User talk:Zooted09

Re: Zoskales
I have been reverting your edits to this article because: the manner you cite the Periplus is clumsy & adds nothing to this article; but more to your point, the source you cite adds nothing that is not already present at Axum -- nor is that information useful. It is a commonplace that Greek was spoken in many parts of the Red Sea litorial; there are inscriptions at Axum were made in the Greek language. The author of your citation makes some speculations (note carefully the author's word "possibly") that his people spoke a language different from what was spoken at Axum, speculations which are incidental to his central interests. But even if these speculations are central to this paper -- so what? I don't see how this adds anything to a better knowledge of this ruler, or his realm. If the Z. of the Periplus was the same person as the ruler of Axum, your source would be wrong; if they are different people (a thesis only Huntingford advocates), he still might be wrong. There are few hard facts about this period of Ethiopian/Eritrean history, but a large amount of speculations. Mentioning Huntingford's objection is useful for reminding the reader that identifying these two as the same person is, still, a guess or hypothesis.

Ethnocentricism has never been a consideration in my edits; relevance alone has been. This material is not relevant here, no matter if it is sourced. If you believe this author's speculations are notable, add them to the articles at Tigrinya language and/or Ge'ez. Otherwise, your claims that I am showing bias here by removing this material only weakens your credibility. You can state it as often as you want, but it is laughable in this case. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The speculations are clear...what's not a speculation by this historian (something you're not) is that it was an independent kingdom.

Here are examples:

"Possibly the language spoken by the common people in Zôskalês’ kingdom was a Semitic dialect different from the Gé‘éz spoken in Aksum and close to modern Tégre"

He says POSSIBLY to describe their language...we agree, this is a clear speculation and he uses adulis as to his reason for his speculation.

" in the regions north and west of Adulis there was an independent kingdom ruled by a certain Zôskalês." http://xoomer.alice.it/studieritrei/preistoria.pdf

This historian believes it was an independent kingdom and not a "possible" independent kingdom as in the case with what type of language they spoke.

Lastly, read what Prof. Richard Greenfield stated when correcting another historian about the common assumption that Zoskales was an emperor of Aksum.

"But a few years ago, the writer cautioned a lecturer at the British Museum -- no less -- for following certain Ethiopicists in not hesitating to assume that he was emperor of Aksum and equating him with the monarch Za Hakaie known from other sources.

The lecturer went back to the perilous and soon afterwards returned to admit his surprise that the original referred merely to a ruler "of these parts". In truth, brainwash is invariably insidious but it must be worked out why it comes about at all. "

So again, this is an independent kingdom and the notion of him being emperor of aksum is an assumption that many people make but the only source we have states he is/was a ruler of his own kingdom.

http://www.shaebia.org/articles/new_discoveries_in_africa.html


 * It is also a speculation that they are two different people. We do not know, one way or the other. And how do you know that I am not a historian?


 * I honestly do not understand the importance of the information you wish to add to this article. The kingdom based at Axum was also independent -- just like the one at Adulis. Maybe they were the same kingdom -- maybe different ones; maybe they spoke the same language, maybe different ones. The article by G. Luisini is only incidentally about a possible polity based on Adulis; the article by Greenfield is only incidentally about the same polity. I appreciate that you brought these essays to my attention (e.g., the information about vandalism to Metema in Eritrea should be added to that article); however, you still do not explain why this information is important to an article about a person who may not have even existed. It may be that the name Za Haqale was taken from Zoskales, & later identified as a ruler of Axum. We just don't have enough information to know; & the only reason I can't include this possibility is due to the no original research rule.


 * I see that Yom has reverted your reversion; I made a further edit to emphasize the point that this is all speculation. Does that work for you? -- llywrch (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would believe the quote of him possibly not existing has now taking a back seat upon recent discoveries .....recent evidence suggest that Periplus' hand-book has truth to it.

"Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" is the primary source where much of our knowledge of Zoskales and his kingdom comes from. The Periplus tells us that ships used to moor of Diodorus Island which was connected to the mainland by a causeway, but was later moved to an island called Oreinê (hilly) for greater security. Recent archaeologist back Periplus' claim and the "Orine" (hilly) Island he was talking about was none other than Desse island which is the only hilly island in the area and upon doing archaeological study of the island, field survey has located a fine harbour and an early Roman settlement right on the very island Periplus had written in his hand-book. Either this is a stroke of coincidental luck or this sailors' hand-book has offered us a first hand eyewitness glimpse of the first century AD.

SOURCE: the relatively new book called "The Ancient Red Sea Port of Adulis" - Theres a few more evidence in this book to support Periplus' claims that is also backed with archaeological evidence.

The notion he was the King of Aksumite empire is pure assumption, like the language the common citizens of his kingdom spoke. Even in the book of the ancient red sea port of adulis, they stress that Adulis was ruled by " inherited local Kings" different from those that would be found in Aksumite empire.

I think we should get rid of all assumptions and simply tick to what periplus' carefully wrote. We can even add the roman settlement off of desse island was recently discovered and small populations of Roman citizens who lived in Adulis, suggesting a very close economic tie between these groups of people.

How does that sound?

File:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Biher-Tigrinya couple in Mendefera Eritrea.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)