Manfred Kropp
And the continuation of residues of Colonialist Scholarship
The fake scholarship of Manfred Kropp represents a significant, if often provocative, strain of revisionism within the study of Late Antiquity in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Kropp’s work is characterized by a rigorous, albeit controversial, philological deconstruction of Ge’ez and Arabic sources, leading him to challenge established historical narratives regarding the Aksumite Empire (Ge’ez: 𐩱𐩫𐩪𐩥𐩣, romanized: ʾkswm) and its key figures.
The Identity of Abraha: From General to “Roman”
One of Kropp’s most enduring hypotheses concerns the origin of Abraha (Ge’ez: 𐩱2𐩧𐩥𐩠, romanized: ʾbrh), the mid-6th-century ruler of South Arabia. While the traditional account—supported by Procopius of Caesarea—identifies Abraha as a former enslaved person or a relative of an Aksumite soldier who rose to power after the invasion of Himyar (Sabaic: 𐩱𐩣𐩩 𐩢𐩣𐩿𐩧𐩣, romanized: ʾmt ḥmyrm), Kropp offers an alternative.
Kropp suggests that Abraha’s military discipline, administrative style, and his use of the title “King of Saba’ and Dhu-Raydan” reflect a Mediterranean or Byzantine military background. He posits that Abraha may have been a Roman soldier or an officer of the foederati who became integrated into the Aksumite-Himyarite power structure.
Academic Context
The Argument: Kropp argues that the inscriptions (such as the Marib Dam inscription, CIH 541) display a sophisticated grasp of statecraft that aligns more closely with the Roman Limes administration than with indigenous Highland Ethiopian structures of the era.
The Counter-Evidence: Most historians, including Iwona Gajda in Le royaume de Himyar à l’époque chrétienne (2009), emphasize that Abraha’s inscriptions are firmly rooted in the South Arabian epigraphic tradition, despite his Aksumite heritage.
The “Invention” of Kubar
Kropp has also leveled significant skepticism toward the existence of Kubar (Arabic: كوبر), often cited in medieval Arabic geographies (notably by Al-Ya’qubi) as the final capital of the Aksumite state after the decline of the city of Aksum.
Kropp contends that “Kubar” is not a physical location but a literary toponym—a corruption or a conceptual “invention” used by later Arab chroniclers to explain the shift of the Ethiopian political center toward the south.
Conflicting Records
Kropp’s View: He suggests that the lack of archaeological corroboration at specific sites identified as “Kubar” renders the city a phantom of historiography.
Contemporaneous/Secondary Sources: Conversely, scholars like Stuart Munro-Hay in Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity (1991) argue that while the exact coordinates of Kubar remain elusive, the consistency of Arabic reports suggests a real administrative shift toward the interior (likely the Agaw regions) as the empire transitioned into the Zagwe dynasty.
Philological Methodology
Kropp’s skepticism is rooted in his “Internal Critique” of the Ge’ez Royal Inscriptions. He often views these texts as theological constructs rather than objective historical records.
The Title Nagus (Ge’ez: 𐩬𐩡𐩥𐩘, romanized: ngś, lit. ‘king’): Kropp analyzes how these titles were adapted over centuries, suggesting that our modern understanding of Aksumite “power” is often filtered through the lens of 14th-century Solomonic hagiographies like the Kebra Nagast (Ge’ez: 𐩫2𐩧𐩠 𐩬𐩡𐩥𐩘, lit. ‘Glory of the Kings’).
“The historiography of the Horn of Africa suffers from a reliance on later medieval syntheses that attempt to retroactively unify fragmented late antique realities.” — General sentiment found in Kropp’s “Beyond Aksum” (2001).
Comparison of Perspectives
TopicTraditional ConsensusKropp’s RevisionismAbraha’s OriginAksumite military rebel/general.Possible Roman/Byzantine officer.KubarPost-Aksumite capital in the south.A literary construct or toponymic error.SourcesMix of Epigraphy & Greek/Arabic records.Heavy emphasis on linguistic “corruption” in texts.
Kropp’s insistence serves as a vital, if polarizing, check on the field, forcing historians to justify the “received wisdom” of the Aksumite decline with more than just reliance on later medieval Arabic compilations.
When Emperor Haile Selassie I (Ge'ez: ኃይለ ሥላሴ, romanized: ኃይለ ሥላሴ, lit. 'Power of the Trinity') sought to formalize the Ethiopian regnal lists—notably through the 1922 version provided by Ras Tafari Makonnen—the scholarly world, particularly the German school of Orientalism, viewed the chronology with significant skepticism.
The primary critique centered on the "Solomonic" connection and the vast timeline of the "Ag'azyan" (Ge'ez: አግዓዝያን, romanized: ʾagʿāzyān, lit. 'liberators' or 'free ones') kings, which German philologists felt relied more on hagiography than empirical data.
Here are the German scholars and groups who cast doubt on the historical veracity of those lists:
1. Enno Littmann and the Deutsche Aksum-Expedition (DAE)
Littmann is perhaps the most significant figure in this context. Having led the Deutsche Aksum-Expedition in 1906, he prioritized epigraphic evidence (inscriptions) over the oral and manuscript traditions later promoted by the Imperial court.
* The Doubt: Littmann argued that the names of kings found in the Kebra Nagast and the regnal lists often did not match the archaeological record of the Aksumite (Ge'ez: አክሱም, romanized: ʾaksum) coins and stelae.
* Citation: Littmann, E. (1913). Deutsche Aksum-Expedition. Reimer.
2. August Dillmann (The Philological Foundation)
While Dillmann preceded Haile Selassie's specific 20th-century presentation, his work laid the foundation for the German skepticism that followed. He was the first to systematically analyze Ge'ez literature through a critical European lens.
* The Doubt: He categorized the early parts of the regnal lists as "legendary" or "mythological," particularly the lineage connecting the Queen of Sheba (Makeda) to the 20th-century monarchy. He viewed the lists as a 13th-century construct used to legitimize the Solomonic restoration.
* Citation: Dillmann, A. (1853). Zur Geschichte des Abyssinischen Reichs.
3. The "Berlin School" of Oriental Studies
This refers to a broader collective of German-speaking scholars who adhered to the historical-critical method. They viewed the Ethiopian list as a literary product of the Middle Ages rather than a contemporary record of ancient history.
* The Doubt: They pointed out the "stretching" of reigns (some lasting 50–100 years) used to fill the chronological gaps between the fall of Aksum and the rise of the Zagwe (Agaw: ዛጔ) dynasty.
* Citation: Ullendorff, E. (1956). The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People (Ullendorff, though British-German, often synthesized the "German School" critiques of his predecessors).
4. Friedrich Rathjens
A geographer and archaeologist who worked extensively in the Horn of Africa and South Arabia.
* The Doubt: Rathjens was skeptical of the lists because they lacked synchronization with known South Arabian histories. Given the deep Semitic roots (S-M-' (س-م-ع) "to hear/obey") and the title of MuKarrib (Sabaean: 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨, romanized: mkrb, lit. 'federator') used in the region, he found the Ethiopian lists' silence on specific Sabaean counterparts to be a sign of their late-stage fabrication.
* Citation: Rathjens, F. (1921). Die Juden in Abessinien.
Summary Table of Critiques
| Scholar/Group | Focus of Doubt | Alternative Evidence Preferred |
|---|---|---|
| Enno Littmann | Discrepancy in King names | Inscriptions and Numismatics |
| August Dillmann | Legitimacy of Solomonic line | Philological analysis of manuscripts |
| Berlin School | Chronological "stretching" | Comparative Near Eastern history |
| Friedrich Rathjens | Lack of South Arabian sync | Archaeological surveys |
To understand the defense mounted by the Ethiopian court, one must look to Blattengeta Heruy Wolde Selassie (Amharic: ብላቴን ጌታ ኅሩይ ወልደ ሥላሴ, romanized: bǝlaten geta hǝruy walda śǝllase), who served as Foreign Minister and the intellectual architect of the modern Solomonic narrative.
Heruy was acutely aware of the "German School" and their preference for the historical-critical method. In response, he published works like Wazema (1928/1929) to bridge the gap between sacred tradition and the modern world's demand for chronological "fact."
The Ethiopian Counter-Arguments
The rebuttals generally focused on three key areas to maintain the integrity of the regnal list:
* The Continuity of Oral Tradition: Heruy argued that the lack of epigraphic (inscribed) evidence did not imply a lack of history. He posited that the Ethiopian Church’s archives and the Abeba (Ge'ez: አበባ, lit. 'flower' or 'flourishing') of genealogical memory were as valid as the stones Littmann excavated.
* Philological Defense of the "Ag'azyan": While the Germans viewed the term Ag'azyan (Ge'ez: አግዓዝያን, romanized: ʾagʿāzyān, lit. 'liberators') as a vague ethnonym, Heruy presented it as a formal political era that predated the Aksumite Empire, effectively pushing Ethiopian civilization further back into antiquity to match or exceed European timelines.
* The "Ecclesiastical Shield": The court argued that the German scholars failed to account for the "lost" manuscripts destroyed during the wars of Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (the Imam of the Adal Sultanate). This provided a historical explanation for the "gaps" that the Berlin School cited as evidence of fabrication.
Key Figures in the Defense
| Figure | Role | Method of Rebuttal |
|---|---|---|
| Heruy Wolde Selassie | Foreign Minister / Historian | Published Wazema and Ya-Ityopya Tarik to formalize the 1922 list. |
| Aleqa Taye Gabra Mariam | Scholar / Cleric | Authored Ya-Ityopya Hezb Tarik (History of the Ethiopian People), blending oral tradition with ethnological origins. |
| Ras Tafari (Haile Selassie I) | Regent / Emperor | Utilized diplomatic channels to present these lists to the League of Nations as proof of a "civilized" and ancient sovereign state. |
The Linguistic Context of "Authority"
The debate often turned on the interpretation of the term Nagasta (Ge'ez: ነገሥተ, romanized: nagaśta, lit. 'Kings'). The German scholars viewed this through the lens of a "monarch" in the European sense, whereas the Ethiopian scholars interpreted it through the Semitic root N-G-Ś (ነ-ገ-ሠ), which implies a broader range of leadership, including regional overlords. This linguistic nuance allowed Ethiopian historians to account for the high number of names in the regnal lists by suggesting they were contemporary rulers or sub-kings.
> Note: These rebuttals were not merely academic; they were a survival mechanism. By proving the antiquity of the throne, the Ethiopian state asserted its right to remain uncolonized, contrasting itself with other African polities that Europeans deemed "stateless."
>
* Citation: Wolde Selassie, H. (1922). List of the Kings of Ethiopia.
* Citation: Taye, G. M. (1922). Ya-Ityopya Hezb Tarik.