Thread on the history of Coffee (New Manuscripts Uncovered)
- Thread starter MacrobianPrince
- Start date
There’s a lot of Somali families who still practice the cultivation of coffee beans. They’ve been doing it for many centuries. Honestly, the best coffee I’ve ever had and I hate coffee. Having buun with salool for celebrations was the best I miss it. They’d give my fam free bags of coffee beans cuz we gave them vegetables.
The only claim Ethiopians have is that their priests saw a goat dancing after eating it and thats how they discovered coffee
They historically didn't even consume it. It was considered "xaram" for them alongside camel meat as a way to distinguish themselves from "the Muslims" (Somalis) because that was what the Muslims drank and ate.
From a purely anthropological point of view, a lot of scholars theorize pork is xaram for Jews for similar reasons. Pork was heavily consumed by their mortal enemies, the Phillisitnes. So to demarcate themselves from said enemies they banned the consuming of a meat they heavily consumed.
The Cushitic fish taboo also shared with historical Bedouin Arabs and some Amazigh folks has also been theorized by people on this very forum to have a similar origin where early AAs like Cushites may have come into contact with "Fish-eaters" they were antagonistic toward.
Idilinaa
VIP
The fact that Somali coastal communities historically consumed fish and then in medieval time people butchered fish in the alleys of Zayla and later processed them to export into the interior towns to consume it.
Makes me believe there wasn't a rigid taboo against fish eating in actuality, just a preference for meat due to the over abundance of livestock. So it was likely a matter of preference rather than prohibition
The abundance of livestock as an alternative protein source is a logical explanation for why fish wasn't a staple in some regions rather than being outright avoided.
While inland communities may have preferred meat, coastal communities clearly had a history of fishing and fish consumption.
Idilinaa
VIP
The only claim Ethiopians have is that their priests saw a goat dancing after eating it and thats how they discovered coffee
What's ironic i read they called it the devils plant or the work of the devil. So that story was most likely linked to religious superstition against it , rather than some discovery like how they frame it to be today for marketing purposes.
Arabsiyawi
HA Activist.
Coffee culture probably reached us at the same time it reached northern highlanders. It originated in regions that were neither christian nor muslim. Through local trading networks it became popular in the whole Horn but it was mainly associated with coastal muslims, and not Abyssinian christians whose clergy tried to ban its consumption.The only claim Ethiopians have is that their priests saw a goat dancing after eating it and thats how they discovered coffee
Coffee culture amongst Somalis has been and still is quite versatile, hinting towards an early introduction of the plant to us. Fried beans (toor), infusions made with the tusks (qashar) or the leaves (qudi), brewd (qahwe/bun) etc etc. We even have records of local muslims eating coffee along with qat and butter when fighting the Abyssinians.
BTW Qat and Coffee seem to have been a pretty common combo back then kkkk. I sometimes ask myself how the world would've gone had qat been popularized globally instead of coffee
Idilinaa
VIP
Coffee culture probably reached us at the same time it reached northern highlanders. It originated in regions that were neither christian nor muslim. Through local trading networks it became popular in the whole Horn but it was mainly associated with coastal muslims, and not Abyssinian christians whose clergy tried to ban its consumption.
Coffee culture amongst Somalis has been and still is quite versatile, hinting towards an early introduction of the plant to us. Fried beans (toor), infusions made with the tusks (qashar) or the leaves (qudi), brewd (qahwe/bun) etc etc. We even have records of local muslims eating coffee along with qat and butter when fighting the Abyssinians.
BTW Qat and Coffee seem to have been a pretty common combo back then kkkk. I sometimes ask myself how the world would've gone had qat been popularized globally instead of coffee
The coffee plant itself was first domesticated in Eastern Ethiopia basically Galbeed which a new scientific study actually reveals. So it was in the Muslim lands.
As the Eastern population of wild coffee was the primary source for domestication.
The genome and population genomics of allopolyploid Coffea arabica reveal the diversification history of modern coffee cultivars - Nature Genetics
Chromosome-level genome assemblies of allotetraploid Coffea arabica and representatives of its diploid progenitors, Coffea eugenioides and Coffea canephora, provide insights into Arabica’s diversification history.
www.nature.com
Which makes sense to be honest those medieval sources talking about it originating in Land of Zayla, Bar Sa'Adin and Al-Jabarta don't just talk about a coffee culture but rather widespread cultivation or original crop cultivation center.
The taboo wasn't super rigid like something religious. Even among Arabs and Berbers flexibility was evident but it seems clearly some sort of ancient cultural taboo that tended to rear its head most strongly among inland and rural types still preserving ancient, even prehistoric customs.
Idilinaa
VIP
@Arabsiyawi point out something else, maybe even Khat has it's origins in the same place. It is mentioned in the local sources and Ethiopians also formed a taboo against it too. It was seen as a Tree of Islam.
I also noticed in some studies they reference Harar area as the origin point , it comes perhaps from Richard Burton i think who called it ''The Birth Place of the Khat plant"
Coffee and Khat the one two combo , ngl it is interesting that our ancestors consumed this instead of alcohol(obviously because it is haram) or some lazy stimulant because it shows they were motivated to become more productive and alert.
You can almost picture the pairing of coffee and khat it is iconic in places like Harar/Zayla/Somalia and Yemen. One sharpens the mind, the other prolongs discussion etc
Unlike alcohol, which depresses the nervous system, these stimulants were (and still are) used for:
Islamic scholarship (long hours of study and debate)
Trade negotiations (extended discussions among merchants)
The fact that these substances were embraced in a region that largely rejected alcohol speaks to a cultural preference for alertness and extended productivity, something that aligns with the intellectual and mercantile traditions of the Islamic world.
You can also see how they rejected and frowned "lazy" stimulants aka sedatives/narcotics , while khat and coffee were accepted, other substances like opium and cannabis were far less popular in the region. This suggests a cultural bias toward stimulants that "enhance" social and economic activity rather than those that induce lethargy or escapism.
I also noticed in some studies they reference Harar area as the origin point , it comes perhaps from Richard Burton i think who called it ''The Birth Place of the Khat plant"
Coffee and Khat the one two combo , ngl it is interesting that our ancestors consumed this instead of alcohol(obviously because it is haram) or some lazy stimulant because it shows they were motivated to become more productive and alert.
You can almost picture the pairing of coffee and khat it is iconic in places like Harar/Zayla/Somalia and Yemen. One sharpens the mind, the other prolongs discussion etc
Unlike alcohol, which depresses the nervous system, these stimulants were (and still are) used for:
Islamic scholarship (long hours of study and debate)
Trade negotiations (extended discussions among merchants)
The fact that these substances were embraced in a region that largely rejected alcohol speaks to a cultural preference for alertness and extended productivity, something that aligns with the intellectual and mercantile traditions of the Islamic world.
You can also see how they rejected and frowned "lazy" stimulants aka sedatives/narcotics , while khat and coffee were accepted, other substances like opium and cannabis were far less popular in the region. This suggests a cultural bias toward stimulants that "enhance" social and economic activity rather than those that induce lethargy or escapism.
Last edited:
Idilinaa
VIP
It was probably me.
I linked a study that examined it and found it to be a work of pure fiction:
The account of the wars of King ʿAmda Ṣeyon against the Islamic sultanates, an epic fiction of the 15th century
Le récit des guerres du roi ʿAmda Ṣeyon contre les sultanats islami...
Tous les commencements sont difficiles.Chaïm Potok, Au Commencement, 1976 [2019]. Le récit des guerres menées par le roi ʿAmda Ṣeyon contre les souverains de l’Ifāt et, plus globalement, contre les...
journals.openedition.org
Not only were the sultanates independent, sophisticated and were in actuality rival kingdoms especially Awfat and Awdal that had the military and economic upperhand over them , not tributary rebel provinces in the way they are depicted.
The text also fabricates stuff like it claims that ʿAmda Ṣeyon appointed sultans (e.g., replacing Ṣabr al-Dīn with Ǧamāl al-Dīn) contradicts Walasmaʿ genealogies, which show smooth successions. Uninterrupted, with no puppet ruler imposed from the outside.
It gets the chronology of succession between the sultans wrong as well from what we know through local and external arabic sources that documents the walashma genealogy and it makes no sense at all. It also lumps older sultans with newer ones like they existed in the same time frame. (e.g., Ḥaqq al-Dīn II [14th c.] with Ǧamāl al-Dīn [15th c.]) into a single conflict.
But yeah the whole thing is nonsense , imagine seriously entertaining the idea this mythical "Amda Seyon" single-handedly crushed all Muslim sultanates in one year (1332/3). No archaeological or Muslim sources confirm this. Awfāt and Awdal remained powerful for centuries after.
The text also includes mythic propaganda themes and literary tropes like angels helped him fight and the Qadi Salih (The sorcerer judge). It reads like some medieval fantasy epic fantasy work. Amda Seyon is imagined as the Heroic King, invincible warrior the ideal and Sabr Ad din in the story is the anthesis the cowardly traitor lmaoo. The narrative includes exaggerated battles, lists of territories, and eschatological themes, emphasizing a clash between Christianity and Islam.
But safe to say that the vassalage narrative is pure Christian propaganda, you can also see how this could be false in Muslim sources. The Walashma sultans defeated Ethiopian's armies multiple times often with much smaller armies. They had economic independence: Awfāt controlled trade routes to Zeila, taxing caravans, not the reverse. Diplomatic prestige: Sultans exchanged ambassadors with the Mamlūks (per al-Maqrīzī), something vassals couldn’t do.
After Saʿd al-Dīn’s death (1415), his sons built Awdal into a stronger power hardly behavior of crushed vassals. Sa'd a Din himself had vast military victories against them and was seen as the sovereign of Al-Habash(The Horn of Africa) in Cairo. He became legendary and famed in the entire Muslim world.
You can also tell from muslim sources and descriptions that the early Awfat rulers originated from Awdal launched military campaigns to conquere the Showa plateu and then built miltary garrison towns that act as buffer frontiers that seperates the Christian highlands from the Muslim Lowlands. So most of the battles that took place were border skirmishes and small scales raids.
On the Ethiopian side the short unsuccessful raids was pure gaajo(hunger) tactics as @novanova pointed out. They want the wealth and riches that the Muslims had and as they were living under starvation and feudal opression.
Last edited:
What about this quote they pull from al umari where he says these kings where vasalsIt was probably me.
I linked a study that examined it and found it to be a work of pure fiction:
The account of the wars of King ʿAmda Ṣeyon against the Islamic sultanates, an epic fiction of the 15th century
Le récit des guerres du roi ʿAmda Ṣeyon contre les sultanats islami...
Tous les commencements sont difficiles.Chaïm Potok, Au Commencement, 1976 [2019]. Le récit des guerres menées par le roi ʿAmda Ṣeyon contre les souverains de l’Ifāt et, plus globalement, contre les...
Not only were the sultanates independent, sophisticated and were in actuality rival kingdoms especially Awfat and Awdal that had the military and economic upperhand over them , not tributary rebel provinces in the way they are depicted.
The text also fabricates stuff like it claims that ʿAmda Ṣeyon appointed sultans (e.g., replacing Ṣabr al-Dīn with Ǧamāl al-Dīn) contradicts Walasmaʿ genealogies, which show smooth successions. Uninterrupted, with no puppet ruler imposed from the outside.
It gets the chronology of succession between the sultans wrong as well from what we know through local and external arabic sources that documents the walashma genealogy and it makes no sense at all. It also lumps older sultans with newer ones like they existed in the same time frame. (e.g., Ḥaqq al-Dīn II [14th c.] with Ǧamāl al-Dīn [15th c.]) into a single conflict.
But yeah the whole thing is nonsense , imagine seriously entertaining the idea this mythical "Amda Seyon" single-handedly crushed all Muslim sultanates in one year (1332/3). No archaeological or Muslim sources confirm this. Awfāt and Awdal remained powerful for centuries after.
The text also includes mythic propaganda themes and literary tropes like angels helped him fight and the Qadi Salih (The sorcerer judge). It reads like some medieval fantasy epic fantasy work. Amda Seyon is imagined as the Heroic King, invincible warrior the ideal and Sabr Ad din in the story is the anthesis the cowardly traitor lmaoo. The narrative includes exaggerated battles, lists of territories, and eschatological themes, emphasizing a clash between Christianity and Islam.
But safe to say that the vassalage narrative is pure Christian propaganda, you can also see how this could be false in Muslim sources. The Walashma sultans defeated Ethiopian's armies multiple times often with much smaller armies. They had economic independence: Awfāt controlled trade routes to Zeila, taxing caravans, not the reverse. Diplomatic prestige: Sultans exchanged ambassadors with the Mamlūks (per al-Maqrīzī), something vassals couldn’t do.
After Saʿd al-Dīn’s death (1415), his sons rebuilt Awdal into a stronger power hardly behavior of crushed vassals. Sa'd a Din himself had vast military victories against them and was seen as the sovereign of Al-Habash(The Horn of Africa) in Cairo. He became legendary and famed in the entire Muslim world.
You can also tell from muslim sources and descriptions that the early Awfat rulers originated from Awdal launched military campaigns to conquere the Showa plateu and then built miltary garrison towns that act as buffer frontiers that seperates the Christian highlands from the Muslim Lowlands. So most of the battles that took place were border skirmishes and small scales raids.
On the Ethiopian side the short unsuccessful raids was pure gaajo(hunger) tactics as @novanova pointed out. They want the wealth and riches that the Muslims had and as they were living under starvation and feudal opression.
Also it seems like the author of that French article Bertrand Hirsch is also contributed to this book I'm quoting "companion to medieval Ethiopia and Eritrea" which was published in fen 2020. It seems like the book was based on discussions at a confrencr they had in 2018.
I'm guessing he's had a drastic change of opinion in those 2 years since the French article came out in autumn 2020.
I'm guessing he's had a drastic change of opinion in those 2 years since the French article came out in autumn 2020.
Idilinaa
VIP
One thing to point out about Al-Umari and Al-Qashandi their work collapses and combines information and geographies into eachother. You see this quite a lot in Arabic sources on the region . They will start by referring to information about Christian kingdom and then collapse Muslims into it.
And the Muslim kingdoms that were at the mercy of them was smaller weaker ones like the Afar aka Danakil near them, that continued to be subservient to them that way centuries after and at times fighting back. Thats who Al-Umari is referring to , he is not confirming the events or accounts in the Amda Seyon chronicle even though people assume he does because his texts lacks clarity.
Awfat/Awdal on the underhand was trying to advocate, liberate them or rescue them, and aided them at times. If you look through Hornaristocrats twitter page you will see some manuscripts from Yemen that deals with it in more details.
Last edited:
Idilinaa
VIP
If they examined more of these Ethiopian christian chronicles they would probably see the same thing, instead of accepting what's in them blindly , they will see them as just fabricating events that never took place.
We have one such case where the Portuguese missionary Pedro Paez was shown the chronicles of Gelewados after it was written and it followed the same same Amda Seyeon epic fiction trope of an all conquering idealized King and they had to call BS on it. Because they couldn't sell them this lie as they were there to witness the war as it happened and remember what took place.
He never went to Awdal or the Muslim territories, nor did he conquere their lands. Infact the opposite happened Emir Nur succeeded Gurey persued him deep into the highlands and slayed him at his courts.
King Claudius, is latin rendering of Gelewadeos
Pedro Páez's History of Ethiopia, 1622 - Partie 2 - Page 17
''Not only did Emperor Claudio not do those things in [Chronicle) , Kingdom of Adel, but he never went there in his life. Nor did the Moors lose so much with Granh's defeat and death that they could not have defended themselves very well, had he gone there. Rather, the Moor who succeeded Granh as guazir silicet ''governor'' came from there with an army against Emperor Claudio a few years later and on giving battle, defeated and killed him not very far from where he had his court, as everyone says and his history recounts''
And Emir Nur defeated him with very tiny army in comparison.
'' Owed God for the remarkable victory that He had given him...because his army had been incomparably smaller than the emperor''
The corrections he makes is also confirmed in the local Muslim chronicle(Tarikh Al-Mulukh) referring to Emir Nur as the Second Conqueror, that more accurately described the events that followed.
This is more less an eyewitness account as well "I personally saw the head of the King with my own eyes". I proves how reliable the muslim chronicles are in comparison.
The same Gelewados chronicle also fabricates fantasy narrative that it conquered or invaded Mogadishu. He of course never went there in his life .
Last edited:
