Somali twitter vs Spanish archaeologist

[Idilinaa]

We can all conclude one thing from this thread discussion: ''The Future of Somali Archaeology Rests On A Call for Somali-Led Research''

Rather than relying on external interpretations, Somali scholars, researchers, and archaeologists must take the lead in uncovering their own history.

If we approach Somali archaeology with the same methodology used in Egypt, Sudan, and the Middle East, there is no doubt that a rich historical record awaits discovery.

 

[Rayaale]

We can all conclude one thing from this thread discussion: ''The Future of Somali Archaeology Rests On A Call for Somali-Led Research''

Rather than relying on external interpretations, Somali scholars, researchers, and archaeologists must take the lead in uncovering their own history.

If we approach Somali archaeology with the same methodology used in Egypt, Sudan, and the Middle East, there is no doubt that a rich historical record awaits discovery.

What’s the methodology used in Egypt,Sudan

 

[Idilinaa]

What’s the methodology used in Egypt,Sudan

The methodology used in Egypt, Sudan, and the Middle East for archaeology follows a systematic, multidisciplinary approach that combines excavation, historical texts, and scientific analysis.

I can make a detailed explanation later on how to approach things and what they do differently.

 

[Rayaale]

The methodology used in Egypt, Sudan, and the Middle East for archaeology follows a systematic, multidisciplinary approach that combines excavation, historical texts, and scientific analysis.

I can make a detailed explanation later on how to approach things and what they do differently.

Do the native people of those countries do much of the explorations or foreigners

 

[Idilinaa]

Do the native people of those countries do much of the explorations or foreigners

In Egypt and Sudan, foreign archaeologists have historically dominated the field, but in recent years, local scholars and institutions have taken a more active role in research and preservation.

 

[The alchemist]

Because i believe they might have been city states governed by a council of rich merchant oligarchic clan elders, much like how some Somali cities operated during early modern period. There is no reason to assume otherwise.

I'm not sure if that is the case. It's up for debate if they could be defined as city-states (I don't really know what that means). It's very hard to say what they were, although they had some type of system that worked that had enough complexity to be uniquely defined as some type of rulership. We can only define a few things.

The economy, as I laid out, describes a stable organizational capacity. As we know, Somalis were tribal, similar to Nubians, similar to how wealthy Arabs are tribal despite being prosperous, we know there has to be a spatial ancient clan-related economic monopoly. Now, if the elders ruled, this is not possible to affirm. It could have been wealthy people within certain clans with elders benefiting from this holding cultural and traditional capital of how wealth was affecting their people, rather than them being the rulers. Similar to how politics in Somalia is basically run by clan interests, because elders influence the politicians that belong to their clan.

But the notion of wealthy men holding much power is definitely on the table. Although that too doesn't necessarily mean they would hold absolute power or that the economic big players and the elder ruling were one and the same, though they could have been directly related by ties and relations, and overall interests. These could be related to separate power systems that align. So what I am saying is, it is possible elders had power in the clan, but to say they were controlling the wealth directly is another deal. Though I do believe the clans became wealthy, and that wealth was never how we have an individual that delineates capital unto himself. A very wealthy man probably wanted to appeal to his clan since there was power, protection, and a system of reliance and mutual benefit, and also power in fostering deep relationships. It could have been that wealth was seen as secondary to tribal capital, we never know.

One thing I can say is, usually inequality did not work with us the way it did with agrarian societies. If one clan was wealthy, usually the entire clan enjoyed the wealth. It's not egalitarian at all (this is a big misconception), but it was because these clans saw themselves as elites entirely. So basically, the majority thought of themselves as elites, rather than the minority, which is unique. This is something we got from the A-Group people.

I believe Somalis had a heterarchical tribal complex, seen among the Bejas who had their kingdom for centuries.

"The Blemmyean political system might be best thought of as a confederacy, an association of independent political units (tribes). Its functioning was thus somewhat oligarchic or heterarchical in nature. This confederacy would have taken on many of the typical trappings of statehood but manifested itself in a particularly nomadic and flexible character. Political offices and positions were not embedded in bureaucratic institutions but situated according to kinship and tribal relations. Phonen’s sons acted as his chief officers. Blemmyean tribal relations and family-based hierarchies stood in lieu of administrative institutions."

I think there was for sure a stable political configuration. Elders had power and influence within the clan. Their clan population enjoyed wealth and thus the clan enjoyed wealth. They had a deep relationship. Sometimes the clan elders sons could have been the ones that became very wealthy in the economic dealings as well where there was a relationship between clan prestige, ruling, and wealth, although they were separate. The clan center might not even have been at the coasts. While I would think the Phoenicians, who entirely based their movement upon the trading wealth, were situated at the coastal urban places. We're kind of different since the entire region was our land and we settled in it. Phoenicians were more like economic colonizers who only centered themselves around the maritime trade. Our trade was merely one aspect to us. We had land and pastoralism, farming, etc. Basically we were more like if the Berbers did what the Phoenicians engaged in, minus some of the sea-faring, since we did sea-faring, just not to the extent as the Phoenicians. If you look at their genes later, they became just a mix of everything they interacted with. Somalis retained all of their ancestry.

I have an idea that leaders lived in-land in their territories. The Periplus never mentioned any leader. On the Ethiopian side, they talked to a ruler. I don't think the leaders had any interest in directly talking to foreign merchants. The Somali traders at the coasts did their trade without making the arrival of the foreigners a ceremony. It probably means such economic interaction was a common occurrence and that the clans probably did not think it was necessary to formalize relations with the common trader from afar, reflecting how they saw themselves, as more important.

 

[The alchemist]

Btw @The alchemist let me share with you something that kinda relates to this. I am sure you will love how this Archeologist capture the complexity and sophistication of certain ancient societies, particularly Gobekli Tepe

Just as these orientalists, conflate pastoralism with nomadism and use it to divorce them from the sedentary structures that they themselves built. Reduced them to "simple nomads"

Conspiracy theorists out there do the exact same when it comes to hunter gatherers in certain locations, and say no way ''simple hunter gatherers" or "primitive hunter gatherers" built them. But no archeologists working on those sites described them to be simple or primitive

As he explains

"I Have never heard archeologists refer to Hunter Gatherers in this region or time period as ''simple'' or ''primitive''. Hunting and gathering refers to a method of food acquisition. That's it. It's not a term that refers to the technological level or building skills of people."

Go to timestamp @5:30


It's the same with Pastoralism, i have to often remind people that is simply a mode of food production, not a determinant of political or economic complexity.

He mentions other things that are applicable to Somalis and other NorthEast African agro-pastoralists like the Nubian/Sudanese in archeological records, like systematic food gathering, organized economic activity and creation of storage facilities. The tools they used etc.

With Somalis however unlike the "Tas Tepeler" cultural zone you have these biased Spanish archeologists find storage facilities and remnants of permanent stone houses in Bari and say they were used by nomads lmaao




I have also explained that formation of centralized states happen when someone taxes the surplus production. When someone takes control of the surplus mode of production and redistributes it, creates a tax base from it to support a central authority, that is where centralized states start to emerge from. Then out of that non-agricultural work force comes a class separation between producers and non-producers.

The Gobekli Tepe people were on the terminal stage right before farming appeared in the region. They likely were very much more sedentary and ate a lot of raw grains. The farmer linearity is a very narrow-minded perspective. There is no deep theory of pastoral-based systems, especially not one that mixed pastoralism, agriculture, and trade.

I read the limited literature back in 2022, and formed my idea about it really coming to terms that instead of thinking things as separate units, we're looking at a macro system. It got more range, reason being Somalis can go from being hyper wealthy, and then suddenly you see people suddenly leaning on the pastoral side for many years. Pretty much this is how the Nubians of ancient times lived.

In the coming future, we'll likely see novel theories of ancient and modern systems that expand the idea of these economic macro complexes and how that, in a very unique way, defines, shapes, concepts of power. It will shape a new perspective on Nubian history as well.

 

[The alchemist]

On further thinking. We should not apply the concept of the city state. A city-state is usually very spatially limited and only concentrates its significance within that geographic city limit. We'll fall into issues of definitions again. Somalis were a spatially spread people. We can think of the different ports as highlights of separate clan orientations in the regional participation of a broad economic expanse. The distribution of people then becomes not defined by those coastal markets. It would be like saying Berbera was the representative center of Somaliland.

I believe the entire region deep into Ethiopia was part of one large economic system with clans and tribes and economic actors aligning along those power systems that monopolized their regions. There would not be big differentiations, maybe all of them belonged to one clan with only sub-clans operating across the land in their territory. Culture would be indistinguishable, they spoke the same language. Likely believed in the same things. So this is one civilization, if we use that term, with different clan economic participation along different geographies that were synchronous but exercised their own actions. Very heterarchical system.

Then you can have at times, cultural and clan power, not to mention, economic actors related to those, but also could have their own power, then you can have at times forceful rulers that oversaw those separate and related systems and formed certain bigger monopolies through separate novel power practices that were separate from clan and economics (althuogh it could and probably sprung out of that) by getting other sub-regional cheftains under them while they in their day to day operations were heterarchical and independent. What I am saying is, it was likely very dynamic and shifting. The cultural, social, and identity of people were probably not expressed or thought of as distinct.

The reason why I express the economic aspects is that one quickly realizes that whatever occurred was very far removed from the traditional Western concept of linear growth systems. We have to shape new formulations that facilitate a theory of complex interactions and dynamic change through time, but somehow are extremely salient in how aspects re-appear, yet also very flexible to all kinds of systems-based adaptation.

That is why these Spanish guys who come over spewing their nonsense just seem so ignorant to me. They don't know what they're talking about when it comes to anything other than defining the material.

 

[The alchemist]

Also an intresting fact that just occurred to me. Is that heredotus mentions nubia and the proto somalis (macrobians). But he makes no refrences to any pouplation between them. Leading me to think the politieis that would become aksum weren't significant enough to warrant a mention.

Macrobians were not proto-Somalis. Macrobians would be Blemmyes or under the Blemmye tribal complex. They lived in the Eastern Desert region and along the Red Sea. They were described as being neighbors to the Nubians. Axum as a power did not exist at the time. When Herodotus lived, that region had a decline in the Sabaean type city-states, and newer but minor polities likely sprung up before the Axum period. So yes, Axum (a minor polity) would be like how Rome (city) was before it became a center.