isaacsamuel.substack.com
He writes interesting articles but i'd take whatever he writes with a health spoon size of salt. He is swahili biased and some of his statement comes out as either naive or uninformed.Economic growth and social transformation in 19th century Somalia.
Desert caravans, coastal cities and population movements
Love reading this guy's stuff on African history
This guy is a goldmine regarding african history, love reading his posts. Only thing I dislike about him he uses the false info made up by Cassanelli that bantu sabaki speaking groups lived in southern somalia before the slave trade which is false. This is the only mistake I have found so far.Economic growth and social transformation in 19th century Somalia.
Desert caravans, coastal cities and population movements
Love reading this guy's stuff on African history
I don't think if it was his intention to conflate the mention of Sabaki speaking peoples with the Shungwaya myth.
He writes well researched interesting papers but I think he has some biases against cushitic people tbh. He dissociates Nubians from Cushitic people on the basis they speak nilo-saharan languages. He doesn't account for the fact that the earliest Nubian civilizations up to Meroitic spoke afro-asiatic. Modern nubians also cluster closely to Beja and horn africans.
It would be fair to say swahili were present in southern Somalia (bajuni) or arrived with trade (barawanis). The way he worded comes off as Southern Somalia being settled by both cushitics and bantus. This is the case today but not historically. I also have seen him say sabaki speaking groups settled in koonfuur during the 1st century. You can find this when he made an article about the Ajuraan.
I wouldn’t go as far to say he has biases against cushites. The first discussion is kind of outside of my knowledge but on the 2nd tweet gives me the impression he is impartial. Tutsis are cushites who mixed and language shifted with bantus. The case of Tutsi vs Hutu is not a simple case of cushitc vs bantus. Certainly ancestral differences play a part but the conflict is more then that.
Yeah I wouldn't say he's biased against Cushites. He seems to be consistent with regards to west Africans. His understanding of population genetics seems to be poor in general.
He's correct that Tutsi speak a Bantu language but they range in neolithic pastoral ancestry(Cushitic) anywhere from 45% to 65% with the large remainder of their ancestry being Nilo-Saharan.
Was it conquest ?
Lol no it's not Somalis lost way more land to oromos and afar during the collapse of adal We use to have the entire hararghe and arsi and the awash plain our tribal lineages legit changed due to this massive loss of somali agriculturalists
Somalia were there before the boran invaded archaeologists have confirmed that Somali and proto Somalis lived from the tana river to Rift Valley before oromos
