# Adulis: why did the Red Sea port lose its role? Eklipsis original editorial investigation · English · edition 1 · 2026-09-30 An important trading port survives as archaeological deposits. New excavations complicate the idea that a single event explains its decline and abandonment. Country: Eritrea Date: Publication of the archaeological chronology, not a single destruction date Location: Adulis, near Zula, Eritrea Approximate orientation marker for the named locality, not an exact encounter, burial, ritual or excavation position. ## Assessment Adulis's changing occupation is documented; one exclusive cause and date for its loss of importance are not established by these sources. ## The mystery and the documented account Zazzaro, Cocca and Manzo's 2014 report describes stratified excavations begun in 2011, reconstructing occupation through pottery and architectural change. Its introduction connects Adulis with changing Red Sea trade while explicitly leaving the ultimate causes of abandonment uncertain. A preliminary account of church excavations in 2018–2019 identifies several building phases and later Islamic reuse after the building ceased functioning as a church. That later activity matters: abandonment of one function is not identical to the disappearance of every inhabitant. [S1] [S2] ## The question worth investigating Did trade decline, environmental change and altered building use occur together, or in different phases? What securely dates the final use of each excavated area? ## Evidence, provenance and uncertainty Only investigated deposits support the reported sequence. The 2018–2019 church interpretation is preliminary and available here through its institutional abstract. Religious and commercial transitions do not establish a single conquest or citywide catastrophe. [S1] [S2] ## Inspector’s assessment Adulis's changing occupation is documented; one exclusive cause and date for its loss of importance are not established by these sources. ## Next research and discriminating evidence Compare stratigraphy, pottery dates and reused buildings by excavation area. Treat ancient literary references separately from material evidence. Require matched dates before linking local damage to a region-wide political event. ## Documentary chronology 2011 — The team's stratified excavations begin. [S1] 12 June 2014 — The chronology report is published online. [S1] 2018–2019 — Church excavations document multiple phases and later reuse. [S2] 30 September 2026 — Eklipsis compiles this English documentary investigation from the named sources. No field visit or new eyewitness interview is claimed. ## Evidence ledger Documented in the named record — The 2014 report leaves the ultimate causes of abandonment uncertain. [S1] Not established by the selected evidence — A single securely identified catastrophe explains the end of all activity at Adulis. [S1] [S2] Editorial assessment; stated limits apply — Adulis's changing occupation is documented; one exclusive cause and date for its loss of importance are not established by these sources. ## Hypothesis review Changes in trading networks and political relationships — Historical hypothesis Support: The port participated in wider Red Sea exchanges. Limits: Temporal association alone does not establish the local cause. Discriminating test: Compare securely dated imports and settlement phases with other ports. Uneven decline and reuse across different areas — Archaeologically testable alternative Support: The later church report records changed use rather than a simple terminal phase. Limits: One building cannot represent the entire town. Discriminating test: Compare final-use deposits and later occupation across additional excavated areas. ## Inspector tasks Trace the earliest accessible record For Adulis: why did the Red Sea port lose its role?, record author or storyteller, collection date, language, translation, page and exact scope. Distinguish evidence of a story being told from evidence of its events. Note which full documents remain unavailable. Investigate the central question Compare stratigraphy, pottery dates and reused buildings by excavation area. Treat ancient literary references separately from material evidence. Require matched dates before linking local damage to a region-wide political event. Compare explanations without merging evidence Compare securely dated imports and settlement phases with other ports. Compare final-use deposits and later occupation across additional excavated areas. Preserve contradictions and unsuccessful searches; proposed work remains unperformed. ## Source register [S1] Zazzaro, Cocca and Manzo — Towards a Chronology of Adulis (2014) Primary excavation report, author pre-press copy · English Journal of African Archaeology 12(1), DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10253. Includes explicit uncertainty about ultimate abandonment causes. https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/PLACES/RedSea/Adulis-Zazzaro2014.pdf [S2] Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology — Adulis excavations 2018–2019 Institutional record of primary archaeological paper · English / Italian Preliminary abstract discusses building phases and Islamic reuse after abandonment as a church; full paper not retrieved. https://iris.unitn.it/handle/11572/440343 ## Authorship and access The English synthesis, assessment and working sheets are original Eklipsis editorial work. Source documents retain their named authors and rights. Catalogue entries, mirrors and alternate formats are labelled; they are not counted as independent corroboration. The source register records links, not a claim that every underlying archive has been fully retrieved.