Also I've posted this video before but if you go to minute 41:00 this scholar talks about how as they get more sources on ethiopian history and they more critically examine them. There's a lot more skepticism on the authenticty of things like the attribution of the churches to lailabella or that the herbaic elements date back to anicnet times. A lot of these things coincidentally date back to the early 1500s . Including a lot of other supposedly biblical traditions in ethiopia like the division of the chruch. Even the lion symbol they use apparently came with the protugese arrival. Lots of propganda to hint at deeper continuity between them and aksum
SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGY IN ETHIOPIA 1500-1800
- Thread starter Midas
- Start date
I want to add another description but of North Westerners. Tailored Thobes and colorful robes was worn by Somalis throughout the middle ages. Here is a description of Awdal leaders dress code from the 1400s
''And the robes of the Sultan and those of his leaders were adorned with silver and shone on all sides'' Exact description of the dress code of the guys in picture up above, especially the one in the middle.
''And the dagger he [the sultan] carried at this side was richly adorned with gold and precious stones''
A Portuguese description on making of clothing in the Muslim province of Bale when listing it's exports this territory is situated around the fertile shabelle river , the same river where there is cotton cultivation on the lower/middle end of it southern Somalia was being produced.
'' cloths of silk and of another sort finer and more lustrous fairer than silk... and this is a tree called Arid, great with leaves like pomegranate and bears a fruit the size of a fist of the finest wool''
'' and of it they make clothes for their king and lords''
In addition to the above qoutes i'll add Al-Omari's description of Awdal(Northern Somalia) and Awfat(Western Galbeed) in the 1300s their clothing and costumes :
''The soldiers/swordsmen, Nobles, Kings and the scholars ( Sheikhs, Qadi, Sharifs ) wore shirts, sewn garments and overalls. They also wore trousers/pants.''
''The Nobles, Swordsmen wear cotton headdress whilst the King wears silk headdress
The Qadis/Jurists wear Turbans(imamad) while the general public wear skull caps (Kofiyads)
The commoners wore wrapped garments that was draped around their bodies , (two futa)''
Contrast the above descriptions of Somalis/Muslims with the Ethiopian Christian descriptions under:
The description of Christian Ethiopians by the Portuguese: Their clothing and costumes
''For in Ethiopia they do not know how to make cloth, and the wool is not suitable for it, as it is very coarse'' ''They all go barefoot and often naked from the breast up''
Pedro Páez's History of Ethiopia, 1622 - Volume 1 - Page 206
Their Kings/Emperors and nobles would even walk around half naked:
''Regarding costume, in former times it was poor, because even the great lord did not wear shirts ...... the rest of their body would be naked''
Last edited:
It is mostly like due to the introduction of the Portuguese.
For example:
Pedro Paez and other Portuguese Jesuits tried to move Ethiopian King Susenyos and his men away from living in a mud coated huts and had it upgraded into a single storey stone hut.
Contrast this again to the Awdal Sultans and his nobles that who probably resided in lived in grand palaces and castles several stories high city
And according to Al-Omari the sultan sat on an iron throne 4 cubits high (12 feet) decorated with emeralds. Game of thrones style camal loool
Last edited:
The posts i made is not to gloat about how well off the Muslims were in comparison with the Christians , to cast them in a bad light. Axum is proof enough that disparity was not religious in nature.
I am contrasting to show how much Christians hindered themselves, they self imposed poverty and backwardness because they were xenophobic,and was driven by hate filled religious war ideology and greed.
If the Christians allowed themselves to cooperate with the Muslims and saw them as mutual benefactors the whole region would have been even more extremely rich, stable and prosperous.
Not only that it would have allowed for growth and development of regional culture and better preservation. You can just look at extensive examples of societies where Muslims coexisted with non-Muslims (hindus, jews, christians, buddhist) etc and see what that would have look like.
And that the problem never lied with the Muslims, the Muslims were not busy being war mongers and disruptive but were busy developing their economies, building diplomatic ties and busy with fair governance. Non-Muslims like oppressed Christians and Falasha were given refuge and aid by Muslims.
Also being landlocked is not an excuse in the medieval period you can look at plenty of polities/states that prospered despite being landlocked Mali empire , Holy Roman empire (core regions were landlocked, but not entirely), Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Bohemia
And those societies had much in common with Abyssinian, even the particularity of being rich in natural resources like gold and silver that drove economic growth for their states.
Being landlocked is even less of an excuse now in our modern times considering there are landlocked rich nations such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, Kazakhstan to only mention a few.
But Ethiopia frame it as an obstacle so much that they are willing to destabilize the region and go to war, which to me is not only an entitlement but also shows their inability to work with their neighbors and their search for an excuse to explain their lack of development.
I am contrasting to show how much Christians hindered themselves, they self imposed poverty and backwardness because they were xenophobic,and was driven by hate filled religious war ideology and greed.
If the Christians allowed themselves to cooperate with the Muslims and saw them as mutual benefactors the whole region would have been even more extremely rich, stable and prosperous.
Not only that it would have allowed for growth and development of regional culture and better preservation. You can just look at extensive examples of societies where Muslims coexisted with non-Muslims (hindus, jews, christians, buddhist) etc and see what that would have look like.
And that the problem never lied with the Muslims, the Muslims were not busy being war mongers and disruptive but were busy developing their economies, building diplomatic ties and busy with fair governance. Non-Muslims like oppressed Christians and Falasha were given refuge and aid by Muslims.
Also being landlocked is not an excuse in the medieval period you can look at plenty of polities/states that prospered despite being landlocked Mali empire , Holy Roman empire (core regions were landlocked, but not entirely), Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Bohemia
And those societies had much in common with Abyssinian, even the particularity of being rich in natural resources like gold and silver that drove economic growth for their states.
Being landlocked is even less of an excuse now in our modern times considering there are landlocked rich nations such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, Kazakhstan to only mention a few.
But Ethiopia frame it as an obstacle so much that they are willing to destabilize the region and go to war, which to me is not only an entitlement but also shows their inability to work with their neighbors and their search for an excuse to explain their lack of development.
Last edited:
It is mostly like due to the introduction of the Portuguese.
For example:
Pedro Paez and other Portuguese Jesuits tried to move Ethiopian King Susenyos and his men away from living in a mud coated huts and had it upgraded into a single storey stone hut.
Contrast this again to the Awdal Sultans and his nobles that who probably resided in lived in grand palaces and castles several stories high city
And according to Al-Omari the sultan sat on an iron throne 4 cubits high (12 feet) decorated with emeralds. Game of thrones style camal loool
Although there was absence of mortar and lime technology. But the biggest problem lied with lack of investment by Ethiopian leaders.
''What inhibited the flourishing of architecture, therefore, was not the absence of skill or technology but of dedicated patronage''-
Th Gondar Castle might have been built exclusively by Christian Ethiopians masons, because the Portuguese had no hand in it as it seems.
The lack of investments can also bee seen how they did not exploit the various gold and silver mines in their country and take full advantage of it
They gave gold to acquire silver that exist in their lands.
Where as Muslims nearby were exporting gold and silver, they were also making jewelry out of it
''Of their Merchandise the following articles: ''gold . silver, jewels and pearls''
When the Muslims took over Ethiopian regions they took advantage of their gold mines and the gold in their country.
Last edited:
Let me paint this one last picture a little bit more showing Muslims agricultural productivity and sciences:
What we can gleam from this summary:
He prefaces this by saying the fruits they cultivated was also typical lowland plants: Sugar in particular is also one of the culinary prohibitions of Christians
This can be further be seen in the description of Zayla and North West Somaliland: Zeyla in particular is described as a city of ''abundance'' by the portuguese
The exorbitant amount of agricultural output in Northern Somalia was also observed by the Portuguese. The general region produced so much food that it exported much of it's surplus to regions nearby.
It's very unlike neighboring medieval Abyssinia which was characterized by food shortages, famines and poverty. And it was mainly due to it's leadership policies. Despite the fact that they occupy a more fertile land than Somalis.
The region always had a large dominant nomadic population, as it was a rooted in an exchange system between farmers, towns people and herders. That's basic recipe that shaped it's economy.
The wide variety of crops and plant use is not suprising because Zayla students in particular were known to study botanical sciences . Their interest in plants and agriculture might be a clue to why Khat and Coffee was prominent and widely cultivated and how medicinal herbs and development of other plants were mentioned in being among the exports in one of the Muslim provinces like Bali
One example:
Contrast this to Christian Ethiopians where there was virtually no development in agriculture or agricultural science or animal husbandry. There is an Ethiopian qoute from a peasant farmer at the end of it sums it all up.
''Yet, because of the above reasons no science of agriculutre or animal husbandry developed in Ethiopia. Agricultural technology, in particular remained unchanged for millennia''
Last edited:
You know what's even crazier is even with all that ethiopia was the most advanced subsharan african country. Most of subsharan africa had no coinage,wheels, or writing. Even the mali empire which controlled huge gold reserves never minted their own currency . Also ethiopias lack of investment was not even unqiue it was the norm. West african kingdoms on the coast who had contact with the protugese and other European since the 1500s so for over 300 years they Didn't really adopt many technologies besides crops.Let me paint this one last picture a little bit more showing Muslims agricultural productivity and sciences:
What we can gleam from this summary:
He prefaces this by saying the fruits they cultivated was also typical lowland plants: Sugar in particular is also one of the culinary prohibitions of Christians
This can be further be seen in the description of Zayla and North West Somaliland: Zeyla in particular is described as a city of ''abundance'' by the portuguese
The wide variety of crops and plant use is not suprising because Zayla students in particular were known to study botanical sciences . Their interest in plants and agriculture might be a clue to why Khat and Coffee was prominent and widely cultivated and how medicinal herbs and development of other plants were mentioned in being among the exports in one of the Muslim provinces like Bali
One example:
Contrast this to Christian Ethiopians where there was virtually no development in agriculture or agricultural science or animal husbandry. There is an Ethiopian qoute from a peasant farmer at the end of it sums it all up.
''Yet, because of the above reasons no science of agriculutre or animal husbandry developed in Ethiopia. Agricultural technology, in particular remained unchanged for millennia''
Emir of Zayla
𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖔𝖋 𝕻𝖔𝖊𝖙𝖘
“According to some travelers who have been there, it is called Wafāt (Awfat) and also Ğabara (Jabarta). It is one of the largest cities of the Ḥabašā (Abyssinia). There are about twenty stages (leagues) between this city and Zaylaʿ. The buildings of Wafāt are scattered. The royal residence is on a hill and the citadel/castle (al -qalʿa) is on another hill. It is very far from the sea, to the west of Zaylaʿ. Bananas and sugarcane are grown there. Its inhabitants are Muslims. It is on a high place, and there is a valley in which a small river flows. It rains a lot, mostly at night.” — Abū al-Fidā, Mamluk medieval geographer.
Emir of Zayla
𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓 𝖔𝖋 𝕻𝖔𝖊𝖙𝖘
Do Somalis not count or..?
It wasn't the norm, Axum minted their own coins. The Muslim sultanates in the region like Awfat/Awdal nearby minted their own coin with the gold as well and used international coinage like Egyptian Dirhams as well. If you do one thing and the rest of your neighbors do something else, can you really say that's a norm?
Dawaro minted their own currency albeit not with gold or silver but with iron:
Even Harar minted its own coins that was widely used all over the Somali coast: Made of bronze and silver.
It's not the norm , it's just self imposed by Ethiopia that it didn't even bother minting currency until the 19th century. and mostly due to lack urbanism and commercialization.
Don't know too much about the the the lack coinage of Mali but i am guessing its probably because they were landlocked and same goes for coastal ones like Benin that was hindered by poor harbours to develop an effective sea born trade unlike East Africa and North Africa but they made technological developments in terms of architecture, water systems and metal works and Mali became an important center for learning, with a extensive catalogue of written manuscripts produced.
Last edited:
They are still the same, the internet speed in Ethiopia is slow, compared to Borama.
Yeah I wasn't comparing it to somalia but to the rest of subsharan africa. Where outside of the swhaili coastal towns who did mint coins for a few centuries. There were non to be found in all the other kingdoms. Wether your talking about mali or songhai or the Benin or any of the dozens of others.It wasn't the norm, Axum minted their own coins. The Muslim sultanates in the region like Awfat/Awdal nearby minted their own coin with the gold as well and used international coinage like Egyptian Dirhams as well. If you do one thing and the rest of your neighbors do something else, can you really say that's a norm?
Dawaro minted their own currency albeit not with gold or silver but with iron:
Even Harar minted its own coins that was widely used all over the Somali coast: Made of bronze and silver.
It's not the norm , it's just self imposed by Ethiopia that it didn't even bother minting currency until the 19th century. and mostly due to lack urbanism and commercialization.
Don't know too much about the the the lack coinage of Mali but i am guessing its probably because they were landlocked and same goes for coastal ones like Benin that was hindered by poor harbours to develop an effective sea born trade unlike East Africa and North Africa but they made technological developments in terms of architecture, water systems and metal works and Mali became an important center for learning, with a extensive catalogue of written manuscripts produced.
Also their troops are seen as disposable cannon fodder, they don't regard their life as qaali and prepare them for survival and minimal casualty.
Imagine raising an army of 100K only for them to die n mass.
Maybe it has to do with coinage minting and currency use being connected with seaborn trade development. Thats my guess, none comes to mind being particularly seafaring or developing ports
There was also Awssa.
Awsa was a small city near the fertile awash river it might have been built out of stone, but much of it was destroyed at the turn of the early 19th century by disputes between Afar tribes that also involved Yemenis, it was bombed and razed it and looted..
According to the chronicles , prior to this it used to be the seat of the Adal or Bar'Sa'adin leadership when they transfered it there to move away from Oromo incursions. until it felt into the hands of Afar in 1672-3 , early on it was connected to Zayla and also formed out of a branch of the Harar leadership.
Interestingly enough in the same Arabic chronicles they refer to Afar by the same name that that their neighboring Issa use to refer to them by ''Od'Ali'' which means (White Ali) and was oppositional to them.
Awssa continued to be an important city and served as the capital of Afar sultanate until the early nineteenth century.
I was hopping to see what their trade was based on and all i got was this information. It sounds like the camel caravan was cut off from the far distant interior separate from how it was in previous times and they relied on trading rock salt from the nearby inlands.
Last edited:
It's incredible to think about how the Somalis fought against such overwhelming odds—sometimes facing 20 to 1 in battle. Every Somali knight was raised as a warrior, and even the ordinary foot soldiers had significant experience, unlike the Ethiopian army, which was largely composed of farmers.
In many ways, we were opposites. One side cherished freedom, while the other sought control. To them, our way of life seemed like a completely foreign concept.
Christian depiction of Awfat population being pastoral camel herders alongside agricultural use like utilizing mills to farm plants and this xenophobic fiction is attributed to the Sultan imbued with cultural stereotypes:
How this depiction separates it from nearby Muslims like Aggrobba:
I'm sharing this to set the context for this one last part because it relates to transportation technology and economic growth that came with it. At the center of it was the introduction of the ''Camel Caravan''
How this depiction separates it from nearby Muslims like Aggrobba:
I'm sharing this to set the context for this one last part because it relates to transportation technology and economic growth that came with it. At the center of it was the introduction of the ''Camel Caravan''
To start off a post made by @The alchemist expertly sums it up.
@Shimbiris see how the late medieval Abyssinians (Habash) considered the camel a regular food among the Muslims for meat, of which we know only Somalis had the camel population to eat that normally. We're shown repeatedly through all relevant indicators that the general Islamic region in the medieval days was inhabited by Somalis.
Thomas Guindeuil, "What do Christians (Not) Eat: Food Taboos and the Ethiopian Christian Communities (13th-18th c.)"(2014): p. 66
Pay attention to how the source said neighboring communities. It means even in the far the Somali periphery, showing that Somalis had a presence deep into Ethiopia, so far that on the margins camel meat was very accessible. It shows one important thing if we are to do a serious analysis.
If these were Habash Muslims, they would not have a camel-eating tendency since they never had a camel herder disposition. Logically, one can deduce that the camel is not the predominant animal at all the further you geographically penetrate, thus any love for camel needs to be an ethnographic anthropological emphasis rooted deep to the point that supersedes the environmental constraints. This is why any group that was originally never camel pastoralists, all groups that are not Somali and Afar, could never naturally demand the camel as an important food in the peripheral regions where the camel is not the main livestock available. Unless they shared the same original culture and love for camel, considering the pastoralist aspect as central to their identity despite how they might not be pastoralists even.
The Muslims that live in those Habash areas today do not eat camel meat:
View attachment 320193
Éloi Ficquet, "Flesh Soaked In Faith," (2006): p. 45
Lij Iyasu, the emperor of Ethiopia, slaughtered a camel to forge some form of political situation between Muslims. Notably, the camel was chosen for the Muslims. To the Christian Ethiopians, its original ethnic association changed toward a purely religious one, when in fact there is nothing in Islam that is generally camel emphasizing in meat consumption compared to cow, goat, and sheep. The fact that those highland Ethiopian Muslims such as Amaharas don't eat camel meat even if it is accessible, underscores my point that argument. So this was never religious in nature, meaning no one can peddle that idea as a way to wiggle away from the fact that it was one of the major Somali meat preferences first and foremost.
View attachment 320194
Éloi Ficquet, "Flesh Soaked In Faith," (2006): p. 53
Notice the false association between the camel and how important it is for Muslims when it is a tradition of perception by the Christians because of the ethnoreligious association of Somali camel eaters. In their logic from the medieval age: Somalis ate camels --> Somalis were Muslims and the predominant demographic --> thus camel important Muslim diet. Later they falsely as you see above with an emperor trying to form ties with Muslims by slaughtering a camel for symbolism. I wanted to correct the whole thing but either way, this is important evidence of how even down to the modern era, non-Muslims in the region carried a tradition of their own thinking that camel was an important Islamic meat when it was merely important for Somalis.
Rationally the non-Somali Muslim minorities that later became Muslims due to Somali Islamic contact never had a subsistence based on camel flesh consumption given their geography and tendency to herd different animals -- if they ever had love of that, only through the influence of a culture considered more dominant in the region could have influenced that transition, and they would only be nested within that as a minority. Other Cushites had at most mixed economies with the many farming similar to Habash (eating the same things depending on what region), especially among the peripheral regions where you live close to the Habash Christians.
The only way to describe this is that these people had a love for camel on a cultural and traditional level sourced by a central ethnic shared cultural dietary highlight meaning that they were tied to camel herders and ideologically thought of that as the superior meat and animal at the time, whenever through the trade, extensively carried and facilitated by Somalis co-ethnics, they prized the camel meat so got a hold of it and ate it during celebrations and ceremonies. All this can only be from the fact that these people living deep into Ethiopia, and I mean deep as in bordering the Habash, had a history and conception of ethnic emphasis of camel-based pastoralism as a primary cultural marker of what makes them Somali during the medieval age.
There is no way to turn the table outside this for the people in denial. Either these people were Somalis or they were a minority that was so influenced by a predominantly camel-loving people, undoubtedly Somalis, no question, that they took on that trait of loving camel meat when we know those Ethio-Semites, Sidama-like whatever the deniers want to attribute them as, never had such subsistence of camel. They were a sedentary farmer with some cattle and bovid livestock. Either way, Somalis were the predominant demographic in the entire expanse we're discussing in this thread, shown by evidence of how Habash delineated themselves and considered that a Muslim trait.
How can it be generalized as a Muslim food unless the predominant Muslims in the region did not eat it and considered it important to them? And who were those people but Somalis first and foremost? It is all evident. It could not have been the Afar since in terms of population they are no more than a sub-sub-clan of Somalis. In sizable relative terms, the Afar could never be that influential in the region, we find them not markedly relevant with regards to presence, in the regions we are talking about, otherwise we'd see them take a central stage in the Futuh, and later. The Oromos are not in the discussion because they were historical late-comers, something not even worth mentioning unless people are historically uninformed about their role in the region.
Again, this was well known and if anyone wanted to shift the camel to other groups, it would be a futile attempt:
The dromedary is the emblematic animal of the lowlands, as he can carry heavy loads (up to 300 kg) over long distances, and can resist high temperatures and lack of water. Dromedary breeding is usually done in association with small livestock (goats or sheep), both of which tolerate full nomadism, unlike cattle which do not. Samantha Kelly, "A Companion to Medieval Ethiopia and Eritrea" (2020): p. 401-2
All other Ethiopians lived with a combination of what I quote below, excluding only Somalis and Afar in those medieval times:
But lowland pastoralists were of course not the only medieval Ethiopians to tend livestock: highland farmers did as well. The zebu, originally from India and domesticated in antiquity, was a key element of the crop-livestock production system, as a work animal and for its dung that served as fuel and manure. Though poor in milk production, it was also raised for its meat, and the hide was made into leather. Smaller livestock like sheep and goats were also raised for their meat and hides. Sheepskin was often worn as a mantle, while goatskin was the favored material for parchment. Horses and donkeys were used for riding and as load animals. Samantha Kelly, "A Companion to Medieval Ethiopia and Eritrea" (2020): p. 402
The source makes a nefarious presentism error of calling people of geographic modern Ethiopia as "Ethiopians" when no such conception existed back then whatsoever because people mentioned in the source belong to a separate regional entity from the historical Abyssinians and this "Ethiopians" business is to attempt to homogenize and validate towards a Habash-centric Ethiopianist view of the region where they apply such terms to unrelated groups that had different civilizational existence altogether, re-writing history. Other than that, the source points out exactly what is a fact with the consumption of meat similar to the screenshotted source:
Muslim Ethiopians, of course, observed their own food customs, regulations, and rituals, which reinforced the distinctions between these peoples. Dromedary meat, for instance, was eaten exclusively by Muslims: in the early fourteenth century, Ibn Baṭṭūṭa mentioned the massive slaughtering of dromedaries in Zäylaʿ for meat consumption. The Lives of medieval Ethiopian saints also record that captured Christians were urged (and refused) to eat dromedary, as its consumption was understood as synonymous with Muslim identity. Even where meats acceptable to both religions were concerned, the rituals of slaughtering differed, which effectively prevented any commensality between Muslims and Christians as soon as meat was included in the meal. Samantha Kelly, "A Companion to Medieval Ethiopia and Eritrea" (2020): p. 405
I wrote my above analysis of the first excerpt before reading the last aforementioned quoted part, but all ties nicely together and it is consistent and goes nicely with my first camel post. Cool how it neatly fits with how the Islamic civilization was demographically dominated overwhelmingly by Somali people. That is why they made Somali culture synonymous with Islam.
The camels dominance is also shown in medieval settlements in the earliest fauna assemblage in the Harar uplands: Again by @The alchemist
