Traditional men's clothing

[balanbalis]

what about these clothes:

in this first photo there is haji sudi (a dervish commander) and his brother in law on the right.
View attachment 364376

View attachment 364377

View attachment 364378

Second is arabian bisht
Third is labo go’ but more intricate and with accessories

 

[Barkhadle1520]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

the last pic looks really nice, i believe its cotton fabric

 

[Barkhadle1520]

The cloak is Habash. I know it since it was mentioned in Periplus 2000 years ago. They sold smaller cloacs and the king used a large cloak as well. You have people still wearing it for cultural evens or weddings. But it was really a Habash thing:
View attachment 360902

Also, they used white fabrics but never wore it like us. They had also a wrap, like how you see the farmers in the highlands use or old priests in the mountains.

This was Axum in 1930. You can see the priest wearing the large cloak:View attachment 360903

This was the 2000 year old source describing what this king was wearing:View attachment 360904

It was stated they sold cloaks:
View attachment 360905

Basically these Habash have been wearing the same stuff since 2000 years ago.

It gets chilly up there so they looked like this (wihtout the pants):
View attachment 360909
View attachment 360910

Some Habash these days have appropriated it (since it was never a thing commoners wore) and wear it in weddings:View attachment 360911

An actual friend pulled up on that, lol.

The Habash nobility:View attachment 360912

I wrote and posted that to say, keep that cloak business away from us. It's emblematic of the historical Habash @Emir of Zayla

You sure the cloak was mentioned in periplus ? I think copts introduced it to them

 

[The alchemist]

You sure the cloak was mentioned in periplus ? I think copts introduced it to them

I gave a screenshot from the text. That literature is one decade short of 2000 years old. The Copts had barely existed when that text came out (I think it established around that time, in fact, so they did not develop these clothes), and the clothes were ubiquitous among the Axumites. The Egyptians of that time did not wear such clothes. The Egyptians wore their endemic stuff, which was distinct, and the elites wore Greco-Roman attire mixed in with local late-historic cultural wear.

 

[Barkhadle1520]

I gave a screenshot from the text. That literature is one decade short of 2000 years old. The Copts had barely existed when that text came out (I think it established around that time, in fact, so they did not develop these clothes), and the clothes were ubiquitous among the Axumites. The Egyptians of that time did not wear such clothes. The Egyptians wore their endemic stuff, which was distinct, and the elites wore Greco-Roman attire mixed in with local late-historic cultural wear.

Doesnt this literally contradict you tho ? Also the screenshot above this one that you shared from when is it ? 100ad ?

 

[The alchemist]

View attachment 365543

Doesnt this literally contradict you tho ? Also the screenshot above this one that you shared from when is it ? 100ad ?

No, it does not contradict what I said if you look at it with precision. The text is from around 30 to 40 AD. The Barbaroi clothing is similar to what they wore in Egypt and in other Greco-Roman places because Cushites wore clothes that were similar to ancient Greek and Romans. Pay attention to how the commas separate. Our historic common clothing is similar to what they would wear in Greco-Roman Egypt and the Mediterranean.

This is what they mean:

That is why they said Barbaroi too, since that market was basically run by Cushitic Bejas who dressed like Somalis, which is said to resemble. This is the only article of clothing mentioned to be from Egypt. The others are said to be imported, the smaller cloaks as well, but from where, that is not specified. The Somali Barbaroi clothing sold in the peninsula was not stated to be from Egypt, however, IIRC. Also, the larger cloak worn by the king, as shown by the text I dropped above the one you picked, was not mentioned to be imported from anywhere.

If you want confirmation of what I am saying, here is another translation that makes the distinction clear to show how the text does not contradict me, whatsoever:

In the same section, it mentions raw artifacts with attribution to their production origin, Diospolis. And the Barbar clothing worn by the Bejas of that region was imported from Egypt.

These two illustrations below are distinct from what the Habash nobility and priests wore, showing the diversity:

These are clearly local types.

Anyway, this deviates from the central point. Which was these were endemic developments that passed down for over 2000 years, even if the original cloak style was of a foreign inspiration and import. Even if these people were given cloaks shipped from Amazon by Egyptians (which they were definitely not), cloak making became an indigenous process for over two millennia, which was my point. This was a Habash process, so the picture where these Somali guys had on that type of clothing was taken from the Habash culture. I want us to use our clothing, not take on the clothes of people we historically were distinct from and often competed and even fought against. It's like Turks rocking Greek cultural clothing. It's a symbol for cultural domination.

 

[Barkhadle1520]

No, it does not contradict what I said if you look at it with precision. The text is from around 30 to 40 AD. The Barbaroi clothing is similar to what they wore in Egypt and in other Greco-Roman places because Cushites wore clothes that were similar to ancient Greek and Romans. Pay attention to how the commas separate. Our historic common clothing is similar to what they would wear in Greco-Roman Egypt and the Mediterranean.

This is what they mean:

View attachment 365550

That is why they said Barbaroi too, since that market was basically run by Cushitic Bejas who dressed like Somalis, which is said to resemble. This is the only article of clothing mentioned to be from Egypt. The others are said to be imported, the smaller cloaks as well, but from where, that is not specified. The Somali Barbaroi clothing sold in the peninsula was not stated to be from Egypt, however, IIRC. Also, the larger cloak worn by the king, as shown by the text I dropped above the one you picked, was not mentioned to be imported from anywhere.

If you want confirmation of what I am saying, here is another translation that makes the distinction clear to show how the text does not contradict me, whatsoever:

View attachment 365556

In the same section, it mentions raw artifacts with attribution to their production origin, Diospolis. And the Barbar clothing worn by the Bejas of that region was imported from Egypt.

These two illustrations below are distinct from what the Habash nobility and priests wore, showing the diversity:

View attachment 365545

View attachment 365546

These are clearly local types.

Anyway, this deviates from the central point. Which was these were endemic developments that passed down for over 2000 years, even if the original cloak style was of a foreign inspiration and import. Even if these people were given cloaks shipped from Amazon by Egyptians (which they were definitely not), cloak making became an indigenous process for over two millennia, which was my point. This was a Habash process, so the picture where these Somali guys had on that type of clothing was taken from the Habash culture. I want us to use our clothing, not take on the clothes of people we historically were distinct from and often competed and even fought against. It's like Turks rocking Greek cultural clothing. It's a symbol for cultural domination.

I know about this but you saying that their kaba cloak originated in antiquity is just not possible

 

[The alchemist]

I know about this but you saying that their kaba cloak originated in antiquity is just not possible

You say that without evidence. It is stated that their king wore a large cloak. This meets an adequate burden of proof showing they had several types of cloaks back then, and one being distinct and larger for the king (not even mentioned to be imported). It is stated in the text. When I have evidence, I don't have time arguing your disbelief. A text 2000 years ago mentions their king wore a cloak. We know for a fact their kings wore a cloak as was documented until they were removed from power, and that is the end of that discussion. And the Kaba cloak is the one I am talking about, since that is derived from the kingly cloak. That is the large cloak.

Anyway, this discussion is over. I have already given sources and explained, and you have absolutely no evidence that the cloaks worn by their kings were not derived from the cloak-wearing regal tradition of their king 2000 years ago. The evidence is on my side. Plus, you have to automatically concede that the Copts cannot have introduced it since they were barely a thing in Egypt, if not non-existent.

This is exactly like the discussion about the feather with that one ignorant guy. We have proof of our ancestors wearing them, Somalis wore it recently, and the guy comes and says, "but what proof do you have that this is not a separate development..." I can't have those discussions. Is continuity a hard concept for you guys? Anyway, man, have a nice day.

 

[Barkhadle1520]

You say that without evidence. It is stated that their king wore a large cloak. This meets an adequate burden of proof showing they had several types of cloaks back then, and one being distinct and larger for the king (not even mentioned to be imported). It is stated in the text. When I have evidence, I don't have time arguing your disbelief. A text 2000 years ago mentions their king wore a cloak. We know for a fact their kings wore a cloak as was documented until they were removed from power, and that is the end of that discussion. And the Kaba cloak is the one I am talking about, since that is derived from the kingly cloak. That is the large cloak.

Anyway, this discussion is over. I have already given sources and explained, and you have absolutely no evidence that the cloaks worn by their kings were not derived from the cloak-wearing regal tradition of their king 2000 years ago. The evidence is on my side. Plus, you have to automatically concede that the Copts cannot have introduced it since they were barely a thing in Egypt, if not non-existent.

This is exactly like the discussion about the feather with that one ignorant guy. We have proof of our ancestors wearing them, Somalis wore it recently, and the guy comes and says, "but what proof do you have that this is not a separate development..." I can't have those discussions. Is continuity a hard concept for you guys? Anyway, man, have a nice day.

I dont like to speak without evidence, everything I say is backed up by sources, you just have to ask instead of chimping out

Im sure you know how Coptic patriarchs were sent from Egypt to Ethiopia every generations, as mentioned above the earliest kaba cloak was worn by that Coptic patriarch (abuna)


Al Makrizi also wrote how the Abuna that arrived from Egypt to Abyssinia during the reign of Yeshaq was shocked at their primitive state, because the king Yeshaq used to go out with a simple cloth over his private parts, practically naked with only a bandana, and the patriarch explained to him that this was no appropriate for a king and after this event habesha kings and nobles started wearing fancy stuff

It doesnt take a genius to connect the dots, they just took that coptic cloak and made it black, literally the only difference I see

As for the Periplus, when it talks about cloaks it was clearly not referring to this, Im pretty sure it depends on the translation of the word, some say robe some say cloak, and periplus also says Somalis from barbaria also imported the same low quality robes colorful robes from arsinoe in egypt

 

[The alchemist]

I dont like to speak without evidence, everything I say is backed up by sources, you just have to ask instead of chimping out

View attachment 365564
View attachment 365565


Im sure you know how Coptic patriarchs were sent from Egypt to Ethiopia every generations, as mentioned above the earliest kaba cloak was worn by that Coptic patriarch (abuna)


Al Makrizi also wrote how the Abuna that arrived from Egypt to Abyssinia during the reign of Yeshaq was shocked at their primitive state, because the king Yeshaq used to go out with a simple cloth over his private parts, practically naked with only a bandana, and the patriarch explained to him that this was no appropriate for a king and after this event habesha kings and nobles started wearing fancy stuff

It doesnt take a genius to connect the dots, they just took that coptic cloak and made it black, literally the only difference I see
View attachment 365566

As for the Periplus, when it talks about cloaks it was clearly not referring to this, Im pretty sure it depends on the translation of the word, some say robe some say cloak, and periplus also says Somalis from barbaria also imported the same low quality robes colorful robes from arsinoe in egypt

No one is chimping out. I showed proof, now you have to prove that the cloak that king Zoskales or whatever is not the origin of the traditional cloak-wearing culture that the kings wore last century were wearing. You cannot. So, please humble yourself and learn to accept the reality that is in text and use your mind with reason. You tried to first spin that I contradicted with the text and I had to show you how I did not. Then it was for you to accept the evidence of clearly several cloak-type use, to you now rejecting it, making a new claim you cannot substantiate.

If you have comprehension, embroidery can change throughout time, but the fact that they wore cloaks 2000 years ago is indisputable. You give categorically different answers to a discussion about clothing type.

Again, this stupidity is exactly like that bum I was trying firstly to respectfully explain to until his weird, unjustified arrogance and penchant for arguments just rejected what evidence lies to hold on to denialist, idiotic ideas (and the coward claimed he agreed later when he was checked by others). I was respectful, explained how you were categorically wrong after you came in with false notions, and now you're talking about "chimping out" like a sore loser who cannot admit when they're wrong, when I never ever showed you anything but patience and decency to write and bring evidence. My intuition about how you resembled the other guy was correct, although I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you proved it was correct as you eventually came out of the woodwork to argue nonsense. Go and f*ck youself. I'm finished here.

 

[Barkhadle1520]

No one is chimping out. I showed proof, now you have to prove that the cloak that king Zoskales or whatever is not the origin of the traditional cloak-wearing culture that the kings wore last century were wearing. You cannot. So, please humble yourself and learn to accept the reality that is in text and use your mind with reason. You tried to first spin that I contradicted with the text and I had to show you how I did not. Then it was for you to accept the evidence of clearly several cloak-type use, to you now rejecting it, making a new claim you cannot substantiate.

If you have comprehension, embroidery can change throughout time, but the fact that they wore cloaks 2000 years ago is indisputable. You give categorically different answers to a discussion about clothing type.

Again, this stupidity is exactly like that bum I was trying firstly to respectfully explain to until his weird, unjustified arrogance and penchant for arguments just rejected what evidence lies to hold on to denialist, idiotic ideas (and the coward claimed he agreed later when he was checked by others). I was respectful, explained how you were categorically wrong after you came in with false notions, and now you're talking about "chimping out" like a sore loser who cannot admit when they're wrong, when I never ever showed you anything but patience and decency to write and bring evidence. My intuition about how you resembled the other guy was correct, although I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you proved it was correct as you eventually came out of the woodwork to argue nonsense. Go and f*ck youself. I'm finished here.