The alchemist
VIP
The problem with Ethiopian historical work is that it robs us of our existence. What it does is, assume the current national borders as the landscape in which disparate regions existed in, superimposing archeology to reinforce Ethiopia's ownership and nationalism:
“These reflect the existence of more fluid, heterogeneous entities—rather than rigorously bounded ones based on a “hard-edged” religious or cultural identity—that “overlap and mingle” (Hannerz Reference Hannerz1990: 239). Thus, to adapt the words of Abbink (Reference Abbink2008: 119), medieval Ethiopia is “best studied and understood as one whole”, rather than as disparate elements.”
Here too, the language of cosmopolitanism is used, again, in the Islamic region, to muddle coherency and consequently undermine Somalis in their own history, giving it as a credit for “Ethiopian” sub-regional macro participatory arrangements instead of acknowledging it as entirely a distinct product of Somalis:
“Acknowledging this, and the existence of cosmopolitanism within these societies, however, is not to negate the existence of relations of dominance of one group over another, or of struggle between groups, or periods of isolation. Muslim relations with Orthodox Christian Ethiopian society, for example, were punctuated by periods of conflict during the medieval period. Two were of particular significance: the wars between Emperor Amda Siyon and the Sultanates of eastern Ethiopia in the first half of the fourteenth century (Tamrat Reference Tamrat1972: 132–36), and the jihad of Aḥmad Gragn in the first half of the sixteenth century (Beckingham & Huntingford Reference Beckingham and Huntingford1954: 105; Huntingford Reference Huntingford1989: 120; Kapteijns Reference Kapteijns, Levtzion and Pouwels2000: 229–30; Abbink Reference Abbink2008: 119). Such events could lead to the decline or disappearance of cosmopolitanism—temporarily or more permanently—associated with the construction of more rigid territorial, ethnic and religious boundaries.”
Notice the use of the term cosmopolitanism, a term used here to blur the boundaries, muddy the waters, in a very indiscriminate fashion, to state a complex interplay of diversity is what caused the Islamic civilization, while they were all in Ethiopia. Notice Ifat Sultanate was designated as eastern Ethiopian. It’s very important to acknowledge that geographic terms are historically implied because they carry significance on temporal and relational contingencies. There was no such thing as eastern Ethiopia at the time in those lands, and Ifat belonged to a territory that was outside the creation of the Medieval Abyssinian existence. Whenever the Christians would invade, they would enter foreign lands their ancestors had no control over, so this was a foreign incursion, of distinct peoples with distinct cultures, language, religion, lifeways, and economy that made it their mission to distinguish themselves further, proven by anthropological research (see my previous texts where I substantiate how the Christian Abisinniyans viewed coffee, khat, urbanism, trade, and camel meat as a trait of Muslims so they banned them).
Notice how Insoll basically says what he means by cosmopolitanism by how the disappearance of such was associated with rigid territorial, ethnic and religious boundaries. Here we see the false construction in claiming the Islamic civilization did not have ethnic, religious, territorial boundaries – claims out of line with the historical reality. Now Islam was more important than ethnic association, but the predominant ethnic association was merely one group that was Muslim.
I first wanted to acknowledge something positive about Insoll's recognition that the historical narrative was bad, as in, the archeological work has (here what I stated the other day about the state of Somali archeology is acknowledged) not corrected the problems, rather reinforcing the issues:
“From a European perspective, this lack of attention is perhaps partly explained by the view that Ethiopia was isolated—the mountainous land of the legendary Christian king Prester John (Nowell Reference Nowell1953: 437; Axelson Reference Axelson1973: 33–34)—and surrounded by antagonistic Muslim sultanates and barbarous ‘pagans’. Although such views are discredited, archaeology has been somewhat tardy in adding material evidence to the often fragmentary and minimal historical sources, and in linking medieval Ethiopia to the rest of Africa and beyond.”
...however, it is merely used to, again, undermine the coherency acknowledgment and civilzational agency of Somalis and their contribution to African and world history, all to propose a hegemonic imperial agenda of the Abbisinyans, today called Ethiopians – a term applied only to the historic Christian groups, descending from the territory of Axum, a people distinct from the the Muslim civilzation that took root from the Somali territories.
Here is him acknowledging the terminology being a much later concept:
“Second, Ethiopia is here defined as the land within the borders of the modern nation (Figure 1). These borders, however, did not take shape until the late nineteenth century (Phillipson Reference Phillipson2009: 3), and archaeology indicates that they are arbitrary and that past interaction extended far beyond, across the Horn of Africa, to the Nile Valley and Mediterranean, Red Sea, Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.”
Notice the language. The use of the term “arbitrary,” engaging in the bizarre claim of pre-nationalization, even going as far as saying, these Medieval boundaries were probably larger, extending Ethiopianism beyond the extant borders, something that was always the ideological push of the Abyssinians, claiming distinct lands. It is clear Insoll is an Ethiopianist, through and through.
It is not a stretch to say this author is some kind of an academic agent of Ethiopian nationalism whether with malicious intent or not. The archaeology has never shown boundaries to be arbitrary. This is an unfounded and quite bizarre claim from a professional. You guys thought I was exaggerating or making an empty case, well I proved the Somali archeology case, and here is another guy who writes history but did the work in the Harlaa/Harar region, explicitly stating lies and fabrications, and using modern terminology to shoehorn Somalis and Islamic history, distinct from the Axum descended boundaries, as arbitrarily from those distinct formations. This undermines Somalis entirely, and gives entirely credit to the Abyssinian claim of Ethiopianism. I have many times shown how the Abyssinians were starkly different from the Muslims – that is what history and archeology show, not what Insoll claims here.
Also, Islamic formations outside the Somali driven civilization existed. Shewa and Tigray regions had Islam tied to inhabitants outside the Somali sphere. Now granted, Shewa got its trade from Somalis and was invaded and dominated by Ifat, a Somali dynasty that likely managed the economic relationships between the coasts and its arrival at Shewa, prior to this expansion. But as stated, I’m not sure there is any evidence Islam came from the Somali coast to Shewa or that it came from a separate migration, and I am unconvinced they were Somalis as they lived northeast of Addis Ababa, a territory I know probably was beyond the sphere of influence by Somalis. Somalis did have deep impacts quite into the peripheral highlands, but it was mainly a lowland product.
To top it all off, Insoll made the false claim that not only did the Islamic civilization mirror the Christian one in engagement and similarities, but also that it adopted some of its cosmopolitanism?
“In the western Ethiopian borderlands, ‘vernacular cosmopolitanism’ (González-Ruibal Reference González-Ruibal2021) was evident, with awareness of other religious systems, material worlds and cultural traditions, but within a framework of marginality, and one that changed over time. In medieval Harlaa, multiple strands contributed to a cosmopolitan urban culture, with Islamic heterogeneity apparent and religious plurality probable. Furthermore, trade and other networks extended far beyond eastern Ethiopia, both directly and indirectly incorporating people, ideas and trade goods (Insoll et al. Reference Insoll2021). In eastern Tigray, excavation of an Islamic cemetery has revealed the deep roots of a Muslim community within the Christian highlands, commencing in the late tenth century and continuing for 300 years, attesting both toleration and co-existence.”
Here again, the term cosmopolitanism is strictly used to muddy the waters for Ethiopian nationalism. The Somali region had broader economic contact and trade networks before Christianity even came to the region. There is another issue I want to state. The evidence points to the quite opposite with the Abbisinyan matter, they were relatively less urban, they were not cosmopolitan in the sense of economic connection, and there was no diversity as implied by the text. Insoll had characterized that totally wrong just to give the Abbysinuans credit for the phenomenon that sprung out of the Somali region.
Note how he cites Rubial, the racist. He clearly wrote about Somali history, but Insoll never mentioned Somali. The Somalis are a threat to these people's worldview, so they rather fabricate and ignore glaring issues that they create. Notice how Insoll mentions "marignality." That term should ring an alarm because it is a euphemism for Somalis. But again, see how they don't even mention Somalis even when it comes to the fabrications. The specific text cited was in the western side of modern Ethiopia, in the borderlands between the Nubians. That is a separate thing entirely from what took place in the Somali region.
“These reflect the existence of more fluid, heterogeneous entities—rather than rigorously bounded ones based on a “hard-edged” religious or cultural identity—that “overlap and mingle” (Hannerz Reference Hannerz1990: 239). Thus, to adapt the words of Abbink (Reference Abbink2008: 119), medieval Ethiopia is “best studied and understood as one whole”, rather than as disparate elements.”
Here too, the language of cosmopolitanism is used, again, in the Islamic region, to muddle coherency and consequently undermine Somalis in their own history, giving it as a credit for “Ethiopian” sub-regional macro participatory arrangements instead of acknowledging it as entirely a distinct product of Somalis:
“Acknowledging this, and the existence of cosmopolitanism within these societies, however, is not to negate the existence of relations of dominance of one group over another, or of struggle between groups, or periods of isolation. Muslim relations with Orthodox Christian Ethiopian society, for example, were punctuated by periods of conflict during the medieval period. Two were of particular significance: the wars between Emperor Amda Siyon and the Sultanates of eastern Ethiopia in the first half of the fourteenth century (Tamrat Reference Tamrat1972: 132–36), and the jihad of Aḥmad Gragn in the first half of the sixteenth century (Beckingham & Huntingford Reference Beckingham and Huntingford1954: 105; Huntingford Reference Huntingford1989: 120; Kapteijns Reference Kapteijns, Levtzion and Pouwels2000: 229–30; Abbink Reference Abbink2008: 119). Such events could lead to the decline or disappearance of cosmopolitanism—temporarily or more permanently—associated with the construction of more rigid territorial, ethnic and religious boundaries.”
Notice the use of the term cosmopolitanism, a term used here to blur the boundaries, muddy the waters, in a very indiscriminate fashion, to state a complex interplay of diversity is what caused the Islamic civilization, while they were all in Ethiopia. Notice Ifat Sultanate was designated as eastern Ethiopian. It’s very important to acknowledge that geographic terms are historically implied because they carry significance on temporal and relational contingencies. There was no such thing as eastern Ethiopia at the time in those lands, and Ifat belonged to a territory that was outside the creation of the Medieval Abyssinian existence. Whenever the Christians would invade, they would enter foreign lands their ancestors had no control over, so this was a foreign incursion, of distinct peoples with distinct cultures, language, religion, lifeways, and economy that made it their mission to distinguish themselves further, proven by anthropological research (see my previous texts where I substantiate how the Christian Abisinniyans viewed coffee, khat, urbanism, trade, and camel meat as a trait of Muslims so they banned them).
Notice how Insoll basically says what he means by cosmopolitanism by how the disappearance of such was associated with rigid territorial, ethnic and religious boundaries. Here we see the false construction in claiming the Islamic civilization did not have ethnic, religious, territorial boundaries – claims out of line with the historical reality. Now Islam was more important than ethnic association, but the predominant ethnic association was merely one group that was Muslim.
I first wanted to acknowledge something positive about Insoll's recognition that the historical narrative was bad, as in, the archeological work has (here what I stated the other day about the state of Somali archeology is acknowledged) not corrected the problems, rather reinforcing the issues:
“From a European perspective, this lack of attention is perhaps partly explained by the view that Ethiopia was isolated—the mountainous land of the legendary Christian king Prester John (Nowell Reference Nowell1953: 437; Axelson Reference Axelson1973: 33–34)—and surrounded by antagonistic Muslim sultanates and barbarous ‘pagans’. Although such views are discredited, archaeology has been somewhat tardy in adding material evidence to the often fragmentary and minimal historical sources, and in linking medieval Ethiopia to the rest of Africa and beyond.”
...however, it is merely used to, again, undermine the coherency acknowledgment and civilzational agency of Somalis and their contribution to African and world history, all to propose a hegemonic imperial agenda of the Abbisinyans, today called Ethiopians – a term applied only to the historic Christian groups, descending from the territory of Axum, a people distinct from the the Muslim civilzation that took root from the Somali territories.
Here is him acknowledging the terminology being a much later concept:
“Second, Ethiopia is here defined as the land within the borders of the modern nation (Figure 1). These borders, however, did not take shape until the late nineteenth century (Phillipson Reference Phillipson2009: 3), and archaeology indicates that they are arbitrary and that past interaction extended far beyond, across the Horn of Africa, to the Nile Valley and Mediterranean, Red Sea, Western Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf.”
Notice the language. The use of the term “arbitrary,” engaging in the bizarre claim of pre-nationalization, even going as far as saying, these Medieval boundaries were probably larger, extending Ethiopianism beyond the extant borders, something that was always the ideological push of the Abyssinians, claiming distinct lands. It is clear Insoll is an Ethiopianist, through and through.
It is not a stretch to say this author is some kind of an academic agent of Ethiopian nationalism whether with malicious intent or not. The archaeology has never shown boundaries to be arbitrary. This is an unfounded and quite bizarre claim from a professional. You guys thought I was exaggerating or making an empty case, well I proved the Somali archeology case, and here is another guy who writes history but did the work in the Harlaa/Harar region, explicitly stating lies and fabrications, and using modern terminology to shoehorn Somalis and Islamic history, distinct from the Axum descended boundaries, as arbitrarily from those distinct formations. This undermines Somalis entirely, and gives entirely credit to the Abyssinian claim of Ethiopianism. I have many times shown how the Abyssinians were starkly different from the Muslims – that is what history and archeology show, not what Insoll claims here.
Also, Islamic formations outside the Somali driven civilization existed. Shewa and Tigray regions had Islam tied to inhabitants outside the Somali sphere. Now granted, Shewa got its trade from Somalis and was invaded and dominated by Ifat, a Somali dynasty that likely managed the economic relationships between the coasts and its arrival at Shewa, prior to this expansion. But as stated, I’m not sure there is any evidence Islam came from the Somali coast to Shewa or that it came from a separate migration, and I am unconvinced they were Somalis as they lived northeast of Addis Ababa, a territory I know probably was beyond the sphere of influence by Somalis. Somalis did have deep impacts quite into the peripheral highlands, but it was mainly a lowland product.
To top it all off, Insoll made the false claim that not only did the Islamic civilization mirror the Christian one in engagement and similarities, but also that it adopted some of its cosmopolitanism?
“In the western Ethiopian borderlands, ‘vernacular cosmopolitanism’ (González-Ruibal Reference González-Ruibal2021) was evident, with awareness of other religious systems, material worlds and cultural traditions, but within a framework of marginality, and one that changed over time. In medieval Harlaa, multiple strands contributed to a cosmopolitan urban culture, with Islamic heterogeneity apparent and religious plurality probable. Furthermore, trade and other networks extended far beyond eastern Ethiopia, both directly and indirectly incorporating people, ideas and trade goods (Insoll et al. Reference Insoll2021). In eastern Tigray, excavation of an Islamic cemetery has revealed the deep roots of a Muslim community within the Christian highlands, commencing in the late tenth century and continuing for 300 years, attesting both toleration and co-existence.”
Here again, the term cosmopolitanism is strictly used to muddy the waters for Ethiopian nationalism. The Somali region had broader economic contact and trade networks before Christianity even came to the region. There is another issue I want to state. The evidence points to the quite opposite with the Abbisinyan matter, they were relatively less urban, they were not cosmopolitan in the sense of economic connection, and there was no diversity as implied by the text. Insoll had characterized that totally wrong just to give the Abbysinuans credit for the phenomenon that sprung out of the Somali region.
Note how he cites Rubial, the racist. He clearly wrote about Somali history, but Insoll never mentioned Somali. The Somalis are a threat to these people's worldview, so they rather fabricate and ignore glaring issues that they create. Notice how Insoll mentions "marignality." That term should ring an alarm because it is a euphemism for Somalis. But again, see how they don't even mention Somalis even when it comes to the fabrications. The specific text cited was in the western side of modern Ethiopia, in the borderlands between the Nubians. That is a separate thing entirely from what took place in the Somali region.
