Capital

Another Obelisk which needs Re-Erection:
The Monolithic Mystery of Aksum

Returning, dear Reader, from the Aksum Obelisk Re-erection celebrations at Aksum, I would now raise the question of a mystery obelisk – which lies on the ground just to the left of the road up to the Yeha Hotel. This remarkable obelisk, as was the one from Rome recently re-erected, is today in urgent need of re-erection.
Considerably smaller than the returned obelisk, the obelisk to which I refer, measures a little less than ten metres high; and is most interestingly decorated with praise-worthy simplicity characteristic of all Aksumite work. This obelisk was first described by the 19th century British traveler Theodore Bent, who describes it in his classic book “The Sacred City of the Ethiopians” In it he notes that the obelisk had fallen face downward – so that only the back could be seen, and regretted that he lacked the technical means to turn the stone face upward, as he otherwise would have done.
The front of this obelisk, i.e. the part lying on the ground – and partly over another obelisk -, is decorated with a convoluted – and most unusual - representation of a lotus-like column, in low relief, with a capital formed of two leaves rising from the top of the column, and ending in two flower-like circular devices. No such decoration is to be found on any other Aksumite obelisk.
The obelisk is also decorated with the unique representation of a mysterious object which defies comprehension. This representation, cut out of elevated stone, was clearly of major importance to the people of ancient Aksum, for it was placed in a position of honour at the very top of the obelisk – and, very significantly, also appears in an identical position at the back of the stone. No such device has been found anywhere in Aksum – and its identity is in fact thus far unknown to Aksumite studies.
The mysterious device, which occupies almost the entire width of the obelisk, consists in essence of two features: (1) an upright rectangular oblong – perhaps intended to represent a chest, cupboard, or door, and (2) above it a triangle also pointing upright, possibly to signify an arch.
The width of the rectangle, on the front of the obelisk, is about two-thirds of its height, whereas its height and width on the back are nearly equal in size. The rectangle in both cases is enclosed in a larger rectangle, the upper bar of which – with admirably simplicity - forms the lower frame of the triangle.
Just as the larger and more famous Aksum obelisks Aksum are intended to represent multi-storied houses – or “sky-scrapers”, with wooden doors and windows (like those depicted on not a few Lalibela churches), so the decoration on mystery obelisk is clearly designed to represent a wooden structure. This is evident from the projecting “monkey-heads’ or the beam-heads depicted on both the triangle and the rectangle. (See Littmann, “Deutsche Aksum- Expedition”, II, 30-2; Pankhurst “Cultural History”. Pp. 76-8 & plates X- XI),
***
The basic question about the obelisk, dear Reader, is what does the above mysterious device represent: Is it a small house (or, as the illustrious German scholar Enno Littmann thought, a “house within a house”), a palace, or a place of worship? Is it a chest, a cupboard, or an Ark? Or what else?
Could it, as some have suggested, represent no less than the Ark of the Covenant, and thus be a kind of early representation of a Tabot, or Holy of Holies?
The answer - if answer there is - should throw light on the history, thinking, and ideology of the ancient Aksumites, and therefore figure importantly in Ethiopian history.
The origin of the lotus-like column likewise needs investigation and reflection. ***
Now that the Aksum obelisk looted by Mussolini has finally been re-erected in Aksum the time has surely come, dear Reader, to consider the future of the other obelisks, - among them the future of the mystery obelisk here discussed.
Should this mysterious obelisk remain lying back-to-front on the ground, or should it, like the “Rome obelisk”, be re-erected?
Supporters of the above first course of action – or in effect inaction - argue that the fallen obelisk has, for one reason or other, lain on the ground for many centuries – and should therefore remain lying there back-to-front for evermore.
Advocates of re-erection reply that the ancient Aksumites did not carve these obelisks, transport them with immense difficulty, and erect them with great ingenuity – merely to have them lying on the ground, in some cases one fallen above another, or even broken into pieces. The Aksumites, like the Egyptians and other peoples, they say, built their statues - and designed them – so that they would stand erect, for all to see.
Re-erectionists (if so we may term them) recall that local traditions claim that the obelisks did not fall down on their own – but were knocked down by a legendary Queen, sometimes referred to as Yodit of Esat (literally Fire).
Re-erectionists argue further that that re-erection would demonstrate the cultural importance of ancient Aksum, that it would help to foster a present-day cultural renaissance – and would incidentally be a major tourist attraction.
Just imagine, they say, how impressive it would be to see the ancient city of Aksum, complete with standing obelisks, as the ancient Aksumites conceived it.
***
And what about our “mystery obelisk – the front of which is lying on the ground”? Measuring less than ten metres in height, i.e. less than half the height of the “Rome obelisk” – and not having to be transported from one country to another – it would cost far less than the latter obelisk to re-erect. And isn’t such an antiquity, in any case, priceless?
Would one of our readers consider financing the re-erection of this little gem of an obelisk?

Another Obelisk which needs Re-Erection: The Monolithic Mystery of Aksum

Another Obelisk which needs Re-Erection:
The Monolithic Mystery of Aksum