Ethiopian Ark

Don’t get me wrong, I like BoingBoing, and I have been reading them for years. However, the posters tend to be attracted to the farthest forms of woo imaginable, from cryptozoology to aliens. This tends to have them spotlight some rather questionable, or even worthless pieces. Such happened last week, when they linked in this article from Smithsonian Magazine:

The story is told in the Kebra Negast (Glory of the Kings), Ethiopia’s chronicle of its royal line: the Queen of Sheba, one of its first rulers, traveled to Jerusalem to partake of King Solomon’s wisdom; on her way home, she bore Solomon’s son, Menelik. Later Menelik went to visit his father, and on his return journey was accompanied by the firstborn sons of some Israelite nobles—who, unbeknown to Menelik, stole the ark and carried it with them to Ethiopia. When Menelik learned of the theft, he reasoned that since the ark’s frightful powers hadn’t destroyed his retinue, it must be God’s will that it remain with him.

For those who do not know, the Ethiopian Church has a tradition, dating to the fifth century CE, that in the 10th century BCE, that a group of Ethiopian Yahwists took the Ark of the Covenant. It certainly does the Smithosonian no credit in spotlighting this myth as a possibility, or siting the renowned fraud Graham Hancock, whose book on the subject reads more like a Dan Brown novel than a work of any historic value.

In the end of the article, the author takes the common way out of finding no evidence for a religious claim and not wanting to offend the believers:

In the final moments of my search, I could not judge whether the ark of the covenant truly rested inside this nondescript chapel.

These responses are meaningless, and only serve to prove that there is no evidence, and subsequently no reason to believe.

After reading the article, I left a post, stating that the Ark in Aksum story had been disproved many times over, and received the subsequent email:

Hey Tadd;

Even if it were true that Ethiopia has never been known as Sheba, one cannot conclude that Queen Saba was not queen of Ethiopia. Saba is her name, not her dominion. Additionally, the fact that there are numerous ‘replica‘ Tabots all over Ethiopia does not prove or disprove the presence of the Ark in Axum. So I do not know what to make of your comment.

Just thought you should know.

which seems a believers attempt to hold onto an unfounded myth. Unfortunately, the sender seeks to ignore many issues that strongly point against the Ark being in Aksum.

• The biblical text, which is millenia earlier than the Kebra Negast does use the name “Queen of Sheba”
• The Kebra Negast is a very late work, dating to the 14th century CE
• There is no archaeological evidence for a kingdom of power in Ethiopia before the 8th century BCE, centuries after King Solomon’s reign
• The Ark, made of wood, is unlikely to have preserved in the Ethiopian climate
• The Biblical text does refer to the Ark after the united monarchy, when Josiah returns it to the temple
• There is no evidence of a Yahwist presence in Ethiopia until probably the 8th century BCE, which largely illustrates issues concerning the presence of the Ark this early
• Christianity only becomes archaeologically evident in about the 4th century BCE
• The present of replica arks in Ethiopia is clear ethnoarchaeological evidence, illustrating a historical practice. It is extremely important in understanding the possible nature of the tabot claimed to be the original Ark of the Covenant

In the end, this is an example of a true believer cherry picking, ignoring evidence clearly contrary to his or her belief. Additionally, favoring one religious text over another, or over the archaeological record shows a misunderstanding of how people know about the past. In the end, the sender ignores the fact that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and subsequently fails to offer any proof, other than attempting to whitewash the opposition.

In Ethiopia, such arguments were used to help prove the Ark, and subsequently bolster a ruling class of elites for centuries. Now, what should be a respectable American publication is repeating this argument and failing to draw the only possible conclusion found in the record.