Why are the buildings defined as south arabian not only do they differ somewhat, absolutely nothing in the peninsula predates anything found in the horn to be used a prototype as a first place. With many pointing out that the similarities existed way before contact.
its an oversimplification. Domestic and palatial structures of Aksum resemble many older structures found at the various archeological sites throughout the northern Horn. I think the south-arabian style is restricted to the temples of D'mt specifically, and even then its unlikely that the entire temple was simply copied from south-arabian prototypes.
I think the use of the word South Arabian is used to suppress any type of autonomy. If indeed these structures were norm in the horn then why do we refrain from stating it was indigenous. My issue is they make several claims of south Arabian roots with no evidence for them whatsoever. It seems a convenient buzzword to skew history.
Why are the buildings defined as south arabian not only do they differ somewhat, absolutely nothing in the peninsula predates anything found in the horn to be used a prototype as a first place. With many pointing out that the similarities existed way before contact.
its an oversimplification. Domestic and palatial structures of Aksum resemble many older structures found at the various archeological sites throughout the northern Horn. I think the south-arabian style is restricted to the temples of D'mt specifically, and even then its unlikely that the entire temple was simply copied from south-arabian prototypes.
I think the use of the word South Arabian is used to suppress any type of autonomy. If indeed these structures were norm in the horn then why do we refrain from stating it was indigenous. My issue is they make several claims of south Arabian roots with no evidence for them whatsoever. It seems a convenient buzzword to skew history.