The strangeness of somali nomads

[Idilinaa]

True. While I dont agree with the Spanish archeologists who said we were anti-state. There is some truth to the idea that if we conceptualize states as taking control of surplus production then there was simply no way to do that in somalia without a huge amount of difficulty. Since you could setup a port or trading town almost anywhere in the country. Whereas if you look at the Arabian penisula in comparison there were only a few large oases in a sea of desert so it was much easier to control trade and surplus.

You can take control and tax surplus production from agriculture and pastoralism, not just trade. Somali society didn’t begin with trade,it began with production.

I think the Spanish archaeologists are just biased. Like the text you showed earlier said, there’s an implicit assumption that doesn’t actually hold true.

They can’t grasp this complexity: pastoralism can generate as much wealth and power just as farming. People can form states and complex political systems from it.

Of course, this depends on land and herd management, and the productivity of the land much like farming does. Compared to Arabia, Somalia had larger pastures, and in certain parts well, in South-Central and Northwest they had greater agricultural production . That’s why Somalis are more widely dispersed throughout our land.

Honestly if somebody like the sayyid had emerged 30 years earlier than he did. Than we might have actually built a unified somali state

Or even Sultan Ali Yusuf, actually. Both of them expanded their domains through a mix of alliance building, diplomacy , economic expansion and conquest by incorporating diverse groups, appointing them as governors and administrators, organizing production and trade, and taxing it.

That’s basically how the medieval South-Central and Northwest sultanates expanded in a way that moved toward unification.

That’s what I hope will happen in the future: the gradual political integration of the region into some kind of union(Somali version of a European/Soviet Union or United Emirates perhaps), through economic and security agreements where we are united in the interest of mutual prosperity and defense.

 

[Midas]

You can take control and tax surplus production from agriculture and pastoralism, not just trade. Somali society didn’t begin with trade,it began with production.

I think the Spanish archaeologists are just biased. Like the text you showed earlier said, there’s an implicit assumption that doesn’t actually hold true.
View attachment 370676
View attachment 370675

They can’t grasp this complexity: pastoralism can generate as much wealth and power as farming. People can form states and complex political systems from it.

Of course, this depends on land and herd management, and the productivity of the land. Compared to Arabia, Somalia had larger pastures, and in certain parts well, in South-Central and Northwest they had greater agricultural production. That’s why Somalis are more widely dispersed throughout our land





Or even Sultan Ali Yusuf, actually. Both of them expanded their domains through a mix of alliance building, diplomacy , economic expansion and conquest by incorporating diverse groups, appointing them as governors and administrators, organizing production and trade, and taxing it.

That’s basically how the medieval South-Central and Northwest sultanates expanded in a way that moved toward unification.

That’s what I hope will happen in the future: the gradual political integration of the region into some kind of union, through economic and security agreements where we are united in the interest of mutual prosperity and defense.

One of the biggest flaws of the book state and rural transformation in northern somalia 1884-1986" by abdi Ismail samatar is that he is using the i.m Lewis lenses and assumes that somalis lived in this primordial communal state. When in reality somalis went through cycles of prosperity where trade boomed and old state structures reactivated.

Also by focusing on northern somalia he contributed to this idea of of there being some sort of economic divide between northern and southern Somalia even though there was constant migration and trade between the two parts. When you have northern clans showing up in kenya and jubbaland and setting up trade routes and negotiating with other clans there his model falls apart.

 

[Idilinaa]

One of the biggest flaws of the book state and rural transformation in northern somalia 1884-1986" by abdi Ismail samatar is that he is using the i.m Lewis lenses and assumes that somalis lived in this primordial communal state. When in reality somalis went through cycles of prosperity where trade boomed and old state structures reactivated.

Also by focusing on northern somalia hcontributed to this idea of of there being some sort of economic divide between northern and southern Somalia even though there was constant migration and trade between the two parts. When you have northern clans showing up in kenya and jubbaland and setting up trade routes and negotiating with other clans there his model falls apart.

This comes from approaching Somali society from a static, ahistorical lens removed from diversity, historical context, and structural change.

That’s one element that’s pretty misleading, because they also don’t take into account how production not just trade collapsed or declined in the 1600s due to external and political changes. If you look at the medieval descriptions before then, Somalis had vivid abundance: plenty of livestock and agricultural produce. Abundance in gold/silver and other goods. There was so much wealth.

This decline continued until production began to pick up again in the 1800s, and then trade also increased. During this period, state structures started to reactivate as cities and towns grew and economic activity expanded.

It kinda goes back to the sequence I spelled out in the Ethiopian Exposed thread:

It’s not much different from today where Somalis build wealth through production first then through wage labor, business, trade, services, and logistics. That wealth then goes into towns, housing, and construction, and eventually the wealthiest cities begin reinvesting into manufacturing industries. It follows a sequence: production → trade → towns → reinvestment → industry.

 

[Midas]

This comes from approaching Somali society from a static, ahistorical lens removed from diversity, historical context, and structural change.

That’s one element that’s pretty misleading, because they also don’t take into account how production not just trade collapsed or declined in the 1600s due to external and political changes. If you look at the medieval descriptions before then, Somalis had vivid abundance: plenty of livestock and agricultural produce. Abundance in gold/silver and other goods. There was so much wealth.

This decline continued until production began to pick up again in the 1800s, and then trade also increased. During this period, state structures started to reactivate as cities and towns grew and economic activity expanded.

It kinda goes back to the sequence I spelled out in the Ethiopian Exposed thread:

Although I won't blame him too much considering when that work came out. But the fact that nobody's tried to create a better model is a shame . Especially since I feel like the connection is glaringly obvious if you look at the works on Somali diaspora business networks and the works on the role trade places in the modern somali economy. It shouldn't be too difficult for an academic to use whatever colonial sources he has acess to and these modern works and try to construct a historical model based on this. Since no matter how flawed it would be. It'd still be better than what we have now.