Found a source to pile on:
The handwriting is a bit annoying for me but I can read Arabic and it does seem to say what the English text from Wikipedia says. Basically, an Arab source is referring to the Madhiban and Somalis as separate peoples which we know, ethnically, is untrue. But if you read it as "Somali", at this time, meaning pastoralism/nomadism specialized people and the Madhiban obviously not being that, the source makes sense.
I truly am becoming quite convinced that during periods like the 1400s and 1500s "Somali" was basically a term for Geeljires/Bedouins and not an ethnic term. Really hits that this source is also basically contempraneous with the Futuh.
@Idilinaa @Khaem @Step a side @Yami @The alchemist @Midas
The first recorded reference to the Madhibaan people dates back to 1435 in Suleiman's translation of Ibn Majid's writings and poems found in Ababn Majid. In this text, Suleiman identifies the Madhibaan as Al-madhibaan, emphasizing their distinction as a separate nation from the Somali people. He briefly mentions the name Al Somali as well.
al_mahri_ibn_majid_books : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
١- شرح تحفة الفحول لسليمان المهري٢- القصيدة المسماة بالهدية لابن ماجد٣- القصيدة لابن...
archive.org
The handwriting is a bit annoying for me but I can read Arabic and it does seem to say what the English text from Wikipedia says. Basically, an Arab source is referring to the Madhiban and Somalis as separate peoples which we know, ethnically, is untrue. But if you read it as "Somali", at this time, meaning pastoralism/nomadism specialized people and the Madhiban obviously not being that, the source makes sense.
I truly am becoming quite convinced that during periods like the 1400s and 1500s "Somali" was basically a term for Geeljires/Bedouins and not an ethnic term. Really hits that this source is also basically contempraneous with the Futuh.
@Idilinaa @Khaem @Step a side @Yami @The alchemist @Midas