Adal Sultanate's ethnicity?

[Zak12]

I've been trying to find sources about Adal's ethnic makeup of its population and its elites but I haven't found anything concrete.

Adal Sultanate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to wikipedia, Adal seems to be of Harari origin with a mainly Harari, Harla, Somali, and Afari population but there doesn't seem to be a scholarly concensus. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

 

[Burqad]

I've been trying to find sources about Adal's ethnic makeup of its population and its elites but I haven't found anything concrete.

Adal Sultanate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to wikipedia, Adal seems to be of Harari origin with a mainly Harari, Harla, Somali, and Afari population but there doesn't seem to be a scholarly concensus. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

It’s Somali. Both harla (settled) and Somaali (nomadic) Somalis.

 

[Emir of Zayla]

Hararis did not exist back then and Afars are barbarians. I’m pretty sure there are old threads about them that you can go check out

 

[Khaem]

Harari are a mixed peoples that were very new or didn't exist. at all at the time. It's impossible for afars to rule adal. They were confined to their small desert with a tiny population and had no way of conquering even 1/4 of what Adal did.

A big Chunk of the Land was Somali and every level of the empire there was Somali. Adal was multi ethnic islamic empire but at the end of the day it was an empire of the Somali.

 

[Three Moons]

Harla language is a Somali dialect like Af-Yibir, Af-Maay, Af-Maxa Tiri, etc. The ruling elite and the military consisted of Somalid groups that would be considered a subset of the Somali people today. The Ifatites and the Adalites, however, were working with a higher ideology than modern nationalism hence things like nationality or ethnicity is pretty pointless in a pre-early modern setting, though like the Seljuks can be comfortably identified as being a medieval Turkic group, the Adalites were similarly and clearly a medieval Somalid group, and just like the Seljuks had Persians, Arabs and other groups part of their empire in high offices, so did the Adalites with different Horn groups.

Wether it’s through language, old manuscripts, medieval ruins, traditional landmass, cultural attributes, historical figures, there is consistently one group that is featured most prominently and is considered most paramount. Websites like Wikipedia are filled with propaganda merchants, who suffer from a syndrome that @The alchemist diagnosed quite well in a post highlighted in this thread.

Besides, even if they were Han Chinese, they are still part of our ethnogenesis and heritage through Zeila, Berbera, Aw Barkhadle, Amud, Bulhar, Abasa, Maduna, the Nugaal Valley ruins, Wadaad’s Writing, the many historic saints and scholars etc, etc. The recent propaganda drive to remove the Somali element from Adal and other historic polities is an exercise in futility. It would be like cutting off the head, body and legs to save one arm.

 

[Hamzza]

Soomaali

 

[Adeersyber]

Harari only existed after adal destruction

 

[Three Moons]

It’s interesting that the entire Harla-Harari connection rests on the conjecture of Ulrich Braukämper, who from my understanding didn’t even speak a single Cushitic or Semitic Horn language.

More importantly, his bias against the Somali people is quite evident from the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the many ruins in Eastern Ethiopia, to the Somali people, despite it being traditional Somali territory (with no sign of a predecessor group) because to him ALL Somalis were pastoralists (therefore did not build with stone) and were only known by the name Somali, which is ironic coming from a German ethnologist, whose own people throughout history were more commonly referred to as Goths, Franks, Holy Romans, Hansa, Prussians, etc rather than Germans.

He denies that historic multifaceted identity when it comes to the Somali people, just to establish a weak link with another group, while ignoring the concrete linguistic, territorial and genealogical link the Harla had with other Somali groups.

It makes sense though, acknowledging the Harla as a subgroup of the Somali people but with a different lifestyle occupation would in one sweep answer the original question of this thread. And since the Somali people are a major fast growing group in the Horn, and Africa in general, with a clear pattern and ambition of dominance, there is a huge incentive to deny them their history from upon which they can draw more inspiration.

This is why Ethiopian scholars prefer attribution to tiny ethnicities like the Harari or the Argobba that do not pose an existential threat.

 

[Khaem]

It’s interesting that the entire Harla-Harari connection rests on the conjecture of Ulrich Braukämper, who from my understanding didn’t even speak a single Cushitic or Semitic Horn language.

More importantly, his bias against the Somali people is quite evident from the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the many ruins in Eastern Ethiopia, to the Somali people, despite it being traditional Somali territory (with no sign of a predecessor group) because to him ALL Somalis were pastoralists (therefore did not build with stone) and were only known by the name Somali, which is ironic coming from a German ethnologist, whose own people throughout history were more commonly referred to as Goths, Franks, Holy Romans, Hansa, Prussians, etc rather than Germans.

He denies that historic multifaceted identity when it comes to the Somali people, just to establish a weak link with another group, while ignoring the concrete linguistic, territorial and genealogical link the Harla had with other Somali groups.

It makes sense though, acknowledging the Harla as a subgroup of the Somali people but with a different lifestyle occupation would in one sweep answer the original question of this thread. And since the Somali people are a major fast growing group in the Horn, and Africa in general, with a clear pattern and ambition of dominance, there is a huge incentive to deny them their history from upon which they can draw more inspiration.

This is why Ethiopian scholars prefer attribution to tiny ethnicities like the Harari or the Argobba that do not pose an existential threat.

Exactly, anything Somali you see these niggas pinning it on some small irrelevant group of people. Even Kenyans online write about how Somalis are inherently want dominance ect. ect.

Having modern Somalis draw parallels between the past and today and draw inspiration from their legacy to continue their ambitions of unification and expanding into the horn is dangerous to these shisheeye. The sad thing is we can easily counter this with having just one Somali educational institute that handles and compiles the histories of our tribe but we haven't. There are many Somali historians and scholars out there, we need a place where they can dedicate their skills towards the national benefit of the Somali people.

 

[Garaad Awal]

Harla & Somali made up the vast majority.The Walashma dynasty were Somali and their ancestor is buried in Aw-Barkhadle between Hargeisa & Berbera.

 

[Garaad Awal]

It’s interesting that the entire Harla-Harari connection rests on the conjecture of Ulrich Braukämper, who from my understanding didn’t even speak a single Cushitic or Semitic Horn language.

More importantly, his bias against the Somali people is quite evident from the fact that he refuses to acknowledge the many ruins in Eastern Ethiopia, to the Somali people, despite it being traditional Somali territory (with no sign of a predecessor group) because to him ALL Somalis were pastoralists (therefore did not build with stone) and were only known by the name Somali, which is ironic coming from a German ethnologist, whose own people throughout history were more commonly referred to as Goths, Franks, Holy Romans, Hansa, Prussians, etc rather than Germans.

He denies that historic multifaceted identity when it comes to the Somali people, just to establish a weak link with another group, while ignoring the concrete linguistic, territorial and genealogical link the Harla had with other Somali groups.

It makes sense though, acknowledging the Harla as a subgroup of the Somali people but with a different lifestyle occupation would in one sweep answer the original question of this thread. And since the Somali people are a major fast growing group in the Horn, and Africa in general, with a clear pattern and ambition of dominance, there is a huge incentive to deny them their history from upon which they can draw more inspiration.

This is why Ethiopian scholars prefer attribution to tiny ethnicities like the Harari or the Argobba that do not pose an existential threat.

Hararis are recent medieval migrants fleeing the Oromo onslaught of the 16th Century.This is why they have a Sidamic substratum, a region that the Oromo devasted and conquered like Bali.

 

[Daadhi Tarree]

Hararis are recent medieval migrants fleeing the Oromo onslaught of the 16th Century.This is why they have a Sidamic substratum, a region that the Oromo devasted and conquered like Bali.

Harari aren’t recent bro they’ve always been there

 

[Step a side]

You can be Somali and Harari. It’s like saying “New Yorker”. Harari just like New Yorker was referred to the people of Harar town and not necessarily an ethnicity. It changed until recently after Menelik evicted the the Somalis from Harar. This is Burton from the 19th century

 

[Garaad Awal]

Harari aren’t recent bro they’ve always been there

Source: Trust me bro!

The Sidamic substratum in their language is enough proof to show they are foreign to the region unless you believe Highland Cushitic Sidamic speakers once lived around the Harar region (no proof).

Somalis lived next to a South Ethio-Semitic population for quite awhile which is why that South Ethio-Semitic also influenced our language.My theory is that this group is the Harla who imo probably would have had a Somaloid substratum.

I don't buy the opinion that Hararis are descendant of Harla nor do I believe certain Somali clannists who believe Harla is a just a subclan that belongs to them. A lot of we wuzzing going around lmao

 

[Three Moons]

Source: Trust me bro!

The Sidamic substratum in their language is enough proof to show they are foreign to the region unless you believe Highland Cushitic Sidamic speakers once lived around the Harar region (no proof).

Somalis lived next to a South Ethio-Semitic population for quite awhile which is why that South Ethio-Semitic also influenced our language. My theory is that this group is the Harla who imo probably would have had a Somaloid substratum.

I don't buy the opinion that Hararis are descendant of Harla nor do I believe certain Somali clannists who believe Harla is a just a subclan that belongs to them. A lot of we wuzzing going around lmao

What evidence do you base the bolded part on? I would like to see it.