Ethiopian Churches Commemorating Military Victories of the Solomonic Kingdom over the Betä Ǝsraʾel (Ethiopian Jews)

Abstract

During the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, most Jews lived as a minority under Christian or Islamic rule. By contrast, the Ethiopian Jews, the Betä Ǝsraʾel, maintained political autonomy in parts of Ethiopia until the seventeenth century. From the fourteenth century, they were engaged in a series of wars against the Christian Solomonic Kingdom. Following Christian military victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel, the victors erected churches in the newly conquered lands. Some were built on the sites of battles and over Betä Ǝsraʾel strongholds to commemorate the Solomonic victory. While churches dedicated to historical events are common, those memorializing Christian military victories over Jews are largely without parallel elsewhere. This article provides an overview of what is known about their location, characteristics, and symbolism, and discusses their contribution to understanding the Betä Ǝsraʾel polity.

1. Introduction: Church Construction in the Context of the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic Wars

Throughout history, it has been common for political and religious leaders of given polities to erect religious structures and institutions affiliated with the polity’s dominant, official religion in territories that it had expanded into. Such establishments exemplified its dominion over the territories in question, served the populations affiliated with it which settled or were already present in these territories, and in some cases, encouraged and facilitated the spread of its official religion within them.1 Religious establishments, in general, serve a variety of purposes in addition to their role in facilitating worship. One role that some such establishments serve is that of commemoration—of specific events or individuals. In some cases, such establishments were built to commemorate military victories or conquests.2

Christianity, as a religion with roots partially stemming from the Jewish traditions prevalent at the time of its emergence, and which developed in constant interaction with Jews and Judaism in later times, was significantly engaged in defining itself vis-à-vis the latter and in polemics with the latter in different contexts and times.3 Concepts relating to Jews and Judaism are expressed in ecclesiastical architecture and art, and in traditions linked with specific ecclesiastical foundations.4 The overwhelming majority of such expressions developed in specific contexts of interaction between Christians and Jews, in which Jews were either subordinate to Christians, the two groups lived side by side as minorities, or Jews were largely absent.5

One mode of interaction between Christians and Jews—as two sovereign polities, engaged, at times, in military conflict—is extremely rare, but did occur. One example is the Late Antique kingdoms of Aksum (northern Ethiopia and Eritrea) and Ḥimyar (south-western Arabia), which converted to Christianity and Judaism, respectively, in the fourth century, and in the early sixth century were engaged in a military conflict which was portrayed as a conflict between Christianity and Judaism, and which culminated in the conquest of Ḥimyar by Aksum.6 A second example is the politically autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel7 (Ethiopian Jews) of the north-western Ethiopian Highlands, which were periodically tributary to and periodically in conflict with the Christian Solomonic kingdom, until their final subdual in 1626.

Given the complex dynamics between Christianity and Judaism, wars between sovereign Christians and Jews were perceived as bearing substantial theological significance. Both sides saw themselves as the true successors of the biblical Israelites and were aware of the competing claims put forth by the other side. Military victory was seen by the victors, at least in some cases, as demonstrating God’s favor.8 A church erected to commemorate Christian military victory over sovereign Jews could be endued with greater significance than that of “merely” a military victory over another religious group. It would validate ascendance over the religion which, more than any other, Christianity has been engaged with and defining itself in relation to from its emergence onward.

Both in the case of Ḥimyar and in the case of the sovereign Betä Ǝsraʾel, churches were erected following Christian military victories in the territories conquered.9 Some of the churches erected by Solomonic authorities in the territories conquered from the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel are explicitly mentioned in various sources as serving to commemorate specific Christian Solomonic victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel. Such churches are a unique expression of Jewish–Christian interaction which has never before been examined in detail.

What do we know about such churches? Where and when were they built? Did they truly serve the commemorative role which they were reportedly assigned? How was this role expressed? Can these churches be located and examined?

In this article, I will examine textual and cartographical sources which shed light on churches built in the wake of Solomonic victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel in territories conquered from the latter. I will examine the commemorative role of some of these churches and the significance of their location, and present the results of a first brief visit to the compound of one of them. I will demonstrate that the construction of these churches was a recurring event, suggest a methodology for locating them, and will argue that a wide-scale examination of such churches would shed unprecedented light on the scope of Betä Ǝsraʾel political autonomy in different times, on the sites of battles and Betä Ǝsraʾel strongholds, and on the Christianization process of territories formerly governed by the Betä Ǝsraʾel.

1.1. Research on the Betä Ǝsraʾel Polity and the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic Wars

Following the rise to power of the Solomonic dynasty in 1270, the Solomonic kingdom, initially centered in the north-eastern Ethiopian Highlands and the adjacent Eritrean Highlands, gradually expanded its control to surrounding territories.10 Among these were the regions in the north-western Ethiopian Highlands inhabited by the Betä Ǝsraʾel (Figure 1). The consolidation of direct Solomonic rule in these regions was a gradual process. Up until the seventeenth century, the Betä Ǝsraʾel managed to maintain political autonomy in some of the territories they inhabited. The autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel were at times tributary to and at times at war with the Solomonic kingdom, and were significantly involved in its internal dynamics. As a result of Solomonic victories in wars against the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel, territories governed by the latter gradually came under direct Solomonic rule. Initially governing an extensive area extending from Ṣällämt in the north to Dämbəya in the south, by the time of the final subdual of the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel by the Solomonic emperor Susǝnyos (1607–1632) circa 1626, the area under their control was limited to the north-eastern Sǝmen Mountains (Kribus 2023; Kribus and Wexler, forthcoming).

Betä Ǝsraʾel political autonomy and the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic wars have seen relatively little research. The studies of Steven Kaplan (1992, pp. 79–96) and James Quirin (1992, pp. 40–88), which examine Betä Ǝsraʾel history from its earliest attestation to the twentieth century, devote extensive chapters to this topic, with a focus on the historical processes underwent by the Betä Ǝsraʾel community at the time. Additional studies examine specific textual accounts which shed light on the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic wars.11 Other than one article dealing, in part, with a sixteenth-century Betä Ǝsraʾel stronghold known in contemporary Portuguese sources as the “Mountain of the Jews”, written by Charles Fraser Beckingham (1951),12 specific sites associated with the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel had not, until recently, been pinpointed with precision or examined in research.

In recent years, I have conducted the first in-depth study of the historical geography of Betä Ǝsraʾel political autonomy and of the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic wars, a central part of which is the identification of associated sites, including strongholds used by the Betä Ǝsraʾel and by their Solomonic opponents, and the examination of these sites, so far mainly through textual and cartographical sources and satellite imagery available online.13 Linked with this study is a study conducted by Sophia Dege-Müller and myself of a series of religious sites in the Sǝmen Mountains, which likely developed in dialogue with Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic dynamics in this region during and following Betä Ǝsraʾel autonomous rule (Kribus and Dege-Müller 2022; Dege-Müller and Kribus 2021). Additionally, a brief visit to the outskirts of a valley in the Sǝmen Mountains, which served as the seat of the leadership of the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel in the seventeenth century, was conducted together with Elad Wexler (Kribus and Wexler, forthcoming).

In the course of the above-mentioned research, I increasingly became aware of the phenomenon of church construction in the wake of Solomonic victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel, and of the potential of these churches as sources shedding light on the historical geography of the Betä Ǝsraʾel polity. Three examples will be presented here, as well as additional churches which may have been linked with this phenomenon. Prior to that, in order to address this topic in context, we will briefly review the phenomenon of the construction of ecclesiastical foundations as an element linked with Solomonic expansion.

1.2. Church Construction in the Context of Solomonic Expansion

The areas under the control of the Solomonic kingdom from its onset to modern times were ethnically and religiously diverse, and included, in different regions and times, both territories governed directly by this kingdom and tributary territories, in which the regional nobility maintained a degree of autonomy (Deresse Ayenachew 2020). The Christianization of territories and the establishment of monasteries and churches within them played an important role in the consolidation of Solomonic rule. As demonstrated by Marie-Laure Derat (2003), the stark topography of the Ethiopian Highlands posed a challenge to centralized rule. One of the means of overcoming this challenge was supporting the development of a network of ecclesiastical institutions encompassing the territories under the king’s domain.

Pre-modern Solomonic Ethiopia was largely a rural society. In the absence of a significant number of urban centers, monasteries, in some cases, served as administrative centers of the rural population and could provide those in need with a degree of economic support. Ecclesiastical institutions were often endowed by Solomonic authorities with significant land grants, which could entail the right to collect taxes from the residents of the given lands, the responsibility of administering justice to them, as well as the right to collect revenues from markets and holy springs. Prior to the establishment of modern educational institutions in Ethiopia, Church schools were the only widespread educational institutions at the disposal of the country’s Christian population. Thus, the roles of ecclesiastical institutions vis-à-vis the general population were not limited to facilitating religious worship—they provided an array of services not necessarily provided directly by the Ethiopian Christian State.14

A key role in the Christianization of territories within the sphere of influence of the Solomonic kingdom was played by the monastic communities established within them. This could be through the initiative of or with the support of the monarchy and high-ranking ecclesiastical authorities (Derat 2003), but could also be independent of such support: as demonstrated by Steven Kaplan (1984, 1992, pp. 53–78), some monastic movements served as strongholds of regional traditions, in opposition to the centralizing policies of the Solomonic monarchy. Some such movements established monastic communities in areas peripheral to the Christian heartland and facilitated the spread of Ethiopian Christianity there. Disputes with central authorities were often temporary, and the resultant Christianization of these regions ultimately aided the consolidation of Solomonic rule within them.

Some ecclesiastical institutions enjoying royal patronage became the burial places of members of the Solomonic dynasty, and as a result assumed a commemorative role and greater affiliation with the dynasty. A commemorative role linked with specific Solomonic victories was, in some cases, established by depositing objects taken from vanquished enemies in a given church or monastery (Derat 2003). Significantly, this was practiced in the context of a military victory over the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel: in an account in a Tarikä Nägäśt compilation (see below) of the campaigns of the Solomonic monarch Śärṣä Dǝngǝl (r. 1563–1597) against the latter, it is related that this monarch “imprisoned Rädʾet [Rädaʾi, the leader of the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel] and exiled him to the Land of Wäǧ15 and he brought his horns and crowns to the Island of Daga.”16 The island of Daga on Lake Ṭana is the site of the monastery of Daga Ǝsṭifanos (Stephen), a monastery which occasionally enjoyed royal patronage and served as a burial place for members of the Solomonic dynasty (Bosc-Tiessé 2005).

It was customary for clergymen to accompany the Solomonic army and cater for the religious needs of the troops, as well as to establish churches in places where troops were stationed (Taddesse Tamrat 1972, p. 180). The need and the means to set up temporary churches in the context of campaigns was a matter of course. These means could also be utilized for the sake of commemorating a victory, as will be demonstrated below.

2. The Churches Constructed Following the Campaign of the Solomonic Monarch Yəsḥaq

The campaign of the Solomonic Monarch Yəsḥaq (r. 1414–1429/30) against the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel is one of the most significant turning points in the latter’s history: as a result of this campaign, the Betä Ǝsraʾel lost political control over the fertile plains of Wägära and Dämbəya, and in subsequent years, their autonomy was limited to the harsh, mountainous regions of Sǝmen and Ṣällämt. This campaign is described in two compilations of a literary genre which provides brief overviews of the reigns of several Ethiopian kings, known under the collective name Tarikä Nägäśt (History of Kings).17 It also features prominently in Betä Ǝsraʾel oral tradition and in the oral tradition of the residents of the region in which the campaign was held (Kaplan 1992, pp. 56–58; Quirin 1992, pp. 52–57; Kribus 2022). In a previous publication, I have examined this campaign and different sites associated with it, and have briefly mentioned the phenomenon of church construction in its aftermath and, specifically, the church of Yəsḥaq Däbr (Kribus 2023). Here, a detailed examination of this phenomenon and church will be provided.

The first, more detailed description of Aṣe18 Yəsḥaq’s campaign against the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel in a Tarikä Nägäśt compilation appears in a yet-unpublished paper manuscript, originally from Däbrä Ṣǝge Maryam monastery in the region of Šäwa. A digital version (EMML 7334) is available at the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library.19 The account relates that following Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s victory, he distributed land to his soldiers, and granted fiefs in the region of Wägära to various supporters, including a member of the Betä Ǝsraʾel ruling family who had supported him. Aṣe Yəsḥaq then decreed the following: “He who is baptized in the Christian baptism will inherit the land of his forefathers. Otherwise, he will be stripped of the land of his forefathers and be a fälase.” This decree, in the text, is followed by the statement: “And afterwards the Betä Ǝsraʾel were known as Fälašočč”.20 Finally, the account states the following: “And the king built many churches in the land of Dänbəya and Wägära.”21

The motif of church construction also appears in the second known Tarikä Nägäśt account of this campaign, contained in manuscript BnF, Éth. 142 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, which was published by René Basset.22 There, following a brief mention of the campaign, the following is written: “in his [Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s] days many churches were built in the land of Dämbəya and Wägära. In Kosoge there is the one called Yəsḥaq Däbr.”23 It is to this church, the most renowned of all churches built to commemorate Solomonic military victory over the Betä Ǝsraʾel, that we now turn.

2.1. The Church of Yəsḥaq Däbr

In my prior examination of Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s campaign (Kribus 2023), I argued, based on an analysis of the geography and road network of the region, as well as toponyms mentioned in relevant sources, that the church of Yəsḥaq Däbr was built on or near the battlefield of the decisive battle in which Aṣe Yəsḥaq defeated the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel. This hypothesis is supported by two sources which were committed to writing significantly later than the events they describe.

The first source is the account written by James Bruce, the famous Scottish traveler who travelled to Ethiopia in the years 1769–1771 and wrote extensively about the country’s history. When describing Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s campaign, Bruce (1790, vol.2, pp. 65–66) writes the following: “The king, coming upon the army of the Falasha in Woggora [Wägära], entirely defeated them at Kossogué, and, in memory thereof, built a church on the place, and called it Debra Isaac, which remains there to this day”.

This account closely follows the second Tarikä Nägäśt narration described above, but elaborates further on two points. The defeat of the Betä Ǝsraʾel was at Kosoge, and the church was built “in memory thereof” and “on the place”, presumably on the place where the defeat occurred. Bruce’s historiographic accounts are based in part on texts which he was able to consult in Ethiopia, including royal chronicles, and incorporate further details, some of which seem to be based on oral traditions he encountered. In the case at hand, it seems that these elaborations could be based on such oral traditions, or on his interpretation of the events as described in the Tarikä Nägäśt version known to us, or on a version of the written account currently not known, and which incorporates further details. Since oral traditions identifying the church of Yəsḥaq Däbr with the battle in question are still prevalent, as will be discussed below, I would argue that the first option is not unlikely.

A second source is the memoirs of Abba Yəsḥaq Iyasu, the high priest of the Betä Ǝsraʾel in the region of Təgray during the twentieth century. When providing a brief overview of Betä Ǝsraʾel history, Abba Yəsḥaq writes the following: “The emperor Yəsḥaq took control of the places where King Gideon24 had ruled, and from there began to spread Christianity, up to the place which is called Yəsḥaq Däbr” (Waldman 2018, p. 289). This account does not mention a church at Yəsḥaq Däbr, but does relate that the place played a role in spreading Christianity following the victory over the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel. It is more than likely that this account is indicative of Betä Ǝsraʾel oral tradition, and that the dedication of the church of Yəsḥaq Däbr to Solomonic victory over the Betä Ǝsraʾel was known to this community in modern times.

The commemorative role of the church may be alluded to by its name. Däbr, literally “mountain” in Geʿez,25 is a term which is often part of the name of Ethiopian Orthodox monastic churches. The allusion to a mountain does reflect the topographic reality of several monastic churches, but its usage is mainly symbolic as a reference to the sanctity of the site. Several churches designated as “Däbr” (Yəsḥaq Däbr being one of them) are not located on mountaintops (Kaplan 2005). “Yəsḥaq Däbr” literally means “Mountain of Yəsḥaq”, or “Monastic Church of Yəsḥaq”. Though the sources at hand relate that Aṣe Yəsḥaq founded several churches in the region, and though several churches in the region are indeed attributed to him, to the best of my knowledge, this is the only church which was chosen to be named after him. Thus, it must have been considered of special significance. Such significance would accord with it being the main church constructed to commemorate his victory, in which direct control of the surrounding regions was achieved. The full name of the church is Yəsḥaq Däbr Giyorgis, in reference to the saint to which it was dedicated, St. George. The significance of this dedication will be discussed below.

I briefly visited the church compound in January 2023. The interior of the church itself was, unfortunately, not accessible at the time. Following the visit, I examined the compound on Google Earth to ascertain its dimensions. I was accompanied on my visit by officials of the regional Culture and Tourism Bureau, who kindly provided information on the church.26

The church of Yəsḥaq Däbr (Figure 2) is located at the southern end of the Wägära Plateau, on a spur descending southwards to the upper tributaries of the Bir Mäsk stream.27 It is located 2.5 km south of the Gondär–Däbarq road, 4 km south-west of the center of the town of Amba Giyorgis, and 4.5 km east–south-east of the center of the village of Kosoge (Kosoye).28 A dirt road leads from the western end of Amba Giyorgis south-west towards the church, and continues to the south–south-west towards a locality labeled “Bambelo” on Google Earth (the name of the locality does not appear in other maps of the area examined).29 Just east of this locality is the ridge which, according to the Ambo Ber topographic map of the Ethiopian Mapping Authority (1998), is the Banbilo Ridge. It is more than likely that this is a rendering of the name Bambəlo, which is mentioned in the detailed Tarikä Nägäśt narration as the road which Aṣe Yəsḥaq travelled through to reach and engage with the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel in Wägära (Kribus 2023). It may be, therefore, that this dirt road was built along the historical route in question, since modern roads often make use of pre-existing routes, themselves shaped by topographical considerations still relevant in modern times. If so, Yəsḥaq Däbr would be located at the point where the “Bambəlo Road” reaches the heights of the Wägära Plateau, in which the battle was waged.

The church compound is located within a grove, which roughly forms two concentric rings, the exterior extending circa 160 m north–south and 170 m east–west, and the interior contained within the church compound and surrounding the church. The area extending from the eastern end of the compound to the eastern and south-eastern part of the exterior ring of trees is also forested.

The church compound is surrounded by a stone wall, enclosing an ovoid area extending circa 50 m north–south and 70 m east–west. South and west of the compound, contained within the exterior ring of trees, are structures which are most likely dwellings. At the western end of the compound is a gatehouse, measuring 7 m north–south and 7.5 m east–west (Figure 3). South of the gatehouse is a gap in the wall which enables access to the compound. The church, measuring 24 m east–west and north–south, is located at the center of the compound (Figure 4). A tower, measuring 5.5 m north–south and 6 m east–west, is located south-east of the gatehouse and south-west of the church (Figure 5). East of the church is an additional structure, the purpose of which is unknown to us.

The church is of the concentric circular type, which is the main church type utilized in the north-western Ethiopian Highlands.30 The emergence of this church type is dated, based on its earliest known mentions in textual accounts, to the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century. This, together with the modern appearance of the present-day church structure, indicates that this structure post-dates Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s reign. And indeed, the officials of the Culture and Tourism Bureau accompanying us related that Aṣe Yəsḥaq had placed a metal cross on the site, later constructing a church there, following his victory over Gedewon (see fn 24),31 and that the church compound had been renovated three times. It seems, as is the case with other churches in the Ethiopian Highlands,32 that renovations post-dating the church’s foundation entailed reconstructing the church structure or its exterior.

The officials of the Culture and Tourism Bureau related that the tower within the church compound had been built by the Solomonic monarch Yosṭos (r. 1711–1716)33 in a manner similar to that of the castles at Gondär, and that originally, the tower was intended to be roofed by an egg-shaped dome (similar to the towers of the castle complex at Gondär). They added that the person in charge of the construction passed away before the dome could be built, and after a time in which the tower was open to the sky, a standard roof was constructed by the local community.34 The tower indeed incorporates elements typical of the Gondär architectural style, characteristic of compounds and structures constructed by the Solomonic monarchy from circa the late sixteenth century up to the eighteenth/nineteenth century (including the castles of Gondär).35 These elements include uncoursed walls constructed of basalt stones and lime mortar, an arched doorway, an external staircase, and a string course between the two stories (compare Figure 5 with Figure 6).36 The church of Narga Śǝllase (founded 1737–8, construction continued until 1750), for example, also incorporates square Gondär-style towers in its compound, roofed with an egg-shaped dome (Bosc-Tiessé 2007; di Salvo 1999, pp. 100–10).

2.2. The Church of Ambaw Lay Giyorgis

The officials of the Culture and Tourism Bureau related that Yəsḥaq Däbr was the first place in the area that Aṣe Yəsḥaq reached and the first church he constructed there, but that he had constructed additional churches in the area, the second one being the church of Ambaw Lay Giyorgis (literally “[the Church of] St. George on the Mountaintop”),37 which the town of Amba Giyorgis is named after.38 We viewed the hill on which the church is built from a vantage point along a dirt road leading eastwards from Amba Giyorgis (Figure 7), but the time at hand did not enable a visit to the church. An examination of the church on Google Earth reveals that it is located on the summit of the hill, and is of the concentric circular type, measuring 21 m north–south and east–west. Similar to Yəsḥaq Däbr, it is surrounded by a grove comprising an exterior ring of trees, measuring 210 m north–south and 205 m east–west, and an interior ring surrounds the church, measuring 100 m north–south and 105 m east–west. Structures are built to the north and to the south-east of the church. It is likely that the church is surrounded by an elliptical enclosure wall (judging from the shape of the interior ring of the grove and the alignment of the structures north of the church), but this cannot be ascertained on Google Earth. It would seem that in this case as well, if indeed the church was initially constructed by Aṣe Yəsḥaq, the current church structure was probably constructed at a later time.

2.3. Additional Churches Attributed to Aṣe Yəsḥaq

The people from the Culture and Tourism Bureau mentioned an additional church traditionally founded by Aṣe Yəsḥaq in the region, in a locality by the name of Bəra, which I have not yet been able to locate. Local oral tradition recognizes other churches in the region as being founded by Aṣe Yəsḥaq, many of them dedicated to Qəddus Giyorgis (St. George). One example is the church of Ab^wara Giyorgis in Gondär.39 Assuming that this tradition is indeed indicative of Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s time, it is unknown why such a dedication to Qəddus Giyorgis would be chosen as the standard dedication. It does stand to reason that this saint’s role as a warrior saint would have been appealing and may have been seen as fitting for the context of churches constructed following a successful military campaign.40

3. Churches Erected on Conquered Betä Ǝsraʾel Strongholds During the Campaigns of the Solomonic Monarch Śärṣä Dǝngǝl

A second, fascinating example of churches constructed to commemorate Solomonic victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel is related in the royal chronicle of the Solomonic monarch Śärṣä Dǝngǝl (r. 1563–1597), a text written during the reign of this king and which incorporates eyewitness accounts (Solomon Gebreyes Beyene 2019, 2023). This monarch waged either two or three campaigns against the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel in the Sǝmen Mountains.41 During the first campaign, waged in 1579, his main opponent was Rädaʾi, the leader of the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel. When the Solomonic army reached Rädaʾi’s main stronghold, following an initial military confrontation, Rädaʾi surrendered, and Solomonic forces took control of it (Conti Rossini 1907, pp. 91–95). The Solomonic army then erected a church tent on the stronghold:

On that Friday, Abba Nǝway [one of the Solomonic commanders who was also a clergyman] ascended the amba carrying a däbäna [royal tent] with the tabot42 of Our Lord Jesus and with the holy items with which the mass is celebrated. And he brought with him for this church singers of religious chants [mäzämran] and priests, for they are always ready to hold a sacrifice, like the children of Aaron. And the reason of this ascent to hold mass on this amba is so that they would sanctify this place, which the pigs had defiled and where wild animals grazed, with the mass. And on Sunday, the king, together with many soldiers, climbed that mountain and came to that church, and attended the mass, praising God in this place, where the name of Our Lady Mary was not called, now serving as a place of sacrifice of the flesh and blood of the Son of God who was made man by the Holy Spirit and from Mary, from the Holy Virgin. A second reason for holding mass on this amba: It is said, to sustain the memory [täzkar] of this thing and so that the account will remain from generation to generation. Fathers will tell their children. The children that will be born and grow will tell their children so that they will place their trust in God. And so they do not forget the deeds of God and his miracles which took place in this amba.

On this day, ʿAsbe [one of the clergymen accompanying the Solomonic army] sangʿeṭanä mogär43 to commemorate the victory of this Christian king and the defeat of this accursed Jew. For such is the custom of the priests of Ethiopia, to sing in the churches hymns which recall the exploits of the king of the time.44

This fascinating description explicitly describes the purpose of the church erected. The language used is polemical—though the site was the main stronghold of the leader of the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel, and hence, hardly a desolate place, the mass was held “so that they would sanctify this place, which the pigs had defiled and where wild animals grazed”. The mass is explicitly presented as a victory of Christianity: “praising God in this place, where the name of Our Lady Mary was not called, now serving as a place of sacrifice of the flesh and blood of the Son of God”. And finally, though the church was, at the time, a church tent (likely erected as such so that mass could be held within a short time), the description implies that the site would serve to commemorate victory for years to come: “to sustain the memory of this thing and so that the account will remain from generation to generation […] And so they do not forget the deeds of God and his miracles which took place in this amba.”

A second example of the erection of a church tent on a conquered Betä Ǝsraʾel stronghold is mentioned in the chronicle, in the context of Śärṣä Dǝngǝl’s campaign against the Betä Ǝsraʾel leader G^wäšǝn in 1587. After conquering the Betä Ǝsraʾel stronghold of Wärq Amba, and after G^wäšǝn and many of his men had flung themselves off a cliff rather than be taken captive (Conti Rossini 1907, pp. 102–10), a church tent was erected on the amba and mass was held there:

The king decided that an offering of thanksgiving would be given to the Lord. He called the head [priests] and the cantors and commanded them to go to that amba and offer there a pure sacrifice—eloquent incense and a spiritual offering in thanksgiving to the Lord, who brought victory in that amba, the height of which is likened to reaching the sky. […] The priests who were commanded to do so climbed up the amba, pitched the däbäna [royal tent] and drew curtains as is befitting the rite of the offering. And when they had finished mass, they received the Sacred Mysteries. And afterwards the priests sang hymns of thanks, recalling the victory of the king.45

In this case, there is no explicit mention of long-term commemoration of the victory at the site. As stated above, it is not clear whether a more permanent church structure was erected on either stronghold. Nevertheless, the mention of churches erected on two Betä Ǝsraʾel strongholds following their conquest is noteworthy and seems to indicate that this method—the erection of a church on a vanquished Betä Ǝsraʾel stronghold as a symbol of victory over the Betä Ǝsraʾel—was an integral part of Śärṣä Dǝngǝl’s strategy.

4. Conclusions

As demonstrated in this study, the erection of churches, both to commemorate and exemplify Solomonic victories against the Betä Ǝsraʾel and to facilitate the Christianization of regions and localities conquered from them, was an integral part of Solomonic policy in the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic wars, at least during the reigns of the Solomonic monarchs Yəsḥaq and Śärṣä Dǝngǝl. While the construction of churches by a Christian polity in the wake of victory over non-Christians is by no means unusual, the fact that these specific churches were constructed to commemorate Christian military victory over Jews makes them unique and endows them with an added layer of symbolism. At least in the case of Yəsḥaq Däbr, the symbolic role of the church has persisted to the present day, and is reflected in the present-day oral traditions of both the Ethiopian Orthodox residents of the region and of the Betä Ǝsraʾel.

That the conflict between the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel and the Christian Solomonic kingdom included religious overtones, with each group attempting to demonstrate its being the heir of biblical Israel, is indicated in Śärṣä Dǝngǝl’s chronicle: Rädaʾi, the Betä Ǝsraʾel leader, reportedly named different mountains in his domain after mountains mentioned in the Bible, an action which the chronicler rebukes as the audacity to compare his land with that of biblical Israel (Conti Rossini 1907, p. 99). Śärṣä Dǝngǝl, in turn, after having conquered Rädaʾi’s stronghold and while still in the Səmen Mountains, appointed himself as head ecclesiastic of the church of Maryam Ṣǝyon in Aksum, which symbolizes, in the eyes of Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, Christian Ethiopia’s theological status as the heir of biblical Israel.46 Thus, the battle was waged, so to speak, not only in the physical realm, but also in the religious–ideological one. In this context, the symbolic value of erecting churches on sites of Betä Ǝsraʾel strongholds is clear.

The churches commemorating Solomonic victories over the Betä Ǝsraʾel have never been examined in situ in scholarship (with the exception of my brief visit to Yəsḥaq Däbr). Such an examination would shed valuable light on numerous aspects relating to Betä Ǝsraʾel political autonomy and the Betä Ǝsraʾel–Solomonic wars: it is more than likely that elements in the architecture and art of these churches would be in dialogue with the events that they commemorate, and this is certainly the case with regards to the oral traditions associated with them.

A first, vital step would be to securely date both the initial foundation of the churches and the present-day structures in their compounds, based on architectural remains and textual and artistic evidence. With regards to the church structures of Yəsḥaq Däbr and Ambaw Lay Giyorgis, it seems more than likely that these significantly post-date Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s time, but this does not necessarily hold true for all art and artifacts within the church compounds. And even if no physical remains of the original church compound survive, an examination of such churches and their associated oral traditions would nevertheless shed significant light on Christian engagement with the concept of victory over the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel in later times.

Accurately pinpointing churches which were established in the wake of Solomonic victories against the Betä Ǝsraʾel would contribute to our understanding of the geography of Betä Ǝsraʾel political autonomy: locating Aṣe Yəsḥaq’s establishments in Wägära and Dämbəya would serve as a likely indication of the geographical scope of the territories conquered from the autonomous Betä Ǝsraʾel (within which it stands to reason that many of these churches would be built).47 The precise locations of Rädaʾi and G^wäšǝn’s strongholds are currently not known.48 It may be, if permanent church structures were indeed constructed on them and if such churches indeed persisted over time, that it would be possible to identify the strongholds by locating these churches. And it may also be (though this remains to be determined) that churches were constructed over additional Betä Ǝsraʾel strongholds and could contribute to the identification of such strongholds.

Sites, and especially religious sites, can serve as anchors of memory and expressions of interreligious interaction, that in some cases persist (albeit not unchanged) for extensive periods of time. In the north-western Ethiopian Highlands, numerous such sites remain unexplored and undocumented. It is my hope that future exploration will further illuminate the fascinating history of this region, of the religious groups residing in it, and of the interactions between them.