Talk:Sheba#African conquests

I see that an IP recently switched some of the dates; however, there is still inconsistency throughout the article.

What is the best format to use for this subject: the BC and AD style of dates, or BCE and CE? —C.Fred (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|1=When dating historical events, scholars today generally use BCE and CE rather than BC and AD. BC stands for “before Christ” and AD for Anno Domini “the year of the lord.” BC and AD were predominant in Western discourse for centuries, but BCE “before the common era” and CE “common era” are now preferable.}}
-[https://tr.bibleodyssey.org/articles/bce-and-ce-versus-bc-and-ad/#:~:text=When%20dating%20historical%20events%2C%20scholars,common%20era%E2%80%9D%20are%20now%20preferable.]{{pb}}I think I agree with what that source says and use BCE/CE 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::That is not the way we make decisions on this issue. See WP:ERA. The problem is what is the established use? It started with BC[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheba&diff=prev&oldid=134736799] but there is a history of it being changed back and forth. That probably needs more analysis by looking at the edit history and using External tools: Find addition/removal Doug Weller talk 13:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::established use as in sources or in the article? also why do we need to check the history? Im confused 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Abo Yemen, Please STOP publishing the pic (Sabaen kingdom’s coat of arms (cropped).jpg). This completely fake! surely not coat of arms Saba, or national emblem, or seal for sovereign state. زاهر (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, what do you mean by "{{tq|1=STOP publishing the pic}}"? I am not the person who published the image, let alone did it multiple times as you're implying
As for the {{tq|1=This completely fake!}} part, sources disagree with you [https://belqees.net/socaities/%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D8%AB%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%86] [https://taiztime.com/hot-news/2023-06-15-06-31-29] [https://almasdaronline.com/articles/275941] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Funny sources! we know who the publishing this lies in webs (A.B!). Dear that is Fake news website, not academic journal. We need proof that is the coat of arms Saba, or national emblem, or seal for sovereign state. We have a hundreds inscription belong to the kings, no eagle with it! have a good day زاهر (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Those articles listed above cite an expert in South Arabian history.. {{pb}}The problem here is that you're comparing modern-day heraldry with ancient symbols. It wouldn't be practical back then to draw an extremely detailed bird in every single rock inscription thing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources in the section yet, but even if they do support the text, it is not representative of recent literature and not WP:NPOV.

The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History is a high quality tertiary source that summarises the literature, and in [https://oxfordre-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/africanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277734-e-150?rskey=g498vC&result=1 Documentary Sources and Methods for Precolonial African History (2018)] it says

{{tq2|Thanks to archaeological and linguistic research, scholars now know Aksum was preceded by a state in inland northern Ethiopia and Eritrea that by the first millennium bce appears in epigraphic evidence as D’MT or Daamat. Damaat, centered at Yeha, was long understood in connection with political and economic contacts with ancient Egypt and Saba in South Arabia as well as the expansion of Roman trade into the Indian Ocean in the early first millennium ce. Saba is generally associated with the biblical Sheba, the famous queen said to reign in the early 10th century bce, at the same time as Solomon. Until the 1980s, scholars viewed the emergence of the state as the consequence of the colonization of the Horn of Africa by Sabaeans from South Arabia in the early first millennium bce.}}

{{tq2|According to this narrative, South Arabians colonized indigenous populations and, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in Yemen (4th–3rd centuries bce), they created the kingdom of Aksum in Tigray. The assumption derived from the early modern myth that Africans were not capable of producing complex states themselves, and thus state formation must have been the result of external colonization or influence.}}

{{tq2|In fact, neither archaeological, epigraphic, nor linguistic evidence supports Sabaean influence or the sudden rise of a polity that would suggest colonization. Rather, evidence demonstrates Damaat was preceded by complex societies dating back to the beginning of the third millennium bce. This is significant because it demonstrates that the formation of the states of Damaat (and later Aksum) were the result of local historical developments, likely driven by the integration of the Horn of Africa into the economic networks of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea, a process that began in late prehistoric times, rather than external colonization or influence.}} Kowal2701 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:See the sources raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabaean colonization of Africa (2nd nomination), not cherrypicked, none of them support this section. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:None of the sources cited in the section support a "Sabaean colonisation". They say there was a migration, which a decent amount sources tentatively accept (although most of those consider it a minor migration). Even if you remove "Sabaean colonisation", it is still not NPOV, because of the amount of sources which say the indigenous peoples merely adopted or were influenced by Sabaean culture. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Iam trying to see this discussion. The two places on the page saying "colonization" are links to Sabaean colonization of Africa. The discussion here is secondary to whether the discussion on that page results in a rename. Pogenplain (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It isn’t, the text that appears here has to be cited, regardless of what we title our articles, but I’m happy to wait, thanks. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Kowal2701}} it would probably be helpful if you read and commented on the references, there are only four in the section. TSventon (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have read the four sources as said above, they don’t say anything about a colonisation, but rather about a migration. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Really? cus I have read Avanzini 2016 from cover to cover and here is what she says:
{{tq|1=In the 7th century the pacific/military Sabaean expansion is impressive,
toward the west the Sabaean expansion did not stop in the Jawf. Inscrip
tions in ancient SAB are attested in the region bordering the red Sea, in
the Tihāma, up to Ethiopia, where Sabaʾ with local populations created
an interesting political structure tightly linked to the mother country,
but with the introduction of original elements: the kingdom of Daʿmat
(Dʿmt).
certainly, from the 8th century the Sabaean presence is already attested in
ethiopia, as indicated by the 14c dating processed by the German mission
(Japp et alii 2011).
[...]
Frankly, the Sabaean presence in Ethiopia seems to be a ‘colonisation’
of a faraway land, economically motivated by the exploitation of local
resources, ivory above all. Indeed, it was not a capillary colonisation of a
large region, nor a colonisation in an empty land. the presence of a local
linguistic-cultural substrate, which emerges in the texts, is clearly recognisable. }}
𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It’s not on Google books but I found a copy of that and did ctrl + F for “colon” but nothing came up. Regardless, it is still a minority view here given the other sources I’ve provided, but I’ll concede it’s still a POV worth including. This section is still not at all NPOV though. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Maybe open pages 127 and 128 (Which are the pages cited in this article) because I'm obviously not quoting thin air 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I believe you. It’s bizarre that Avanzini says this, but two other sources, including the tertiary one above, say this POV fell out of favour by the 1980s. Books are generally less academically rigorous than journal articles and rarely peer-reviewed, and it’s not uncommon for outdated theories to creep in. Avanzini appears to be working off of Japp et al to say there was a Sabaean conquest, and then OR to say it sounds like colonisation, but it’s dwarfed by the sources that contest this. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you for actually bothering to look at the sources, it is appreciated. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Can we agree that the other three sources don’t say anything about colonisation and work on a version that adheres to NPOV? Based off what I’ve read, I’d title the section “Horn of Africa”, give primacy to the migration POV (saying some consider it a small migration), then give the indigenous POV, and then give the colonial narrative, saying {{tq|However Japp et al (2011) consider there to have been a Sabaean conquest, which Avanzini (2016) says sounds like colonisation.}} Then probably retain the bits on evidence of Sabaean influence. How does that sound? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|7}} Wasn't the dispute about the colonization part? Why are we removing the entire conquest in Africa then? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Because that isn’t supported by sources I’ve seen either, just Japp and Avanzini. Imo the section should probably start saying {{tq|Scholars have differing theories on Sheba’s relationship with the Horn of Africa, leading to the emergence of Dʿmt, based on the scant evidence available.}} (using a source I’ve already quoted) Kowal2701 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Before we go on finding a wording for this, I want to ask you if you really read the sources that you claimed to have read (the 24 sources on that article + the 4 books here)? You keep on trying to gaslight me into thinking that the sources that support the colonization stuff is the minority view when the 6 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheba#c-Kowal2701-20250401172300-Kowal2701-20250401150800 definitely not cherry-picked sources] that took you 2 days to find them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabaean_colonization_of_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=1283435474 which you were expecting yourself to take more than a month to do so]) is the main view of scholars. You claimed to have read all 4 books being cited in this section but that clearly was a lie and I doubt that you've read those 24 sources on Sabaean colonization of Africa simply because not all of them are accessible. That is not to mention that Japp et al is now apparently on the supporting side of the colonial narrative when you've said that it doesn't support that in your AfD nom. We are going to have to go thru WP:DRN if we want anything to be done here. Let's do this step by step tho (meaning that this doesn't have to go fast paced, let the AfD that you've started get to a result first) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have only checked the sources at Sabaean colonization of Africa that were used to cite colonisation, of which there are 5, two of which from the 1800s which I discarded. I checked the remaining three. Japp et al supports Sabaean conquest, which is not the same as colonisation. I’ve made the assumption that if the author had found sources that supported colonisation, they would’ve used them to do this, so the other 19 I haven’t looked at, however they all appear to be on the migration POV which would make sense since that is popular and corroborates with other sources I’ve found.

:::::On this page, I checked the three sources used to cite the first paragraph which mentions colonisation. The first two on Google books were easy to skim read the pages given, and today I double checked by searching inside for “colonisation”. The third, I clearly wasn’t thorough enough.

:::::Regarding the sources at AFD, I wasn’t intending on working on this (not something I enjoy doing) but was curious to look in the ORE because imo it’s by far the best source on African history. When I found that it completely refuted the colonisation POV, I felt obligated to commit to following this up. Also, I don’t have a lot of time atm so that’s why I’m rushing. I accessed Jstor through WP Library and searched “Daamat Sabaean” right clicking the first 5 or so sources I could find. Then I skim read them, and their conclusions, copying relevant bits into the quotes. They often have a summary of the literature at the start so that made me more confident regarding NPOV. If I was going to select them, I wouldn’t have included Fattovich 2012 which presents the colonisation POV as not discarded, and introduced Gerlach 2012 which I haven’t been able to access.

:::::Before writing I will do more reading and searches and adjust accordingly, what you see above is just my preliminary thoughts. I’m not sure DRN is necessary, I’ve been honest, albeit a bit careless. If I was going to be dishonest and push my POV, I’d give primacy to the indigenous POV which I’m not suggesting we do. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You haven't looked at 19 different sources, but decided that that article is worth a deletion? Even if it was about a migration POV, I don't see how that is a good reason for the deletion of that article. I am also not sure how did you decide that ORE is the best source in this scenario, I'm going to argue that Alessandra Avanzini, the Chair Professor of Semitic Philology at the University of Pisa and author 60 articles in high-class journals and 16 books most of which are on South Arabian history, is the best source in here. Anyways lets wait for the result of the AfD (which I doubt is getting deleted anw) and go for the DRN if you will 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Tbh I just want to get this over with, I really hate disputes. The AFD’s a bit annoying because people can’t be bothered/don’t have time to read the quotes, or just assume bad faith because of my POV. Been editing every day since I started properly last February, but probably going to be taking a break if that AFD’s consensus is plain keep. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::As if I want to go through any of this. You started this and got us to ANI. We might as well take it to DRN, no? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Actually your edit warring with a tag got us to ANI! I haven’t used DRN before but tbf it looks good. Would have to wait for AFD and ANI to close though. My thoughts on the AFD were that if we have to retitle and rewrite an article, we might as delete it and create a new one. If at DRN we just framed it as an NPOV issue and listed sources, summarising them in a sentence each, that could be useful. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent|7}} Abo Yemen and Kowal2701, a couple of thoughts, firstly, I looked for some guidance on choosing historical sources and found the essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). It has a section on "Reliable sources for weighting and article structure", which ranks useful sources. It starts with {{tq|Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic}}, so we shouldbn't be choosing one academic's point of view.

Secondly, looking at DRN, they want to know how you have tried to resolve the dispute, so it would be a good idea to try some compromise ideas before going to there. TSventon (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:(books and not journals) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::That was why I was looking in tertiary sources. The ORE is quoted above, the Encyclopedia of African History (2005) doesn't cover this, and the [https://archive.org/details/encyclopedia-of-african-history-and-culture-volume-1/page/16/mode/2up?q=sabaean&view=theater Encyclopedia of African History and Culture (2005)] talks about a migration but not political dominance.

::Unfortunately I can't find anything purely tertiary that just gives a literature review giving the different POVs. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Nx-qYO3zqlIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=info:X01qTgn_T2UJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=SkDuNZs66O&sig=3aSRpwnMG76UTFcV_CZ4IwRMrrs#v=onepage&q&f=false Phillipson 2012, page 19] discusses historiography: {{tq2|A recurring theme of this chapter is the need critically to evaluate the view that cultural and political trends in the northern Horn were dominated by contacts with southern Arabia and, more specifically, that colonisation from the latter area was responsible for the numerous cultural innovations which, according to the late Professor Edward Ullendorff, contributed to "a vastly superior civilisation". This view, first enunciated in detail over 80 years ago by Carlo Conti Rossini, has been widely - if uncritically - accepted and has passed into much popular historical understanding and, for that matter, mythology, despite strong epigraphic counter-indications from the 1970s and, more recently, archaeological evidence that a number of innovations to which Conti Rossini had attributed a southern Arabian origin were in fact indigenous African developments at a significantly earlier date. While it should not be argued that cultural trends east and west of the Red Sea took place completely independently at this time, it now appears that the scale, duration, and overall importance of their interconnections have been significantly exaggerated. As argued in Chapter 2, this has been at least partly due to the paucity of information about earlier times in the northern Horn.}} He summarises his own view on page 41, basically saying there was a small migration, and that political dominance is {{tq|extremely doubtful}}. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{tqb|text=Actually your edit warring with a tag got us to ANI! I haven’t used DRN before but tbf it looks good. Would have to wait for AFD and ANI to close though. My thoughts on the AFD were that if we have to retitle and rewrite an article, we might as delete it and create a new one. If at DRN we just framed it as an NPOV issue and listed sources, summarising them in a sentence each, that could be useful.|by=Kowal2701|ts=16:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)|id=c-Kowal2701-20250402165800-Abo_Yemen-20250402155500}}The ANI report just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&oldid=prev&diff=1284074530 got archived] since no one cared about it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well yeah, obviously it didn’t deserve any action, I just wanted this to progress constructively (I guess AN would’ve been more appropriate). If I group works from the last 20 years by POV, we can then use that to assess weight and then draft a rewrite? If the colonisation article is kept, we should focus on that article and just summarise it here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. How does that sound? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::The survey is at User:Kowal2701/sandbox/History of Africa: East Africa#Sabaeans and the Horn of Africa. Feel free to spot check or search for others Kowal2701 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Abo Yemen}}, the AfD closed as keep, would you still like to go through DRN? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I see no reason for us to rewrite this section in here especially when it's well sourced. You're going to have to ask everyone else involved here too (@TSventon @Pogenplain) if they want to waste more time on this and take it to DRN 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Brother, do you know what NPOV means? What this whole thread is about? DRN was your idea in the first place. Come on, that’s bad faith Kowal2701 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What bad faith. Many people in the AfD discussion agreed that the sources you've shown are the minority view. Plus, if no one wants to go to DRN like last time then I see no point in doing that again 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No one in the AFD actually looked at the sources for themselves, they just saw an article with 20+ references and a poorly composed nom with no deletion rationale. At the moment, I’m probably looking at writing an article at Sabaeans and the Horn of Africa which would cover the evidence of Sabaean influence and the three POVs, and then proposing a merge for the colonisation article there. The survey above clearly shows the predominance of the differing POVs, I don’t know how you could possibly WP:Status quo stonewall in good faith Kowal2701 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There's no reason for us to have two articles on the same topic. Let's wait to see if the other two guys want to go to DRN then we'll go. Nobody participated in the survey thing that you've done simply because it's useless. You ignored those 20+ sources being used in that article and made the colonization pov seem like the minority view. Also, throwing around bad faith accusations like it's nothing isn't a good look on you, esp when you aren't assuming good faith in those sources being used in that article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You’re right, I should go through the remaining sources in the article, I’ll do that later. But I did a thorough search of Google Scholar and Google Books and those are all I could find. I even searched for sources discussing Gerlach 2012, but instead found ones discussing Gerlach 2013 which was said to support the migration/assimilation POV. If you think the colonisation POV is predominant, then please provide more sources supporting it, but otherwise it is just status quo stonewalling. FWIW, my personal opinion is that articles should be slightly biased towards the POVs most closely related to their subject, so on this one I’d give primacy to the migration POV, then conquest POV, and then mention indigenous POV as an afterthought. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Pogenplain|TSventon}} hi, would either of you fancy participating in a discussion at WP:DRN about this? No worries if not Kowal2701 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I was actually about to ping them again lol. A simple "sure" or "nah" would be a good response 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think that before thinking about DRN, Kowal2701 should suggest some improvements to the Sabaean colonization article and see if we can reach a compromise there. Then this article should be updated accordingly. I am not familiar with DRN, but looking for an uninvolved party to volunteer to read twenty plus sources is unlikely to succeed. TSventon (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I'll give it a go! I'd rename it to Sabaeans and the Horn of Africa so it can cover all POVs and avoid WP:POVTITLE, and structure the body like so:

:::::::::::==Evidence of Sabaean influence==

:::::::::::===Architecture and inscriptions===

:::::::::::===Cultural features===

:::::::::::(include pottery)

:::::::::::===Genetic influences===

:::::::::::==Theories==

:::::::::::[here discuss Carlo Conti Rossini, historiography]

:::::::::::===Migration and assimilation===

:::::::::::[discuss the interpretation of the evidence that supports migration, relevant criticism]

:::::::::::===Indigenous adoption===

:::::::::::[same for this]

:::::::::::===Colonisation===

:::::::::::[same for this with focus on recent sources like Japp et al, rather than what colonisers thought so it doesn't include refutation of colonial narratives]

:::::::::::How does that sound? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|9}} Before we do this, I want to know what sources denying both the colonization and migration hypotheses are basing their reasoning on. And do any of them tackle the inscription [https://dasi.cnr.it/index.php?id=dasi_prj_epi&prjId=1&corId=0&colId=0&navId=377878639&recId=7349&vM=yes RES 3945] the same way Avanzini 2016 does, or are they just dismissing them as "saying that a superior civilization led to the formation of dmt is racist and there are (unnamed) indigenous peoples who did all this" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Personally I don't find the "no migration" point convincing, but think it's useful to consider the indigenous adoption point as an element of the wider picture. Basically, these sources say there's too little evidence to support a migration, and obv the onus is on the theory to have supporting evidence, not for us to accept it as a de facto premise. No sources say there was no Sabaean influence, what's contested is whether it was relevant to state formation (since the Hamitic hypothesis was that Africans weren't capable of social complexity/state formation without outside interference). Sources point to the various local cultures preceding Daamat that became progressively more socially complex.

:::Fattovich 2010 says {{tq|Specialists in South Arabian archaeology and epigraphy tend to support the hypothesis of a migration and/or colonization from Yemen in the early 1st millennium BC as the main factor of state formation in the highlands. Specialists in African archaeology, on the other hand, like to stress an indigenous origin of the D'MT polity. In my opinion, the factual evidence we have is very ambiguous and does not support any South Arabian migration and/or colonization, although it does not exclude the penetration into the highlands of small groups coming from different regions of Yemen, including Saba.}} and goes on to discuss evidence that may support that indigenous rulers adopted Sabaean symbols of power.

:::I haven't seen any sources mention RES 3945 nor Karib el-Watr, the inscription just seems to cover his conquests over southern Arabia, and it appears to be over 100 years later than Daamat is thought to have began. But this is what led Japp et al to their conclusion because it was at a similar time to Sheba's expansion. What does Avanzini say? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, all she does is cite that inscription's use by a "Christian Robin" who said that the expeditions might have reached as far as Ethiopia (tho they say it's not 100% certain), but whatever. I think I've become a bit convinced by your proposal, except for the naming part, which I'd prefer to be Sabaeans in Africa or Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa for the sake of precision. I'd also place the colonization viewpoint as a subsection of the migration stuff, as it would make sense because either they were in Africa or they weren't 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sabaeans in the Horn of Africa is good. There is some overlap between the POVs. The indigenous adoption POV doesn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of migrations, it’s more just countering the notion of political dominance, and obv the colonisation POV includes migration. Can we bold move the article or would you rather an RM? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think that there should be an RM since this is a controversial topic, plus we can see if someone comes up with a better suggestion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Alternatively we can leave the article as is for now and I can write a draft? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::sure you can do that if you want 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed that we should do an RM first, I'll make one now Kowal2701 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@Kowal2701 While we are here, what are your issues with the African conquests section? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::We should probably focus on the main article before this one, but my issues are about saying there was a conquest and colonisation in wikivoice while excluding other POVs. I'm fine with us lending credence to that POV, especially for this article, but we should attribute it to something like "some scholars", and give the other POVs (probably opening by saying something like {{tq|Most scholars consider there to have been a migration of Sabaeans from Arabia to the Horn of Africa. Some scholars consider there to have been a conquest or colonisation by Sheba leading to the formation of Da'amat, while others point to the increasing complexity of the indigenous peoples as signs it developed locally stimulated by trade, often with Sheba.}}) But that's just rough thoughts. The rest of the section seems alright (I'd need to double check though, there might also be other evidence of Sabaean influence which could probably be included) Kowal2701 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|7}} If the {{tq|1=triggering a Sabaean colonization event}} is the part you have an issue with, then we can fix that easily. But as you said, let's be done with the main article first 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)