What’s the methodology used in Egypt,Sudan
Somali twitter vs Spanish archaeologist
- Thread starter Chaseyourdreamzz
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
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
VIP
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
VIP
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
VIP
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.
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
VIP
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.
Hmm It's definitely possible and it would explain why no connection was made between macrobia and frankincense. Although I would say that if cambeysses had actually reached meroe then it would seem strange to think the beja would be considered extremely far away especially since they weren't in eritrea yet
"@The alchemist A city state does not mean they are economically or culturally disconnected from eachother it just means they were self-governed separately from eachother.
A city-state is a self-governing political entity that consists of a city and its surrounding territory. Historically, city-states in the Somali case:
Had a centralized governing structure (like a council, elders, or a ruler).
Were not part of a larger nation-state but rather independent political units.
Controlled their own economy, military, and laws (even if influenced by external forces).
Now many of these city states during the medieval period either expanded or was incorporated into broader political systems, thats what it seems to me. Because not only were they part of larger sultanates but they were just a city or village or town inside a broader province , sometimes a central city inside that province and that province also had districts. That's the picture i get from the medieval descriptions left behind.
Also we discussed how important terminology is when it comes to Somalis. I think it equally applies for the term" Tribe/Tribal". I don't think these accurately describes our social structure and clans are not political units.
The term "tribal" is indeed misleading when applied to Somali society, especially in the context of political and social organization. Somali clans (or extended family units and lineages) are not separate, distinct political entities in the way that "tribes" might be viewed in other parts of the world. Instead, these clans were social and economic networks that helped facilitate cooperation, trade, and resource-sharing.
Clans in Somalia are fundamentally based on kinship and lineage, often tracing back to common ancestors. This structure isn't about creating distinct, separate cultural groups; it's about families coming together for mutual economic and social benefit.
The concept of tribes implies groups with rigid boundaries, cultural differences, and political independence, but Somali clans were more fluid and dynamic, focused on economic production, land use, and intermarriage across these networks.
In Somali society, clans didn't function as politically independent or autonomous units, but rather as interdependent extended families with shared economic interests.
So they were in reality economic units, not political units. Instead of functioning as political entities that governed territories, Somali clans coordinated economic activities like livestock herding, trade, and agriculture.
You can also see this with the Cooperatives(iskashaato) , Guilds (ururs) and Tariqas (Orders) that people of seperate clan origins came together and organized out of shared interests. Then there is also the sultanates that had bureaucratic structures and taxation systems, militaries and foreign diplomacy.
Clan affiliations were important, but the political and economic systems transcended clan lines.
When the Somali system is described as "tribal," it implies cultural isolation and political disorder, which is far from the reality of a cohesive, organized, and commercially active society.
And i also agree what you are saying broadly speaking, i don't think ''merchant oligarchy' would describe them when i think more about it.
The term "merchant oligarchies" because it implies a small elite hoarding wealth and monopolizing trade, which contradicts the broader Somali tradition of resource-sharing, kinship-based cooperation, and economic inclusivity.
A city-state is a self-governing political entity that consists of a city and its surrounding territory. Historically, city-states in the Somali case:
Had a centralized governing structure (like a council, elders, or a ruler).
Were not part of a larger nation-state but rather independent political units.
Controlled their own economy, military, and laws (even if influenced by external forces).
Now many of these city states during the medieval period either expanded or was incorporated into broader political systems, thats what it seems to me. Because not only were they part of larger sultanates but they were just a city or village or town inside a broader province , sometimes a central city inside that province and that province also had districts. That's the picture i get from the medieval descriptions left behind.
Also we discussed how important terminology is when it comes to Somalis. I think it equally applies for the term" Tribe/Tribal". I don't think these accurately describes our social structure and clans are not political units.
The term "tribal" is indeed misleading when applied to Somali society, especially in the context of political and social organization. Somali clans (or extended family units and lineages) are not separate, distinct political entities in the way that "tribes" might be viewed in other parts of the world. Instead, these clans were social and economic networks that helped facilitate cooperation, trade, and resource-sharing.
Clans in Somalia are fundamentally based on kinship and lineage, often tracing back to common ancestors. This structure isn't about creating distinct, separate cultural groups; it's about families coming together for mutual economic and social benefit.
The concept of tribes implies groups with rigid boundaries, cultural differences, and political independence, but Somali clans were more fluid and dynamic, focused on economic production, land use, and intermarriage across these networks.
In Somali society, clans didn't function as politically independent or autonomous units, but rather as interdependent extended families with shared economic interests.
So they were in reality economic units, not political units. Instead of functioning as political entities that governed territories, Somali clans coordinated economic activities like livestock herding, trade, and agriculture.
You can also see this with the Cooperatives(iskashaato) , Guilds (ururs) and Tariqas (Orders) that people of seperate clan origins came together and organized out of shared interests. Then there is also the sultanates that had bureaucratic structures and taxation systems, militaries and foreign diplomacy.
Clan affiliations were important, but the political and economic systems transcended clan lines.
When the Somali system is described as "tribal," it implies cultural isolation and political disorder, which is far from the reality of a cohesive, organized, and commercially active society.
And i also agree what you are saying broadly speaking, i don't think ''merchant oligarchy' would describe them when i think more about it.
The term "merchant oligarchies" because it implies a small elite hoarding wealth and monopolizing trade, which contradicts the broader Somali tradition of resource-sharing, kinship-based cooperation, and economic inclusivity.
Last edited:
btw Macrobian was more or less greek mythology in which the name was at times applied to different african populations(Aethopians).
To be more exact it was an Ancient Greek literary term rather than a specific, historically attested ethnic or political group. It was often used mythologically to describe an idealized "long-lived" African people, much like how "Aethiopians" was a broad term for dark-skinned peoples in Greek thought.
There wasn't actually real group that went by that name or were known by it, thats why it remains rather illusive to try and identify with certaintity. .But trying to firmly equate them with any one historical group is difficult since they were more of a mythical construct than a distinct civilization.
To be more exact it was an Ancient Greek literary term rather than a specific, historically attested ethnic or political group. It was often used mythologically to describe an idealized "long-lived" African people, much like how "Aethiopians" was a broad term for dark-skinned peoples in Greek thought.
There wasn't actually real group that went by that name or were known by it, thats why it remains rather illusive to try and identify with certaintity. .But trying to firmly equate them with any one historical group is difficult since they were more of a mythical construct than a distinct civilization.
Medieval Mythography, Volume One: From Roman North Africa to ..
Here is a text that talks about how its a literary term that refers to a classical myth in the mythography.
Last edited:
Maybe that's why nobody uses his term after him.btw Macrobian was more or less greek mythology in which the name was at times applied to different african populations(Aethopians).
To be more exact it was an Ancient Greek literary term rather than a specific, historically attested ethnic or political group. It was often used mythologically to describe an idealized "long-lived" African people, much like how "Aethiopians" was a broad term for dark-skinned peoples in Greek thought.
There wasn't actually real group that went by that name or were known by it, thats why it remains rather illusive to try and identify with certaintity. .But trying to firmly equate them with any one historical group is difficult since they were more of a mythical construct than a distinct civilization.
Medieval Mythography, Volume One: From Roman North Africa to ..
Here is a text that talks about how its a literary term that refers to a classical myth in the mythography.
TheLand
VIP
Sounds like they are a mythologized version of the kingdom of kushbtw Macrobian was more or less greek mythology in which the name was at times applied to different african populations(Aethopians).
To be more exact it was an Ancient Greek literary term rather than a specific, historically attested ethnic or political group. It was often used mythologically to describe an idealized "long-lived" African people, much like how "Aethiopians" was a broad term for dark-skinned peoples in Greek thought.
There wasn't actually real group that went by that name or were known by it, thats why it remains rather illusive to try and identify with certaintity. .But trying to firmly equate them with any one historical group is difficult since they were more of a mythical construct than a distinct civilization.
Medieval Mythography, Volume One: From Roman North Africa to ..
Here is a text that talks about how it’sa literary term that refers to a classical myth in the mythography.
The alchemist
VIP
That is what I figured. I don't think the markets were city state centers. The northern Ethiopians had a more city-state-like arrangement. The Somalis had something else that I probably cannot define. I roughly described certain hypotheticals based on components we fairly know existed.
The reason I reject the city-state is that it is usually a hypercentral city in a state function - you could easily define that polity within the confines of the city. It's in archaeology what one contemporaneously defines as a type site of what describes most of what one sees. I don't think that is the case, more like the markets were expressions of internal arrangements than city centers.
Like the explanations of the economy of the region were very unlike the proto-state polities we call city states. I don't want to use this concept because it will again cause unnecessary complications when the focus becomes too alike with distinct city state formations that are unlikely to have occurred.
All I am saying is, whatever functions we had were nothing less functional or organizational than a city state, it's just that it was very different and not arranged like the polities we saw in other ancient societies that arrived from very spatially defined, agrarian developments. This means one has to devise unique conceptions with inter-related aspects and some internal delineation that might or might not directly or indirectly relate. Probably the reason why Peripipuls described the land of a one people. I believe it cannot be anything but a single civilization with several complexities that relate and some independent parts that align across different systems functions.
You know what? You are absolutely right, Somali cities weren’t structured like classic city-states because:
- They weren’t hypercentralized political hubs.
- The markets and economic systems were expressions of broader social structures, not standalone political entities.
- City-state models in archaeology are often based on agrarian centered societies, which doesn’t apply well to Somali history.
- The Periplus describes the region as belonging to "one people," suggesting a more interconnected and unified civilization.
Perhaps the term ''"Trade-based city polities" more accurately captures what they were in the sense that these cities functioned as independent trade hubs but weren’t as politically isolated as classical city-states.
Your point is that Somali civilization being a single, fluid system with complexities rather than a collection of separate, rigidly defined city-states is valid.
Whereas my arugment is that they were still self-governing entities with structured governance which i feel also is correct.
Maybe a hybrid approach works best: Somali cities were independent political and economic hubs that operated within a broader, decentralized civilizational system. They weren’t entirely separate like classic city-states, but they also weren’t mere economic expressions of clan arrangements.
This discussion actually shows us that we should formulate our own terms and concepts to describe Somali history and society by.
Somali history requires new frameworks rather than relying on Eurocentric or agrarian-based political models.
I think another very under discussed aspect is how diffrent somalia is from other pastoralist societies. Most pastoralist societies rely on an oasis or some small river system. Whereas most of somalia relied on wells. This probably had huge implications for how our society developed .
You are right, Many pastoralist societies in Africa (e.g., the Sahel and Sahara) rely on oases or small river systems, limiting where they can sustain life.
Somalis, in contrast, relied heavily on wells, which made their livestock economy more flexible and less dependent on surface water sources.
Somalis pastoralists relied on, seasonal/permanent rivers, lakes and oasis as well. Not just wells to some degree. They also used irrigated or rainfed farming, depending on where they lived, which means subsistence strategy was highly diverse.
While much of Africa struggled with seasonal droughts, unreliable water sources, or swampy overflows, Somalia’s rivers, seasonal streams, and groundwater reservoirs ensured long-term productivity.
Another problem is that in the common narratives of Somalia , they don't capture it's ecological diversity and climatic complexity
They just stereotype it as arid or semi-arid, when that's also misleading because they derive this from average rainfall metrics, not understanding that Somalia has a moonson climate unlike Europe.
So here they also impose a Euro-centered understanding of Somalia's geography and climate adaption. Importing their own climatic metrics tailored to their environment and imposing it on Somalia.
Somalia was not an ecologically fragile land but rather a well-adapted and resource-rich region, when managed correctly. Because of it being moonson climate (Short, heavy rains can quickly replenish water sources)(The prevailing wind directions seasonally shift, influencing rainfall patterns.) it meant that the timing and land management practices matter more than raw rainfall totals.
Even the label ''Arid'' and ''Semi-arid'' to describe Somalia's climate i have come to find is an oversimplification and hides the true complexity of the climate. The more i researched it.
Average rainfall is a useless metric in monsoon climates where it all falls down in short time-frames and the climate goes through seasonal variations related to the direction of the prevailing winds.
Last edited:
Trending
-
R/africa discussing if Somalis believe their arabs or not
- Started by Chaseyourdreamzz
- Replies: 41
-
-
