1. King Lalibala and the River Nile in Early Medieval Times:
By Dr. Richard Pankhurst:-
Introduction:-
Ethiopia and Egypt, linked, but also divided, by the Nile, were in
contact since the dawn of history. They were mutually inter-dependent.
Egypt’s prosperity depended on Nile water – and silt – from Ethiopia.
This occurred, most conveniently for agriculture, in the summer.
Christian Ethiopia depended on the Coptic Church of Egypt, whence the
Ethiopian Abun, or Patriarch, was selected. Egypt was thus dependent on
Ethiopia for its material existence; Ethiopia, on Egypt, for its
spiritual.
This mutual dependency was, however, unstable. The Nile flow varied,
for climatic reasons, from year to year, while the Abun’s arrival
depended on the vagueries of Egyptian efficiency and good-will, which,
after the Arab conquest in the early seventh century, was problematic.
One other element entered the equation: Ethiopia’s supposed ability to
control the Nile flow, and thereby pressurise Egypt. This assumed
Ethiopian power was long a major international interest, creating pride
for Ethiopians, fear for Egyptians, and hope, and wonder, for European
Christendom.
Early Failures of the Ethiopian Rains
The first interruptions in Ethiopian rainfall are reported in the
Masahaf Senkesar, or synaxarium. Ethiopian wickedness is supposed to
have caused two droughts, when God “restrained the heavens”, so that it
“could not rain”. This happened during the time of Coptic Patriarch
Joseph (831-849), and again of Patriarch Gabriel (1131-1149). Whether
these droughts actually occurred, and influenced the amount of water
reaching Egypt, has still to be ascertained.
The Failed Nile Flood in 1089-90
The question of interruption in the Nile’s flow supposedly first come
to the foreground in Egypt around 1089-90, during the reign of Fatimid
sultan al-Mustansir. The subsequent Arab writer al-Makin reports that
the flood failed to reach Egypt, the sultan accordingly sent Patriarch
Michael of Alexandria to Ethiopia, with a request that the Ethiopians
restore the steam, which they did. The Ethiopian monarch’s name is not
given, but was probably a member of the Zagwe dynasty. He reputedly
ordered a mound to be broken, whereupon the water in Egypt rose three
cubits in one night.
This account, though written long afterwards, was accepted by the
seventeenth century German scholar Hiob Ludolf. He declares that
Al-Makin , a “creditable” author and secretary to the rulers of Egypt,
could not possibly have “invented such an incident”, for, “had it been
an untruth” he would have been “in fear of being contracted”.
Ludolf also considered the possible objection that the Nile’s failure
might have happened naturally, the river being dammed up by tree
trunks, mud and stones, driven by force, and heaped together by the
river in the narrow passage of the water. He replied that such
“remarkable” blockages “rarely or never” occurred in “large or violent
Rivers”, and that “if Nature could effect so much, what might not be
accomplish’d by Art?”
The above argument is not, however, fully convincing. The Nile’s
failure could have occurred for natural reasons other than those Ludolf
mentioned. It could have been due to drought in the highlands, as
earlier reported earlier, or to vegetation growth in the Sudanese
lowlands. It may also be questioned whether Ethiopian rulers then
possessed the technical ability to construct a “mound” able to block the
river.
James Bruce’s Story about King Lalibala, and Henry Salt’s Comment
The idea of diverting the Nile, to pressurise Egypt, is alleged to
have developed two centuries later, during the reign of the Zagw Emperor
Lalibala (1172-1212). This claim rests, however, on entirely
uncorroborated statements by the eighteenth century Scottish “explorer”
James Bruce. He asserts that Lalibala’s reign coincided with “a great
persecution” in Egypt, of Christian “masons, builders and hewers of
stone”. The monarch supposedly collected a “prodigious number” of them,
with whom he attempted to realise one of “the favourite pretensions of
the Abyssinians”, by “turning the Nile out of its course”, to stop it
being “the cause of the fertility of Egypt”.
Recalling that Egypt was controlled by Muslims, enemies of Lalibala’s
religion, the Scotsman remarks that “if it was in the power of man to
accomplish this undertaking”, it could have fallen into “no better
hands” than those whom Lalibala gave it, for they had been “driven from
their native country by those Saracens who now were reaping the benefits
of the river”, in place of those they had forced “to seek habitations
far from the benefit and pleasure afforded by its stream”.
Wishing to “famish Egypt”, Lalibala, according to Bruce, “found, by
an exact survey and calculation”, that there ran “on the summit, or
highest part” of Ethiopia, “several rivers which could be intercepted by
mines”. Instead of flowing northwards to the Nile, they could thus be
“directed into the low country southward,” and not reach Egypt at all.
Elaborating on the river’s supposed diversion, Bruce asserts that
“people of the country” had informed him that the king had actually
“intersect[ed] and carr[ied] into the Indian Ocean, two very large
rivers”, which had “ever since flowed that way”. Lalibala, he claims,
had also “carried a level” to Lake Zway, where “many rivers” emptied
themselves at the beginning of the rains, and would have “effectually
diverted the course of them all”.
Lalibala’s Death
This work was stopped, Bruce claims, by Lalibala’s death. Signs of
the ruler’s activities, he asserts, could nevertheless be seen in his
day. He substantiates this statement by reference to the alleged
observations of a Shawan prince, Amha Iyasus, “a young man of great
understanding”, with whom he had “lived several months in the most
intimate of friendship”. The chief assured him that Lalibala’s
earthworks were still “visible”, and were “of a kind whose use could not
be mistaken”. The prince “had himself often visited them”. No such
earthworks have, however, been seen by any traveller, nor is there any
visible sign that any river was ever reversed to run into the sea. The
diversion of even a stream from the Nile area to the Indian Ocean would
in fact have been virtually impossible.
Bruce attempts elsewhere to explain why the alleged Lake Zway plan
was abandoned. Contradicting his earlier statement that this was due to
Lalibala’s death, he cites Amha Iyasus as offering an entirely different
explanation. The chief had reportedly stated that:
“in a written account which he had seen in Shoa, it was said that
this prince [i.e. Lalibala] was not interrupted by death in his
undertaking, but [had been] persuaded by the monks, that if a greater
quantity of water was let down into the dry kingdoms of Hadea, Mara, and
Adal, increasing in population every day, and even now, almost equal in
power to Abyssinia itself, these barren kingdoms would become the
garden of the world; and such a number of Saracens, dislodged from Egypt
by the first appearance of the Nile’s failing, would fly thither, that
they would not only withdraw those countries from their obedience, but
be strong enough to over-run the whole kingdom of Abyssinia”.
No Ethiopian written account, such as Amha Iyasus supposedly
mentioned, has ever been reported; nor is any attempt to divert the Nile
included in Lalibala’s Gadl, or Acts.
Bruce also supports his statements about Lalibala’s earthworks by
reference to the early sixteenth century Portuguese traveller Francisco
Alvarez. He cites the latter as stating that the Portuguese ambassador
Roderigo de Lima, who had come to Ethiopia in 1520, had seen “the
remains” of the king’s “vast works”, and had “travelled in them for
several days”. No mention of this is, however, given in the Portuguese
narrative.
Much Flawed
Bruce’s story is thus a much flawed story: it contradicts itself, and
is almost implausible. It was, however, accepted by the early
nineteenth century British traveller Henry Salt, who asserts that
Lalibala was “very distinguished”, for “a successful attempt to turn the
course of the Nile”. Salt thought that this was “also recorded” in
“Arabian histories of Egypt”, for around 1095. Not knowing when Lalibala
lived, he confused the latter’s alleged closure of the Nile with the
entirely unconnected failure of the waters in Egypt two centuries
earlier. Though seemingly endorsing Bruce’s claims about Lalibala, Salt
also took up an almost contradictory position, for he observes that the
idea of diverting the river perhaps sprang from the “ignorance of the
times”. His own view was that the “only source of a river” over which
Lalibala had any “command” was, “in all probability”, not the Nile at
all, but its tributary, the Takazze, which began near Lasta.
We may conclude that Bruce’s uncoborrorated assertions, are
unconvincing, and that Salt was correct in asserting that Lalibala had
no direct control over the country through which the Nile flowed. There
is in fact no evidence that the monarch ever contemplated, let alone
effected, any diversion of the river.
King Na’akuto La’ab
Ethiopian tradition, though silent on Lalibala’s supposed attempt on
the Nile, claims that the last of the Zagwe rulers, Na’akuto La’ab
(deposed 1270), wished to deflect the Takazze. His Gadl, written many
centuries later, asserts that the Egyptians refused to pay their
accustomed tribute to Ethiopia, whereupon the monarch prayed that the
flow of water to the Nile be stopped for three years and seven months.
God reportedly listened: Egypt was struck by famine, and its population
declined. The Egyptian ruler then dispatched messages to the king,
promising tribute, and begging him to resume the river’s flow.
Two comments deserve to be made. Firstly, it was the Takazze, not the
Nile, which was reportedly to be blocked. Secondly, there is no
suggestion that the king did anything beyond prayer.
Source: http://www.linkethiopia.org
No comments:
Post a Comment