added information← Previous revisionRevision as of 00:22, 21 October 2026 Line 49: Line 49: By the late thirteenth century a belt of Muslim states and trading communities lay along the routes linking the Red Sea port of [[Zeila]] with the Ethiopian plateau. [[Ifat Sultanate|Ifat]], on the south-eastern edge of the Shewan plateau and the slopes of the [[Awash River]] valley, was the most important of them.{{sfn|Ullendorff|1966|p=601}} It was ruled by the [[Walashma dynasty]]. An Arabic chronicle found at Harar and published by Enrico Cerulli shows that the Walashma rulers of Ifat conquered an older Muslim sultanate of Shewa, ruled by the Makhzumi dynasty, and deposed its last rulers in 1285. In the same period they imposed their supremacy on other Muslim lands. In 1288 a Walashma ruler raided Adal and Mora and killed their lord.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=14, 30-31, 35-36}} Huntingford places the old sultanate of Shewa in the eastern part of the Shewan plateau, centered on a place called Walalah, and argues that Ifat took shape as a separate unit when this state broke up around 1280-1285, with its western half passing to the Christian kingdom.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|pp=15-16, 22}} By the late thirteenth century a belt of Muslim states and trading communities lay along the routes linking the Red Sea port of [[Zeila]] with the Ethiopian plateau. [[Ifat Sultanate|Ifat]], on the south-eastern edge of the Shewan plateau and the slopes of the [[Awash River]] valley, was the most important of them.{{sfn|Ullendorff|1966|p=601}} It was ruled by the [[Walashma dynasty]]. An Arabic chronicle found at Harar and published by Enrico Cerulli shows that the Walashma rulers of Ifat conquered an older Muslim sultanate of Shewa, ruled by the Makhzumi dynasty, and deposed its last rulers in 1285. In the same period they imposed their supremacy on other Muslim lands. In 1288 a Walashma ruler raided Adal and Mora and killed their lord.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=14, 30-31, 35-36}} Huntingford places the old sultanate of Shewa in the eastern part of the Shewan plateau, centered on a place called Walalah, and argues that Ifat took shape as a separate unit when this state broke up around 1280-1285, with its western half passing to the Christian kingdom.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|pp=15-16, 22}} Tedeschi describes two zones of Walashma authority: Ifat proper, on the eastern Shewan plateau and the slopes and valley of the middle Awash, and a zone of influence that ran down the lower Awash to Zeila and was occupied by Adal.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|pp=136-137, n. 34}} The Egyptian writer [[Ibn Fadlallah al-Umari|al-Umari]], who collected his information in Cairo in the 1330s from a scholar from Zeila named ʿAbd Allah, listed seven Muslim kingdoms in Ethiopia: Ifat (Awfat), Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bali and Dara.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|pp=1-2}} He described Ifat as fifteen days' march long and twenty wide, fully cultivated and populated, and the largest of the seven. Its king ruled Zeila and followed the Shafi'i school, as did most of his subjects.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=5}} Its army was said to number 15,000 horsemen followed by 20,000 or more foot soldiers.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=6}} Ifat had no coinage of its own, and trade was conducted with Egyptian dinars and dirhams brought by merchants.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=14}} Tedeschi describes two zones of Walashma authority: Ifat proper, on the eastern Shewan plateau and the slopes and valley of the middle Awash, and a zone of influence that ran down the lower Awash to Zeila and was occupied by Adal.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|pp=136-137, n. 34}} Cerulli showed that the name Ifat referred to three areas: the highlands of Shewa down to the Awash valley, the lowlands of the Awash valley known as Aussa, and the port of Zeila, which depended on it.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, para. 55}} The Egyptian writer [[Ibn Fadlallah al-Umari|al-Umari]], who collected his information in Cairo in the 1330s from a scholar from Zeila named ʿAbd Allah, listed seven Muslim kingdoms in Ethiopia: Ifat (Awfat), Dawaro, Arababni, Hadiya, Sharkha, Bali and Dara.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|pp=1-2}} He described Ifat as fifteen days' march long and twenty wide, fully cultivated and populated, and the largest of the seven. Its king ruled Zeila and followed the Shafi'i school, as did most of his subjects.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=5}} Its army was said to number 15,000 horsemen followed by 20,000 or more foot soldiers.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=6}} Ifat had no coinage of its own, and trade was conducted with Egyptian dinars and dirhams brought by merchants.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=14}} Al-Umari's informants told him that the seven kingdoms were weak and divided, and that if they united they could resist, but that they were jealous of one another. Some had submitted to the king of Amhara and paid him a fixed yearly tribute of silk and linen cloth imported from Egypt, Yemen and Iraq.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=2}} Although their rulers inherited power, none could rule without being invested by the Christian king, who chose among rival heirs. The other Muslim rulers nevertheless respected the high rank of the ruler of Ifat and sometimes came to his aid.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=19}} Tedeschi notes that al-Umari called the early Walashma rulers ''qat'', the title used for Muslim vassals in the Ethiopian system, and that no source calls Sabr ad-Din a sultan.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|p=137, n. 35}} Al-Umari's informants told him that the seven kingdoms were weak and divided, and that if they united they could resist, but that they were jealous of one another. Some had submitted to the king of Amhara and paid him a fixed yearly tribute of silk and linen cloth imported from Egypt, Yemen and Iraq.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=2}} Although their rulers inherited power, none could rule without being invested by the Christian king, who chose among rival heirs. The other Muslim rulers nevertheless respected the high rank of the ruler of Ifat and sometimes came to his aid.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=19}} Tedeschi notes that al-Umari called the early Walashma rulers ''qat'', the title used for Muslim vassals in the Ethiopian system, and that no source calls Sabr ad-Din a sultan.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|p=137, n. 35}} === Amda Seyon and earlier wars === === Amda Seyon and earlier wars === Amda Seyon, whose throne name was Gebre Mesqel ("Servant of the Cross"), ruled between 1314 and 1344 and was a grandson of [[Yekuno Amlak]], who founded the [[Solomonic dynasty]].{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=XIV, 1}} In the early years of his reign, Amda Seyon conducted military campaigns in Gojjam, Damot, and Hadiya around 1316/17 and extracted some tribute from these regions.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=135-136}}{{sfn|Kaplan|2007|p=14}} The king's residence at this time is identified in the chronicle as Mar'ade. Huntingford places it in the district of Taguelat in northern Shewa, whereas Kropp says that the place-name may refer to the king's mobile camp rather than a fixed place.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|p=16}}{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=7, n. 40}} Shortly before 1332, Amda Seyon undertook another military campaign against Hadiya because its ruler Amano, influenced by a Muslim "false prophet", refused to pay tribute. Amano was captured, but the "false prophet" fled to Ifat and, according to the chronicle, became Sabr ad-Din's counselor.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=136-137}}{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=11-12}} Amda Seyon, whose throne name was Gebre Mesqel ("Servant of the Cross"), ruled between 1314 and 1344 and was a grandson of [[Yekuno Amlak]], who founded the [[Solomonic dynasty]].{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=XIV, 1}} In the early years of his reign, Amda Seyon conducted military campaigns in Gojjam, Damot, and Hadiya around 1316/17 and extracted some tribute from these regions.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=135-136}}{{sfn|Kaplan|2007|p=14}} Taddesse Tamrat saw the king's note on these campaigns as evidence that the regions were annexed, but Getatchew Haile preferred a minimal reading, seeing them as operations to put down a revolt.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, para. 65}} The king's residence at this time is identified in the chronicle as Mar'ade. Huntingford places it in the district of Taguelat in northern Shewa, whereas Kropp says that the place-name may refer to the king's mobile camp rather than a fixed place.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|p=16}}{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=7, n. 40}} Shortly before 1332, Amda Seyon undertook another military campaign against Hadiya because its ruler Amano, influenced by a Muslim "false prophet", refused to pay tribute. Amano was captured, but the "false prophet" fled to Ifat and, according to the chronicle, became Sabr ad-Din's counselor.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=136-137}}{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=11-12}} The chronicle also recalls an earlier war with Ifat. Sabr ad-Din's brother Haqq ad-Din had seized a young retainer of the king named Te'yentay. Amda Seyon answered by entering Ifat with seven horsemen, followed by his army, and ravaging it and its dependent lands. While his army was away, Muslim pastoralists, the Warjeh and Gabal, and the people of Zega and Manz attacked him, but he defeated them and killed their leader Darader, Haqq ad-Din's son.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=8-10}}{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=134-135}} Cerulli notes that Manz and Zega appear in this passage as allies of the Muslims but in Sabr ad-Din's list of 1332 as Christian provinces, so the Christian kingdom must have conquered them between the two wars.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=23-25}} Some scholars link Te'yentay to an envoy whom Amda Seyon sent to the Mamluk sultan in Cairo in 1325, but Kropp notes that this idea has no further support in the sources.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=XVI}} According to Tedeschi, Haqq ad-Din was killed in this war, and another brother, Jamal ad-Din, was a prisoner of the Christian king when Sabr ad-Din came to power.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|p=137}} The chronicle also recalls an earlier war with Ifat. Sabr ad-Din's brother Haqq ad-Din had seized a young retainer of the king named Te'yentay. Amda Seyon answered by entering Ifat with seven horsemen, followed by his army, and ravaging it and its dependent lands. While his army was away, Muslim pastoralists, the Warjeh and Gabal, and the people of Zega and Manz attacked him, but he defeated them and killed their leader Darader, Haqq ad-Din's son.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=8-10}}{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=134-135}} Cerulli notes that Manz and Zega appear in this passage as allies of the Muslims but in Sabr ad-Din's list of 1332 as Christian provinces, so the Christian kingdom must have conquered them between the two wars.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=23-25}} Some scholars link Te'yentay to an envoy whom Amda Seyon sent to the Mamluk sultan in Cairo in 1325, but Kropp notes that this idea has no further support in the sources.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=XVI}} According to Tedeschi, Haqq ad-Din was killed in this war, and another brother, Jamal ad-Din, was a prisoner of the Christian king when Sabr ad-Din came to power.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|p=137}} === Causes === === Causes === The chronicle opens with Sabr ad-Din's rebellion. It says that he boasted that he would rule all Ethiopia, named Muslim governors for more than two dozen Ethiopian provinces, and threatened to turn churches into mosques and to make the king a camel herder.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=1-7}} The text lists provinces from Shewa to Tigray, and Kropp considers the list a valuable record of the kingdom's provinces in the early fourteenth century.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=3-6 and n. 9}} According to the chronicle, Sabr ad-Din also kept the tribute he had collected for the king and imprisoned the king's merchants.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=19}} The chronicle opens with Sabr ad-Din's rebellion. It says that he boasted that he would rule all Ethiopia, named Muslim governors for more than two dozen Ethiopian provinces, and threatened to turn churches into mosques and to make the king a camel herder.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=1-7}} The text lists provinces from Shewa to Tigray, and According to Kropp, this list serves as a valuable document on the provinces of the kingdom at the beginning of the fourteenth century.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|pp=3-6 and n. 9}} According to Derat, the list shows that the kingdom had a very southerly extension, going beyond the Awash, although Shewa did not appear as a single province under one governor. On the contrary, it was made up of seventeen small districts, each led by a ''masfen'' ("commander"), which she interprets as an indication that the region was not yet well incorporated into the kingdom. As these districts were described in the chronicle as belonging to the kingdom before the war, and not as conquests made in 1332, she argues that the Christian advance there must have happened earlier.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, paras. 63-64}} According to the chronicle, Sabr ad-Din also kept the tribute he had collected for the king and imprisoned the king's merchants.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=19}} There are varying interpretations of these developments among historians. According to Taddesse Tamrat, Sabr ad-Din headed an effort to bring the Muslim states together against the growing Christian control of the interior, with religious leaders taking part in the organization, which gave the league the character of a jihad.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=137-138}} He also stresses trade, pointing to the security of the route to Zeila as one of the major issues, and even hints that Sabr ad-Din timed his action to coincide with uprisings in the northern provinces.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=138-140}} Cerulli similarly perceives the attack by Sabr ad-Din and the Muslim league as a response to the southern expansion of the Christian kingdom under the new dynasty.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=36-37}} Tedeschi disagrees with calling this a jihad. He maintains that Sabr ad-Din was a vassal king who could not call a holy war, since he was neither an imam nor a sovereign sultan, and he views the rebellion as a bid to loosen Ifat's subjection, with the refusal to make the customary act of obedience to the king as its most significant act.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|pp=137-138}} Kropp observes that some Christian regions of Shewa took part in the rebellion and that a copyist appears to have changed the text to hide this fact.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=XVI, n. 15}}{{efn|Sources diverge with regard to Sabr ad-Din's descent. Kropp, relying on Cerulli, regards Sabr ad-Din as Sabr ad-Din Muhammad ibn Mansur and states that the Old Amharic imperial songs refer to the defeated ruler of Ifat as "Anbal Aboker", probably Hanbal Abu Bakr.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=2, n. 6}} Taddesse Tamrat considers him a son of ʿUmar Walashma.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|p=137}} Huntingford, referring to al-Maqrizi, lists Haqq ad-Din, Sabr ad-Din, Jamal ad-Din and Nasr ad-Din among the sons of ʿUmar Walashma.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|p=24}}}} There are varying interpretations of these developments among historians. According to Taddesse Tamrat, Sabr ad-Din headed an effort to bring the Muslim states together against the growing Christian control of the interior, with religious leaders taking part in the organization, which gave the league the character of a jihad.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=137-138}} He also stresses trade, pointing to the security of the route to Zeila as one of the major issues, and even hints that Sabr ad-Din timed his action to coincide with uprisings in the northern provinces.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=138-140}} Cerulli similarly perceives the attack by Sabr ad-Din and the Muslim league as a response to the southern expansion of the Christian kingdom under the new dynasty.{{sfn|Cerulli|1941|pp=36-37}} Tedeschi disagrees with calling this a jihad. He maintains that Sabr ad-Din was a vassal king who could not call a holy war, since he was neither an imam nor a sovereign sultan, and he views the rebellion as a bid to loosen Ifat's subjection, with the refusal to make the customary act of obedience to the king as its most significant act.{{sfn|Tedeschi|1979|pp=137-138}} Derat similarly considers that the aim of the intervention was only to bring the sultanates back under an authority to which they were already subject and which they were trying to throw off.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, para. 60}} Kropp observes that some Christian regions of Shewa took part in the rebellion and that a copyist appears to have changed the text to hide this fact.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=XVI, n. 15}}{{efn|Sources diverge with regard to Sabr ad-Din's descent. Kropp, relying on Cerulli, regards Sabr ad-Din as Sabr ad-Din Muhammad ibn Mansur and states that the Old Amharic imperial songs refer to the defeated ruler of Ifat as "Anbal Aboker", probably Hanbal Abu Bakr.{{sfn|Kropp|1994|p=2, n. 6}} Taddesse Tamrat considers him a son of ʿUmar Walashma.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|p=137}} Huntingford, referring to al-Maqrizi, lists Haqq ad-Din, Sabr ad-Din, Jamal ad-Din and Nasr ad-Din among the sons of ʿUmar Walashma.{{sfn|Huntingford|1965|p=24}}}} == Opposing forces == == Opposing forces == Line 119: Line 119: == Aftermath == == Aftermath == According to Taddesse Tamrat, the campaign made the dependent status of the Muslim provinces "an accomplished fact". He explains the result by the Ethiopian army's organization and the disunity of the Muslim league.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=141-144}} Al-Umari's account, written soon after, describes the Muslim rulers as tributaries who needed the Christian king's investiture.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|pp=2, 19}} Chekroun and Hirsch note that the chronicle and al-Umari give a similar picture of the dependence of the main Muslim powers on the Christian state.{{sfn|Chekroun|Hirsch|2020|p=100}} According to Taddesse Tamrat, the campaign made the dependent status of the Muslim provinces "an accomplished fact". He explains the result by the Ethiopian army's organization and the disunity of the Muslim league.{{sfn|Taddesse Tamrat|1972|pp=141-144}} Derat notes that the campaigns did not lead to an outright annexation of the Muslim territories, but extended the influence of the Christian kingdom to the south and east.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, para. 61}} Al-Umari's account, written soon after, describes the Muslim rulers as tributaries who needed the Christian king's investiture.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|pp=2, 19}} Chekroun and Hirsch note that the chronicle and al-Umari give a similar picture of the dependence of the main Muslim powers on the Christian state.{{sfn|Chekroun|Hirsch|2020|p=100}} Al-Umari also reports that ʿAbd Allah of Zeila, his informant, intervened at the Mamluk court in Cairo when an ambassador of the Christian king arrived there. ʿAbd Allah obtained an order for the Coptic Patriarch to write to the king forbidding him to commit abuses in Muslim lands, and the Patriarch did so.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=3}} Gaudefroy-Demombynes, al-Umari's translator, took ʿAbd Allah to be the head of an embassy of Ethiopian Muslims to Cairo and dated it between 1332 and 1338.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=2, n. 1}} Pankhurst notes that ʿAbd Allah described Ifat to al-Umari as a tributary of the Ethiopian king and that its foreign trade probably passed almost entirely through Zeila.{{sfn|Pankhurst|1982|p=56}} Al-Umari also reports that ʿAbd Allah of Zeila, his informant, intervened at the Mamluk court in Cairo when an ambassador of the Christian king arrived there. ʿAbd Allah obtained an order for the Coptic Patriarch to write to the king forbidding him to commit abuses in Muslim lands, and the Patriarch did so.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=3}} Gaudefroy-Demombynes, al-Umari's translator, took ʿAbd Allah to be the head of an embassy of Ethiopian Muslims to Cairo and dated it between 1332 and 1338.{{sfn|al-Umari|1927|p=2, n. 1}} Pankhurst notes that ʿAbd Allah described Ifat to al-Umari as a tributary of the Ethiopian king and that its foreign trade probably passed almost entirely through Zeila.{{sfn|Pankhurst|1982|p=56}} Line 158: Line 158: Solomon Gebreyes Beyene has rejected this dating. He argues that Hirsch did not examine the many historical place names, military units and titles in the text, which are not attested in Zar'a Ya'eqob's chronicle or other texts, and did not adequately address the closing passage indicating that the work was written in the king's lifetime. He suggests that the parallels with the Gomit narratives exist because authors of Zar'a Ya'eqob's time used the Amda Seyon text as a source.{{sfn|Solomon Gebreyes Beyene|2022|loc=n. 11}} Solomon Gebreyes Beyene has rejected this dating. He argues that Hirsch did not examine the many historical place names, military units and titles in the text, which are not attested in Zar'a Ya'eqob's chronicle or other texts, and did not adequately address the closing passage indicating that the work was written in the king's lifetime. He suggests that the parallels with the Gomit narratives exist because authors of Zar'a Ya'eqob's time used the Amda Seyon text as a source.{{sfn|Solomon Gebreyes Beyene|2022|loc=n. 11}} Carsten Hoffmann argues that the surviving form of the text may be later than the events, since it uses palatalized letters in names such as Shewa and Gojjam that he believes were not in use before about 1500. He allows, however, that it may rest largely on sources written close to Amda Seyon's lifetime.{{sfn|Hoffmann|2025|pp=83-84}} Two other studies co-authored by Hirsch also describe the text as a later compilation.{{sfn|Chekroun|Hirsch|2020|pp=99-100, n. 43}}{{sfn|Fauvelle|Hirsch|Chekroun|2017|loc=para. 9}} In her 2003 study of the royal domain, Derat considered the date of composition difficult to determine and concluded that the text rests on one or more testimonies contemporary with the events, but was given its present form later, in the mid-fourteenth or fifteenth century.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=ch. 2, para. 59}} Carsten Hoffmann similarly argues that the surviving form of the text may be later than the events, since it uses palatalized letters in names such as Shewa and Gojjam that he believes were not in use before about 1500. He allows, however, that it may rest largely on sources written close to Amda Seyon's lifetime.{{sfn|Hoffmann|2025|pp=83-84}} Two other studies co-authored by Hirsch also describe the text as a later compilation.{{sfn|Chekroun|Hirsch|2020|pp=99-100, n. 43}}{{sfn|Fauvelle|Hirsch|Chekroun|2017|loc=para. 9}} Whatever its date, the text has been widely used to study the period. Derat describes it as the first surviving source from the royal circle devoted to a Solomonic king, and Kaplan uses it to examine how the king's violence was represented and why it was remembered so positively.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=introduction}}{{sfn|Kaplan|2007|pp=12-26}} Whatever its date, the text has been widely used to study the period. Derat describes it as the first surviving source from the royal circle devoted to a Solomonic king, and Kaplan uses it to examine how the king's violence was represented and why it was remembered so positively.{{sfn|Derat|2003|loc=introduction}}{{sfn|Kaplan|2007|pp=12-26}}