Aksum and the end of Meroe
Michael H. Zach
One of the most enigmatic and rather controversial discussed topics within Meroitic history concerns the involvement of Aksum in the so-called “end of Meroe”. For almost one century, several models have been presented according the respective sources available, whose scale increased more or less continuously in the past decades.
Sources (in supposed chronological order)
| Source | Origin | Dating |
| Fragmentary Inscription FHN 286 | Meroe | ca . 300 AD |
| Fragmentary Inscription FHN 285 | Meroe | reign of Ousanas I. (ca. 320 AD) |
| Inscription DAE 11 (including two fragmentary additional versions, e.g. FHN 299) | Aksum | reign of Ezana (ca.350 AD) |
| Graffito | Kawa | reign of Ezana (or earlier) |
| Graffito | Beg N 2 | late 4th century AD |
| Coin | Meroe | post 402 AD |
Theories
| 1. One raid by Ezana |
| 1.a. Meroe captured and destroyed: Sayce, Dunham, Arkell, Bersina |
| 1.b. Meroe captured, leaving dynasty tributary to Aksum: Reisner |
| 2. Two raids by Ezana and one of his predecessors |
| 2.a. Meroe destroyed and ending dynasty before Ezana: Monneret de Villard, Hintze |
| 2.b. Meroe subjected by one of Ezana’s predecessors, continuing to exist as Aksumite vassal state: Kirwan, Shinnie, Adams, Burstein, Hägg, Török |
| 3. One raid by one of Ezana’s predecessors exclusively |
| 3.a. Ezana’s campaign did not touch the middle Nile Valley: Behrens, Bechhaus-Gerst |
Despite the argumentation by some scholars that the somewhat meagre evidence relating to Aksumite presence in the middle Nile Valley does not support Meroe’s vassal status prior and subsequent to Ezana’s incursion, consideration of additional Meroitic and especially Aksumite material may well support that theory. The faience statuette Garstang photo E 224 from Meroe representing a woman (queen ?) clearly reflects Aksumite influence based on South Arabian prototypes (e.g. Addis Abeba J.E. 1657, 1555 and 3) and obviously dates around 300 AD. Furthermore, analysis of Aksumite coinage shows the adaption of the Meroitic uraeus diadem in royal iconography from the reign of Aphilas (beginning of 4th century AD) onwards, expressing Aksum’s supremacy. As for the inscriptional records, the Aksumite kings from Ousanas I. (fl. 320 AD) till Wazebas (fl. 540 AD) also call themselves “kings of Kush”, demonstrating their somewhat continuous legal claim on the middle Nile Valley. In that connection, the Aksumite coin from Meroe can not be brought into any connection with Ezana as usually proposed, but follows a Byzantine pattern appearing in 402 AD first, clearly suggesting a later date.
Conclusions
- Meroe had been subjugated by Aksumite forces during the reign of Aphilas and was transformed into a tributary vassal kingdom.
- Ezana’s campaign formed only one of several incidents in the process of Aksumite expansion into the middle Nile Valley.
- The Meroitic empire did not collapse with Ezana’s incursion, but remained – probably in local remnants – existant for some decades, as shown e.g. by continuation of:
- a. Meroitic funerary rites (e.g. El Hobagi, Umm Makharoqa)
- b. Meroitic language/script – at least on highest social level (REM 0094, 1222)
- c. Meroitic ranks, as e.g. a hegemon of (Lower ?)Nubia (= pesto ?) still acting in 348 AD (P. Ammon) and a “high king” Yisemeniye, referred to in the Kharamadoye inscription (REM 0094) around ca. 400 AD.
- At least some of the late Meroitic rulers may have descended from the Northern part of the empire, as e.g. indicated by the name component yesebohe (Aryesebohe, Yeseboheamani). Admittedly hypothetical, their kingship could have been based on military strenghth.
- The so-called “invasion” of the Noba did not cause the end of Meroe, but in contrast they seem to have served as its allies (comparable to Rome’s barbarian foederati) against Aksum’s rising pressure.
