyssinian identity in a different way. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene, you are correct that Abyssinian identity is and has always been centered around the Ethiopian Semitic-speaking highlanders. George Sale indicates as much - see his description from the early 1700s. Note, however, that although Sabaeans were an important part of the Kingdom of Aksum, the ancestral Abyssinians -- the Aksumites themselves -- did not speak Sabaean. They spoke instead the ancient Ge'ez language. Soupforone (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, up until 13th centuary the role of people speaking Amharic and Tigrinya in Axum kingdom is unknown, eventhogh they do exist, while Ge'ez language and culture has been dominant in Axum kingdom and Daamat kingdom and even during Zagwe, Solomonic and Yejju dynasties. Other Ethiosemitic groups have also adopted cultures of other people similar to various Oromo tribes whom also adopted cultures of other people resulting to the development of various dialects that is difficult for others to understand eventhough these tribes are categorized under one ethnolinguistic group . If we say the scope of this article is for ethiosemitic ethnolinguistic group (as decided by past editors) then saying "classified the Amhara and Tigray tribes as the main component of encompassing Abyssinian identity" does not make sense and it's like saying "classified the French and Italians as the main component of encompassing Latin identity" in Latin peoples article or saying "classified the Borana and Guji tribes as the main component of encompassing Oromo identity" or saying "classified Hawiye and Digil tribes as the main component of encompassing Somali identity". I am just providing my opinion here so that we discuss the importance of including that statement, I mean if we just include every source that says Abyssinian or Habesha means this then why not also include the definitions I added which is supported by reliable sources? My POV is we should have an article that makes sense and is equivalent with other similar articles. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Amhara and Tigray are separate ethnic groups speaking different Ethiopian Semitic languages rather than different clans of the same ethnic group. I believe Duquesne's point is that this is the core of the Abyssinian tradition. Also, note that the Axumite era ended around the 10th century. The Abyssinian Empire itself (i.e., the chief kingdom of the Axumites' descendants) was established a few years later, in the 13th century. Soupforone (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, the Abyssinian empire, beginning from 1137, was initially ruled by the Zagwe dynasity and these people are cushitic people who used to be part of the Axum kingdom. The Zagwe dynasity adopted Ge'ez language, culture, rule of law, custom, literatures, system and religion and they expanded these southward upto Wellega and incorporated other people leaving south of them like the Amhara and Gafat people. Note that the chronicle of Shewa Sultanate states that before 1128 the Amhara were leaving in the land of Werjih which is located in a low land found east of Shoan plateau . By legend the rulers of Solomonic dynasity were hiding in Shewa (after fall of Axum) and this is probabaly because the Amharas themselves at that time beleived to have originated from an area that is within the Shewa Sultanate rule. The point is the Zagwe, Amhara, Tigrayans and Yejjus themselves adopted Ge'ez culture, language, rule of law, system, literatures and religion. Therefore, it does not make sense and is ridiculous to say the Amhara and Tigray tribes identity is the main component of encompassing the Zagwe dynasity of Abyssinian empire when the role of people speaking in Tigrinya and Amharic during Zagwe, Axum and Daamat is uncertain. Anyways, the issue here is if we can include all other sources saying Abyssinan or Habesha means this then why not also include the other scholars opinion (saying term is used for mixed and black identity) so that we do not just choose one's favorite and exclude other views which could be considered WP:Advocacy. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, I'm not going to go over why the Abyssinian people =/= the Habesh linguistic root. Please familiarize yourself with the concept of the homonym. Also, see James Bruce (1768) for a historic description of the actual Abyssinian kingdom and its rulers. Soupforone (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Soupforone, issue is if we decide to take only (of all other definitions) the ethnolinguistic definition of the term 'Abyssinians' then what is relevant here is demography (majority & minority within the group) which is mentioned in the second paragraph of the article. Including "Scholars have classified the Amhara and Tigray tribes as the main component of encompassing Ethiosemitic (Abyssinian) identity" does not make sense and confuses people since the parent language is not Amharic neither Tigrinya but Ge'ez is . Proposal is to remove that phrase or open a nomenclature section and discuss all definitions of the term 'Abyssinia' for the sake of the quality of this article. What is your opinion on this proposal? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This proposal goes against wikipedia policies. Ge'ez is no longer in use except at church services. This is why historians have regarded Amhara as their cultural inheritors. Duqsene (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Duqsene, as said all the rulling classes from 1137-1974 (including Zagwe & Yejju dynasties) where educated in Ge'ez language (fluent), customs, tradition, rule of law, their chronicle being written in Ge'ez etc. Therfore, they were behaving like the Ge'ez speaking Axumites-Daamat people but not behaving like the Amharas or Tigrinya speaking people. Anyways, that is not the issue here, the issue is that phrase is irelevant for other Ethiosemitic groups since they have adopted other cultures and livelihood and the root language for Ethiosemitic is not Amharic neither Tigrinya. If you think it is appropriate to keep content related to nomenclature then what is your opinion if we include other definitions of the term 'Abyssinian' written by other scholars since they are also reliable? — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, the main language of the Abyssinian Solomonic dynasty was actually Amhara. Ge'ez was by then a liturgical language. However, it was the main language of the earlier Aksumite kingdom. Soupforone (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, but almost all literatures, chronicles, letters between rulling classes, constitution, and all historical documents are written in Ge'ez upto 19th century. Even if the language is liturgical people are educated in Ge'ez and not in Amharic or Tigrinya. Let me give similar example, you do know that almost all Subsahran African countries official & school language (from Kindergarten to university) is European languages (as a result the elites behaves like Europeans) while the indigenous languages do not have any official status even though they are widely spoken than European languages. I beleive why the black dominated parliaments chose this is to avoid ethnic and tribe competition followed by destabilization. If we say Abyssinian identity is based on Amhara and Tigray and then if we also say Zagwe is Abyssinian kingdom then it does not make sense since the Zagwe spoke the Cushite Agaw language and were behaving like the Ge'ez Axumites. The role of People speaking Amharic and Tigrinya language in Abyssinian kingdom (Zagwe & Axum) before 13th centuary is unknown. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dont alter the source, its not talking about Amharic speakers but Amhara people. I know there's an "Amhara myth" section on the Amhara peoples page but they do exist as a people according to many academics/historians. The Zagwe dynasty page says the following, "The Zagwe dynasty (ዛጉዌ) was a historical kingdom in present-day northern Ethiopia. Centered at Lalibela, it ruled large parts of the territory from approximately 900 to 1270, when the last Zagwe King Za-Ilmaknun was killed in battle by the forces of the Abyssinian King Yekuno Amlak." Yekuno Amlak who is regarded ethnic Amhara claimed descent from Axum through his father. As shown terms, Abyssinian (Amhara) and Zagwe are differentiated. Zagwe wouldnt fit the semitic Abyssinian Amhara/Axum identity as they were kushite. Duqsene (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

EthiopianHabesha, Ge'ez was actually the lingua franca of the Axumite Empire. Soupforone (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, Ge'ez was also official language for Zagwe and upto 19th century. Scholars also say Zagwe is Abyssinian kingdom and what is your opinion on this? Are we now going to say the Zagwe identity is based on Amharic and Tigrinya identity based on the content added in the article? Does that makes sense to you? EthiopianHabesha (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Zagwe dynasty wasn't the Abyssinian Empire, and it actually ended in the 13th century. It was founded by Agau speakers, though Ge'ez was indeed a lingua franca. Soupforone (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, in addition to referring Axum kingdom as Abyssinian kingdom scholars also refer Zagwe as Abyssinian kingdom please see. Now the most important question is, is it appropriate to say the Abyssinian kingdom under Zagwe rule was led by Amharic and Tigrinya identity? i.e. if we say Abyssinian identity is composed of Amharic and Tigrinya identity. Which is equivalent to say Latin or Roman identity is based on Spanish and French identity when the role of people speaking these languages is uncertain within the Roman empire. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Aksum wasn't the later Abyssinian Empire. The latter kingdom was established by the Aksumites' descendants several centuries later. Anyway, Duquese seems to think the Amhara are the true Abyssinians. Soupforone (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In WP:Goodfaith the true Abyssinians are firstly the native speakers of Ge'ez language (inhabitants of Daamat and Axumites) and secondly their direct descendants Tigrinya and Tigre Speakers. See Tigre language and article is saying "Tigre language is believed to be the most closely related living language to Ge'ez language". Ge'ez (language of the Axumites, the true Abyssinians) did not separate from Amharic. Amharas are just the dominant and majority in number within the ethnolinguistic group and are the inheritors (similar to the cushite Agawas) of Axum kingdom's (Abyssinian kingdom's) culture, state structure, Ge'ez civilisation, rule of law and religion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesnt say true Abyssinian. Do not synthesize sources to conclude they are true Abyssinian. Its not about them being inheritors of Geez civilization. Unless you have sources explicitly stating Agew or Tigre are Abyssinian then you cant add it in here. Duqsene (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)