Aksum An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity Stuart Munro-Hay

One uncertain but interesting hint that Aksumite power may have been increasing notably 
in the 1st century AD comes from accounts preserved by Seneca (ed. Corcoran 1972), the 
Roman writer who became the emperor Nero's tutor, and Pliny (ed. Rackham 1952: VI. 
35, 184). These authors record details about an exploration (or two separate expeditions; 
Shinnie 1967: 21-22) in 61AD into the southern part of the Sudan. Certain Roman 
officers were able to penetrate as far as the great papyrus swamp region of the Sudan, the 
Sudd, it seems with a certain amount of help from the Meroitic king. Even in Augustus' 
time, according to Strabo (ed. Page 1930: 353) Aelius Gallus had been sent not only to 
explore Arabia, `but also in Aethiopia, since Caesar saw that the Troglodyte country 
which adjoins Aegypt neighbours upon Arabia, and also that the Arabian Gulf, which 
separates the Arabians from the Troglodytes, is extremely narrow' but this earlier effort 
came to nothing, it seems, since Gallus' expedition was a failure. It has been suggested 
that at the time of the Sudan expedition Rome, as Meroë's ally, was trying to assist in 
preventing the nascent Aksumite kingdom from seizing control of the routes formerly 
used by the Kushite monarchy's merchant caravans. Whilst we have no certain 
confirmation of this, there may have come a time when Meroë and Aksum clashed over 
their interests in the control of the Nile routes. Schur (1923) says that the emperor Nero 
intended to move against Aksum, and therefore sent an army to Ptolemais under 
Vespasian and Titus; but this can only be conjecture. Nevertheless, with the decline of 
Meroitic power and the fragmentation of authority in the region, Aksum would certainly 
have had a better opportunity for advancing its interests to the west and north than when 
Meroë was still a powerful state. The Meroitic relief at Jabal Qayli, close to the route 
leading to Kassala, where the king of Meroë is shown with slain enemies under the image 
of an Apollo- like deity, is the furthest actual trace of Meroitic influence to the east 
(Shinnie 1967: 50-51). This relief, bearing the name of king Sherkarer, is attributed to the 
early first century AD, but the Meroitic dates are not certainly fixed, and there is 
considerable leeway. It has been suggested that the distorted figures of the enemy 
represent slain Aksumites, but they could just as easily be depictions of any local group 
who had incurred Sherkarer's enmity.  
4. Period 2; Gadarat to Endubis 
This period may be characterised as Aksum's first `South Arabian' period, since most of 
the information available comes from inscriptions found in South Arabia (Beeston 1937; 
Jamme 1962; Robin 1981). The inscriptions name the Ethiopian kings as `nagashi of 
Habashat (Abyssinia) and of Aksum(an)' and are written in the old South Arabian script 
and language. Since there are no vowels marked, the royal names mentioned by these 
inscriptions actually read GDRT, `ADBH, ZQRNS and DTWNS, but for convenience 
here simple vowelling has been added, as for example, in the name `Gadarat'. The letters 
GDRT could represent a Ge`ez name such as Gedur, Gadura, Gedara or the like, but until 
a correctly vowelled spelling is found we remain unsure of the precise pronunciation.  
The inscriptions which refer to Gadarat and `Adhebah (perhaps `Azba or `Azeba in 
Ge`ez), kings of Aksum and Habashat, come from the famous temple at Marib called by 
the Arabs `Mahram Bilqis', after the Arab name for the Queen of Sheba. Mahram Bilqis 
was in fact the great temple of the moon-god Ilmuqah at the ancient capital of the 

---

kingdom of Saba, now in north Yemen. Dated inscriptions, using an `era of Himyar' are 
now interpreted as providing a date for Gadarat around the beginning of the 3rd century 
AD. It was previously suggested (Munro-Hay 1984: 20) that these were fourth century 
rulers, on the strength of the reading of `ADBH as WDBH, identified with Wazeba 
(WZB), one of the earliest kings named on the coinage, but since new discoveries about 
the dating of the inscriptions this theory has been abandoned.  
The inscriptions which mention the Aksumite rulers were written as official accounts of 
wars and victories by the kings of Saba and Himyar. Since these kings were usually the 
enemies of the Aksumites, they do not deal very often with Aksumite successes. 
Nevertheless, we find that the military forces of the Aksumites were in control of certain 
regions of the Arabian peninsula, a situation doubtless partly facilitated by the political 
situation in Arabia, where the rulers of both Saba and Himyar at different times called in 
the help of Aksumite armies against each other.  
The situation is still not entirely clear, but it appears that Arabia at the end of the second 
century was dominated by four states, Himyar (a relatively new polity), Saba, 
Hadhramawt and Qataban. Somewhere between c160-210AD Qataban was annexed by 
Hadhramawt, while the Sabaean rulers tried to subjugate Himyar, then ruled by king 
Tharan Ya`ub Yuhan`im. The Sabaean king `Alhan Nahfan, son of Yarim Ayman I, and 
his sons Sha`ir Awtar and Yarim Ayman II allied themselves against Himyar with 
Gadarat, nagashi of Aksum. This latter power was probably a relatively recent arrival on 
the Arabian scene, interested in curtailing Himyarite trading control in the Red Sea and 
beyond, and its assistance helped the Sabaeans to achieve a favourable balance of power. 
But it also brought a new factor into South Arabian politics, not finally disposed of until 
the Persian conquest centuries later; the Abyssinian presence ultimately protracted the 
conflict between Saba and Himyar for eventual control of the entire region.  
This realignment occurred in the early part of the third century. The three Sabaean kings 
had previously allied themselves with Yada`ub Gaylan, the king of Hadhramawt. An 
inscription celebrating their treaty with Aksum declares that  
`they agreed together that their war and their peace should be in unison, against anyone 
that might rise up against them, and that in safety and in security there should be allied 
together Salhen and Zararan and `Alhan and Gadarat'.  
In this inscription what seems to be Gadarat's castle or chief residence Zararan, is 
mentioned in parallel to the palace of `Alhan at Marib, capital of Saba, which was called 
Salhen; Zararan might even be one of the palaces whose ruins are still visible at Aksum 
(
Ch. 5: 4
).  
After `Alhan Nahfan's death his son Sha`ir Awtar (whose reign seems to date from about 
210 to 230AD, linked for a time in co-regency with his brother Hayu`athtar Yada`) 
abandoned this alliance. Frictions had doubtless begun to develop as Aksum grew more 
powerful in the region, and learned to play off the Arabian kingdoms and tribal 
allegiances against each other. By about 225AD Sha`ir Awtar had defeated and captured 
Il`azz Yalut, king of the Hadhramawt, and taken his capital, Shabwa. Il`azz was married 

---