Suldaanka Posted August 20, 2005 Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis (Orientalist) — Alexandria, Egypt A New Country, a New Identity, a Millennia long History With the formation of a new country, anywhere on this world, basic nation-building needs come to surface: central bank and national currency, central administration, government, police, army, health system, primary and secondary education, universities, museums, tourism, sports, etc. Every new country strives for international recognition and presence in the various international fora and organizations. International recognition is based on basic elements of the International Law, Human Rights, Democracy, National Identity, etc. National Identity emanates from Culture, Language, Religion and History, various expressions of a people’s material life and delineates the people in question as different than the neighboring. One has however to bear in mind that the concept itself of the ‘nation’ is relatively recent in the World History, and in any case ‘Nations’ do not antedate the Lumieres philosophers, and the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, when it was stipulated that ‘political power’ should be conferred on ‘the people’. It was widely propagated that the nation does not derive from a ‘monarch’, and in this way the various ‘peoples’ of the world should be (and after two centuries of fights and struggles finally got) independent of the contingencies of dynastic or military history. This new concept in the World History contributed a lot to the rise of Democratic Rule, but relied heavily on History, Historicity, and what could be described for an entire people as ‘Loyalty to the Past’. In Europe, nations have been formed around two opposing concepts: the French concept, based on free, rational allegiance of the individual to a political collectivity, and the German concept of objectively determined membership of an organic body. However, most of the European nations have been formed on the basis of a mixture of these two concepts, although the proportions have varied according to the political and social context. In all the cases, ‘Loyalty to the Past’ played a key role, and at times, when the poor educational conditions of a people did not allow a high degree of Historical Conscience and National Identity would not easily hinge on ‘Loyalty of the Past’ intellectuals and erudite scholars from other countries made theirs the role of National Awakener. The case of the French Claude Fauriel for Modern Greece and Greek National Historicity is quite indicative. Loyalty to the Past: Delving into Pre-Christian Antiquity This academic and intellectual attitude started in Europe several centuries before the Age of the Lumieres; it actually dates back to Quattrocento and Cincuecento, the momentous period of Renaissance. As an erudite concept and approach, it was not unknown in other civilizations: Search for, Delving in, Knowledge of, and Loyalty to the Past characterized the top of every great civilization. Such attitudes can be attested in Islamic Istanbul, Samarqand, Ispahan, Cordoba, Baghdad, and Damascus, and proceeding retrospectively in the Sassanid Empire of Iran, the Roman Empire, the Hellenism of Alexandria, the Late Antiquity Judaism, the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, the 26th ‘Libyan’ Dynasty of Egypt, the Sargonid Empire of Assyria, and even in the Neo-Sumerian times of Urukagina, at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE! Renaissance in Europe was precisely the effort to ‘be loyal to the past’ even at the price of rejecting the (Medieval) Christian ‘present’. The model proved to be very successful, and because of this it was not exported to the colonized countries. Consequently, the Mayas and the Aztecs of Mexico and the Incas of Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia ‘should’ not delve into their past, but should forget it and accept the colonizing peoples’ past and culture. Ever since, the colonized peoples of America should not aspire to a ‘Renaissance’ of theirs, and their slightest effort towards this direction was met with unprecedented oppression (Haiti being one excellent example in this regard). When the Colonial Powers’ competition was transferred in Africa and Asia, local colonized peoples were not allowed to proceed in the European way of delving into the Past and accessing a thorough level of Historical Conscience. Quite indicatively, despite so many excavations, expeditions, researches, publications, and academic labor, for more than 100 years after Champollion deciphered Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics there were not a single Egyptian scholar and intellectual to have got the interest to study and learn Hieroglyphics, investigate the Egyptian Antiquity, and codify his National Historicity into terms that would be later analyzed and diffused at the level of the national education and culture. What happened to Egypt occurred – with variations and similarities – to Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, India, Abyssinia, and Yemen. And the situation was perpetuated down to our times, with the colonized countries remaining mostly ignorant and unconscious of their past, relying on European and American scholarship for its reconstitution and study, and certainly disconnected one from another (there is no Egyptian Assyriologist in the same way there is not Iraqi or Syrian Egyptologist). There have been four exceptions, but after the late 60s we can truly count only three. Turkey, reborn out of the ashes of the Ottoman Caliphate, had kept reminiscences of the Islamic interest for past civilizations that was limited at the times of the Ottoman decay (after 1700). Applying Western methods of government and culture, M. K. Ataturk led the Turks to the rekindling of the Search for the past, and to passionate debates about the true identity of Modern Turks: Turkic (going back to Central Asia) or Anatolian (and therefore related with the Hittites and the Ancient Greeks). Iran, similarly to Turkey, was never colonized or even influenced by colonial powers; in addition, there was always a kind of Iranian Nationalism with Sassanid Emperors representing themselves in bas-reliefs in sacred places of the earlier Achaemenid Shahs, and with various Islamic rulers and shahs of Iran (Safevid or Qadjar) pursuing the same attitude in places like Naqsh-e Rustam (nearby Persepolis) and Tag-Bostan (nearby Kermanshah). China and Japan are the other two cases, but the notorious Cultural Revolution in China, geared by Mao in 1967 to create the ‘new, communist man’, led to an unprecedented destruction of monuments, temples, palaces, manuscripts, steles and other epigraphic evidence, depriving modern Chinese from the largest part of their National Heritage, and uprooting even the feeling of ‘Loyalty to the Past’. Somaliland and the Need for National Conscience and Historiography Emerging from the ashes of a long and most devastating Civil War in Somalia, Somaliland has the need to shape its National Conscience through delving into its Past, and to establish a Corpus of National Historiography Sources. This is the equivalent of establishing an ordinary National Service of Antiquities’ Repertory; but whereas the latter is of purely archeological importance (as record of the national antiquities of the country), the former is not of purely philological interest. Based on the sources of National Historiography, National Historicity and Conscience will be shaped in order to be later incorporated in the Modern Somalilanders’ Education and Culture, and bring forth awareness and self-respect, pride and identity. The sources of National Historiography can be epigraphic evidence or textual data belonging to local or foreign literatures, languages and scriptures. Delving into the Historical - Cultural Milieu of the Earliest Textual References to Somaliland It is essential therefore to select and focus on texts that referred to the area of the present day Somaliland throughout the Ages. As it is already known, local peoples in the area of Somaliland, and more generally in the area of the elapsed Somalia, and the Horn of Africa area down to the coast of present day Mozambique, did not develop scriptures of their own in the pre-Christian and even the Pre-Islamic Antiquity. So, contrarily to what happened in Yemen where Ancient Yemenite scripture was introduced already in the 6th century BCE (and was in use until the Islamization of the country, following Ali’s preaching in Sanaa in 630 CE) for the needs of writing down Sabaean, Qatabani, Himyaritic and Hadhramwti (the basic Ancient Yemenite languages), we have to rely exclusively on foreign literatures in our effort to reconstitute the Ancient History of the Eastern African Coast. Although this area was at the confines of the then known world, the Eastern African Coast was proved to be visited by Assyrians and Babylonians already in the 3rd millennium BCE. The area was described in Ancient Egyptian generically as ‘Punt’, but to modern scholarship this term is difficult to be precisely identified with a part of the entire area. Various efforts of identification encompass the coast of Sudan, the coast of Eritrea, the Red Sea coast of Yemen, the Atbara river valley area (in the Eastern part of Sudan), the coast of Somaliland, the coast of Puntland, the entire coast of the elapsed Somalia, etc. With the exception of some of the aforementioned that seem rather farfetched interpretations, perhaps the term Punt meant to the Ancient Egyptians a vast area in the Eastern African coast, where the homonymous state of Punt (as mentioned in the famous ‘Expedition to Punt’ by Pharaoh Hatshepsut (1490 – 1470 BCE) in the inscriptions of the Second Colonnade – southern part – of her mortuary temple at Deir el Bahari in Thebes West / Luqsor) was only a part (and therefore even more difficult to identify). The fact that there are linguistic similarities between the Ancient Egyptian term ‘Punt’ and the Ancient Greek term ‘Opone’ (that signifies a town and port of call in the area of Ras Hafun coast) does not solve much of the Punt mystery, although it looks plausible that the Punt kingdom might have been located in that area. Ancient Greek and Latin sources pertaining to the Horn of Africa area are later than Queen Hatshpsut’s text by 1500 years but some of them shed much more light into the social, economic, commercial and political details of the area. We have however to make clear that, when we compare the two periods (15th century BCE and 1st century CE), we have to bear in mind that many groundbreaking developments had taken place in-between! The entire world had changed, which is only normal for such a long space of time! Iran, Yemen, and India were almost empty circumferences with few centers of relatively low culture at the times of the Egyptian Queen. When we go down to the times of the first Christian century, not only Iran, Yemen and India but also Axumite Abyssinia had risen to power, had developed great civilizations, involving scriptures and epigraphic material. Even more important is the fact that in this later period another event had also taken place. Due to the maritime inclination of the Qatabani Yemenites and to their navigational explorations in the open seas, direct sailing from the Horn of Africa to the West coast of India was already possible thanks to good knowledge of the Monsoons. The extensive navigation of the Yemenites in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean led to the establishment of a vast maritime trade network that encompassed the West coast of India, the coasts of Persia and the Persian Gulf, the Eastern coast of Africa, the coasts of today’s Oman and Yemen, as well as the entire Red Sea. Yemenite merchants and sailors had the upper hand in this vast network for several hundreds of years, so that we can safely call the phenomenon ‘Yemenite Thalassocracy’. It was only normal for the Egyptians to try to be involved and to send a fleet manned by Phoenician sailors to circumnavigate Africa, which they did during two years (around 600 BCE) at the times of Pharaoh Nechao. We know that the Yemenite Thalassocracy phenomenon occurred at the times of the Achaemenidian Empire of Iran, after Shah Darius envisioned the maritime contacts between the central province of his vast country and Africa (Egypt, Libya and the North of Sudan were Persian provinces) as an alternative to the land contacts that had to cross areas like Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) and Syria, where the Iranian control was new and therefore not absolutely solid. For a period going from 525 BCE (Iranian invasion of Egypt and the north of Sudan) to around 115 BCE (when the combined forces of Himyar and Sheba invaded the Yemenite kingdom of Qataban), we have uninterruptedly increased commercial and cultural exchanges throughout the vast area of the aforementioned network area. Certainly the decay times of the Achaemenidians (after 425 BCE) allowed the Qatabani Yemenites to raise heavy taxation and accumulate great wealth. The rise of Sheba and Himyar at the prejudice of the wealthy and maritime Qataban proved to be a rather negative development for Yemen, since the two countries had no significant maritime tradition. The event was monitored and noticed by the ailing Ptolemies of Egypt (the Macedonian origin dynasty that ruled from Memphis and Alexandria between 330 and 30 BCE), who did their best to force the Yemenites to reduce the high taxation on products from India, Africa and Asia. In addition, Egyptian commercial ships started sailing beyond the Bab el Mandeb straits paying the necessary tolls. Still the Yemenite taxation was heavy enough to cause a Roman naval expedition against Yemen and Aden (Arabia Felix) a few years after the Roman annexation of Egypt and the death of Cleopatra VII. Strabo narrated that at the beginning of the Roman Imperial era more than 100 ships sailed annually down to the southernmost confines of the Red Sea and beyond. All this testifies to increased interest of the Greco-Roman world in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and the reason was apparent: spices, aromatic trees, various luxurious and exquisite products were necessary in the changing habitudes of the Mediterranean people who sought the refined Oriental sumptuousness instead of their earlier simplicity and modesty. Thanks to the rise of the navigation and trade, we notice an increased interest in explorations as well. A Roman mission was sent through friendly Meroe (the great Kushitic state at the north and the center of present day Sudan) to sail down to the sources of the Nile, and in their return they reported about the Mount of the Moon (possibly Kilimanjaro). The ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ and the Horn of Africa countries at the end of 1st century CE This is the historical – cultural milieu from which we extract historical information about the Eastern coast of Africa based mostly on Greco-Roman sources. As coronation of earlier fragmentary or disparate textual evidence, the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ proved to be a goldmine of historical information for the entire area between Egypt and Indochian/Indonesia (an area called ‘Chryse’, i.e. ‘the Golden’, by the Greeks at those days). The text was written around the year 70 CE, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero and (as stated in the text itself) the reign of the King Malichus II of the Nabataeans (at Rekem / Petra in today’s Jordan). The text is written by an anonymous Alexandrian Egyptian merchant and captain, who certainly had personal experience in vast parts of that navigation and trade network area, and wished to compile a king of guide for sailors and traders. We assume that ‘the Periplus of the Red Sea’ is just one of many texts of similar contents, but of course the only that what preserved entirely until today. It is not a long text. In a modern English translation, it would be less than 8000 words (around 24 pages). But it is a very dense text mentioning the distance between the various ports of call, the products exported from, and imported in, every port and market, plus socio-anthropological and political information. To lesser extent, it also provides details about land and desert road networks attached to the maritime network, which is the author’s main topic. The ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ is written in the way needed for different maritime voyages, because at those days there were basically two maritime itineraries throughout that vast area. One itinerary was the African sailing down to Rhapta, the area of present day Daressalam in Tanzania. The coast beyond that faraway port of the South was unknown and certainly not frequented. So, the text starts with the narration of all the harbours from Arsinoe (Suez) to Rhapta. The other itinerary was the Asiatic sailing along side the coast of the Arabian Peninsula (and at times the Persian Gulf) to the Delta of Indus River, and then through the Western and the Eastern coasts of India towards Indochina and China. So, after presenting the African coast sailing, the text goes back to Arsinoe, and continues with the narration of all the harbours from Arsinoe and Leuke Kome (Al Wadjh in the northern Red Sea coast of S. Arabia) down to Yemenite, Persian and Indian coasts up to China. The text gives also details about the open seafaring from the Horn of Africa area to the West Indian coast. - Saba and Himyar kingdoms in Yemen merged - Hadhramawt Kingdom, named as Frankincense-bearing Country The Periplus of the Red Sea makes a clear cut distinction between the civilized Yemenites, who were organized in two states, one under Kharibael (Saba and Himyar kingdoms had merged at those days), who ruled mostly the area of the former Northern Yemen plus the region of Aden, and another under Eleazos (the Hadhramawt Kingdom that was named in Greek ‘I Libanotoforos Khora’, i.e. the Frankincense-bearing Country). The Yemenite states controlled their respective coasts and inland, whereas only barbaric nomads were said to dwell in the coasts of Arabia. - Roman Egypt in control of ‘Berberia’, the Sudanese coast - Meroe With regard to the Eastern African coast, the text states clearly that the coast of present day Sudan was rather controlled by the Roman rulers of Egypt (through their colony, Ptolemais Theron, at present day Suakin). All that area was called ‘Berberia’ (not to be confused with the adjective ‘barbaric’). Quite strangely, the great Kushitic kingdom of Meroe (in today’s Sudanese Nile Valley) is reported not to control the Red Sea coast adjacent to it. - Axumite Abyssinia The coast of today’s Eritrea between Adulis (near Massawa) and Avalites (Assab) was ruled by Zoscales, king of Axum, whose rule ended at Avalites. - ‘The Other Berberia’ – independent state in the area of today’s Somaliland The coast beyond the Axumite kingdom until the Horn of Africa was named by the Periplus’ author ‘I Alli Berberia’, i.e. ‘the Other Berberia’, without any explanation to the connection with ‘Berberia’, the Sudanese coast. ‘The Other Berberia’ was ruled independently’. - Azania – a Yemenite colony - Socotra – a Hadhramawti colony Beyond the ‘Akrotirion Aromaton’, the Cape of Spices as the Periplus names Cape Guardafui, Azania was extended down to Rhapta (in today’s Tanzania). Azania was colony of the Sabaean – Himyaritic kingdom of Kharibael, and plenty of details are given in the text. Similarly, the Hadhramawt Kingdom (‘I Libanotoforos Khora’, i.e. the Frankincense-bearing Country) owed the island of Socotra (‘Dioskouridou Nesos’/island, according to the text) as colony. We will dedicate a second article to publish and analyze the excerpts of the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ that refer to ‘The Other Berberia’. ***Editors note: Prof. Dr M S Megalommatis is a historian and a specialist on eastern Africa , Yemen and the Middle East. He is also a contributor to this website, Somaliland.Org, so stay tuned for more articles from Dr Megalommatis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nazia_20 Posted August 25, 2005 CORRECTION "LAS ANOD" IS NOT PART OF SOMALILAND This Message is Not To offend anyone or open for a political dispute just making a correction on the map you supplied Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jaylaani Posted August 25, 2005 ^^^What are you gonna do, bite it off from the map? You can dispute it politically but yes Las Anaod is part of Somaliland, has been and always will be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SOO MAAL Posted August 25, 2005 True nazia Laascaanood and Sool are an integral part of Somalia The tribal state of Somaliland is not an option for Laascaanood Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NASSIR Posted August 28, 2005 The title given by Suldaan and the content of the document appear to be incongruous. Suldaan made it as if the author is painting the existence of historicity, in one particular place., yet the document is a comprehensive review of the Horn of Africa’s past study, parts of Asia, and the failure to be explored and developed by their own people as pride and heritage. Contrary to how the document is depicted in this thread, the substance of this document is that there has been a lack of concern or effort in delving into our past to write a history of our own (historiography) to objectively elevate our national consciousness, keeping in mind its subsequent corollary to pride, loyalty to one’s country, identity, and beautiful heritage. Unfortunately, up to this time, People in the Eastern part of Africa haven’t developed an interest for such things despite various archeological excavations that revealed ancient epigraphy, paintings, rock art, engravings, depictions of wild fauna, images of domestic animals and many other significant discovery that is still available at our own retrieval and use. For instance, an archeological research conducted in Karin Heagan, a small village between LasQorey and Badhan , which houses the biggest rock concentration in the entire Horn of Africa revealed evidence of human occupation and multitude styles of paintings and microloth artifacts , which can be used to retrieve behavioral information of human behavior. I have several documents under my possession giving contextual understanding of the prehistory of the Horn of Africa in general and Somalia in particular. However, the author seems to be missing an important point in regard to his small piece of reference in Somalia. He probably needs a crash course for the geographical areas of Cape Gurdufia, Punt, and present day of Somaliland. He is lumping all of them as one. His grave misunderstanding is his attempt to make a distinction between present day Somaliland and the rest of Somalia as two separate countries. His first supporting argument begins as this , “Delving into the Historical - Cultural Milieu of the Earliest Textual References to Somaliland†with none or extremely deficient amount of evidence except referring to the historical names of Punt, Cape Gurdufai, Ras Hafun, and the entire coast of Somalia as the proof he can establish. He stripped these historical landmarks of their significance as exclusive names of their own localities historically while quoting them as the Earliest Textual references to present day de facto Somaliland. Except for his errors, his points underscore useful information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Suldaanka Posted August 28, 2005 ^^ Caamir, that was just one part of many parties... Here is the second part, read it carefully. ------------ Somaliland – 'The Other Berberia' according to ‘the Periplus of the Red Sea ’ By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis As continuation of our previous article, we will go through the excerpts of the Periplus of the Red Sea that concern the area of ‘the Other Berberia’ that almost 2000 years ago was delineated within the present borders of Somaliland . Although, we have earlier references to this area, these excerpts are the first text to mention a state union within the borders of modern Somaliland , taking therefore an important position in the Historiography of the new country. As we mentioned in the earlier article, the text starts with references to the coast of Egypt , where in the Ptolemaic (330 – 30 BCE) and the Roman times (30 BCE – 642 CE) the major harbours and ports of call were: Arsinoe ( Suez ), Myos Hormos (lit. Mouse Bay , Hurghada), Filoteras (Safaga), Leukos Limen (lit. White Harbour , Qusseir), and Berenice (Ras Banas). He continues describing the present Sudanese coast, which he names ‘Berberia’. There he names one harbour, Ptolemais Theron (lit. Ptolemais of the Hunters, Suakin), an Egyptian colony set up by the Ptolemies. The author states that the great inland Kushitic state at the southern border of Roman Egypt, with Meroe (today Bagrawiyah in Sudan , between Shendi and Atbarah) as capital, did not control ‘Berberia’, on the Red Sea coast. Proceeding to the south, the author narrates many details about Adulis (nearby Massawa in Eritrea ), the great harbour of the Abyssinian kingdom of Axum that was then ruled by king Zoscales. The entire coast beyond Adulis up to Avalites on the Bab el Mandeb straits belonged reportedly to Axum . Beyond that point extended ‘I Alli Berberia’, the Other Berberia. The 7th Chapter of the Periplus of the Red Sea is dedicated to Avalites. We find useful to publish here integrally so that we give the reader full details about the Other Berberia. Avalites in the Periplus of the Red Sea Text 7. From this place the Arabian Gulf trends toward the east and becomes narrowest just before the Gulf of Avalites . After about four thousand stadia, for those sailing eastward along the same coast, there are other Berber market-towns, known as the 'far-side' ports; lying at intervals one after the other, without harbors but having roadsteads where ships can anchor and lie in good weather. The first is called Avalites; to this place the voyage from Arabia to the far-side coast is the shortest. Here there is a small market-town called Avalites, which must be reached by boats and rafts. There are imported into this place, flint glass, assorted; juice of sour grapes from Diospolis; dressed cloth, assorted, made for the Berbers; wheat, wine, and a little tin. There are exported from the same place, and sometimes by the Berbers themselves crossing on rafts to Ocelis and Muza on the opposite shore, spices, a little ivory, tortoise-shell, and a very little myrrh, but better than the rest. And the Berbers who live in the place are very unruly. Analysis 1. Where lies Avalites? Based on this chapter's text, we are inclined to identify Avalites with Assab (at the southernmost end of the Eritrean coast, nearby the Djibouti borders) rather than Zeila (present Seylac at the borders of Somaliland with Djibouti ). There are two reasons for this identification, first the distance mentioned in the text, and second the reference to Avalites as the narrowest point to cross the Red Sea to Yemen . Even if we agree that the ancient mariners sailed straightforward down to today's Seylac (without sailing around the Gulf of Tadjoura in Djibouti), the distance from Adulis (near today's Massawa) to Zeila is much more than 4000 or rather 4800 stadia, to put it correctly. In this regard we should also take into consideration the reference in chapter 5 to another part of the Red Sea navigation: "And about eight hundred stadia beyond there is another very deep bay, with a great mound of sand piled up at the right of the entrance; at the bottom of which the opsian stone is found, and this is the only place where it is produced". The calculation mentioned in the aforementioned excerpt concerns the distance from Adulis to another bay further in the south for which the text offers us natural description but no name; we can identify this bay with the Ghela'elo bay before Tio in Eritrea . (For modern itinerary narration and pictures: http://www.asmera.nl/eritrea2003/eritrea-2003-14.htm ). It is from this point that the author of the Periplus of the Red Sea calculates 4000 stadia further trip to Avalites in his chapter 7. The total distance (4800 stadia) information prohibits any identification of Zeyla/Seylac with Avalites. Another equally important point is the reference to the narrowest point of crossing the Red Sea , which is said to be at Avalites. This cannot be on any other spot but in the south of Assab ( Eritrea ) and in the north of Obock ( Djibouti ). We have to admit that the reference to the Gulf of Avalites within the text leads us to its identification with the Gulf of Tadjoura in Djibouti , and not with the small Assab bay. But again, Avalites stands at its northernmost edge; let's say at its beginning for those coming from Adulis. The author tells us quite explicitly at the beginning of chapter 7: 'The Arabian Gulf trends toward the east and becomes narrowest just before the Gulf of Avalites '. So, certainly we cannot locate Avalites with precision at the position of Assab itself, but we feel safe to claim that Avalites was at the area of Assab, probably at the very border point between Eritrea and Djibouti . This is even more so, because further in the text of chapter 7 we have a second reference to the Bab el Mandeb straits. When the author starts enumerating the harbours and ports of call in the Gulf of Avalites , he mentions Avalites first, and then adds: 'To this place the voyage from Arabia to the far-side coast is the shortest'. 2. Identification of the ' Arabian Gulf ' At the beginning of the chapter we find the reference to the 'Arabian Gulf', and through the earliest part of the analysis the reader may have already assumed correctly that, by using this term in Ancient Greek, one refers to what we call today 'Red Sea'. The following question may arise to the non specialist readers: - Why the author names the Red Sea like this, as 'Arabios kolpos', and does the author imply that the Arabs lived everywhere around this area? The answer is simple, and it takes basics in Historical Geography to understand the reasons. The first civilized people to enter in contact with the Arabs were the Assyrians; the first text to mention the existence of Arabs is an excerpt from the Annals of Shalmaneser III, Emperor of Assyria at the middle of 8th BCE. His expanding empire controlled the northern confines of the peninsula, and the Arabs had to pay tribute. Soon, the Yemenites (non Arabs, there must be no confusion in this regard) contacted Assyria the fame of which extended far. The kingdom of Sheba was mentioned thus in the same Assyrian Emperor's Annals. Since the Sabaean Yemenites occupied a land beyond the Arabs (who were concentrated around Hedjaz , in the northwestern part of the peninsula), the Assyrians used to confuse all those living beyond the Arabs with the latter, who were closer to Mesopotamia . The confusion covered the entire area of the peninsula, and was communicated to other peoples like the Persians, the Greeks, and consequently the Romans, who all entered in contact with the peninsula world in later times. Not only did the confusion occur with regard to the peninsula, but also in connection with the Red Sea area. To properly shape an approach to this subject, we must get rid of preconceived schemes formed out of the consideration of modern maps. It is our mistake to project to early times the image of a modern political map on which Egypt , Sudan , Israel , Jordan , Eritrea , S. Arabia, Yemen, Djibouti , Somaliland , and Abyssinia are present. If we refer to the Late Antiquity, the consideration should be very different. Egypt was not a Red Sea country. This statement may look extraordinary but it is not. For the Ancient Egyptians, even the desert that is included in the modern state's territory was not part of Egypt . Egypt was the valley and the Delta of the Nile . In addition to this surface, the various oases were considered Egyptian territory with some condescension; but it went up that point only. The Mediterranean coasts or the Red Sea coasts were never accepted by the Ancient Egyptians as true Egyptian soil; this is not strange, if we take into consideration the fact that the Ancient Egyptian name for Egypt was Kemet, which means 'the Black One' (with the feminine ending –t) with reference to the black soil of Abyssinia that the Blue Nile and the Nile's affluent Atbarah pull with them further to the north mostly at the times of the Nile's annual flood. This black land was ' Egypt ' for the Ancient Egyptians, not the desert! So, certainly there were Egyptian harbours since the 2nd millennium BCE on the present Red Sea coast of Egypt , like Tshaaw ('Leukos Limen' in Ptolemaic and Roman times, today's Qusseir) but they were viewed as annexes, stations, not genuine Egyptian soil. As far as the great Sudanese state of Kush / Meroe is concerned, we know that it was at times a strong continental power and it ruled Egypt at the times of the XXVth dynasty (750 – 670 BCE), but it had no significant maritime vocation and aspiration. More precisely, the text of the Periplus of the Red Sea that mentions in the area of 'Berberia' (today's Sudanese coast) the Berbers, and various semi-barbaric ethnic groups, namely the Fish-Eaters, the Wild-flesh-Eaters and the Calf-Eaters, bears evidence to the fact that Meroe did not control the coast! What is left in the entire area of the Red Sea are the Axumite Abyssinians, who controlled Adulis and the coast of Eritrea down to Avalites, and the Yemenites. The latter had long been confused with the Arabs, as we already said. And the former were just Yemenites who crossed the Red Sea coast and settled in the African coast and to some small extent in the inland. So, they were either unknown to, or confused with the rest by, the 5th – 3rd century BCE Greeks, who named the Red Sea as Arabian Gulf . So, the earlier Assyrian confusion between Arabs and Yemenites expanded to other peoples, and was extended from the peninsula to the Red Sea area. That is why the English translation of the Greek term as 'Arabian', not Arab or Arabic is correct; the ending -ian gives a wider impression about issues pertaining to the surroundings of the Arabs, not the Arabs themselves. 3. Red Sea as geographical, geo-cultural, and geopolitical term in the Antiquity With the aforementioned said, we contribute to the formation of an ensuing question, namely to what extent the terms 'Arabian Gull' and Red Sea are overlapping. At this point, we enter into a completely different concept. What most of the unspecialized readers ignore is that in the Antiquity the term 'Red Sea' ('Erythra Thalassa' in Greek, and 'Mare Rubrum' in Latin) signified a vast area that encompassed the water mass and the coasts around a) the Arabios kolpos (the 'Arabian' Gulf – which corresponds to what we call today 'Red Sea'), b) the Persikos kolpos (the Persian Gulf ) and c) the entire Indian Ocean from Africa to Indochina and Indonesia . Sailing from Palaisimundu (also called Taprobane or Sarandib, i.e. Sri Lanka ) to Rhapta in Azania , an ancient mariner sailed in what the Ancient Greeks and Romans called 'the Red Sea '. This is actually the reason the text we refer to, namely the 'Periplus of the Red Sea', is named like this; the author does not narrate about the navigation and the trade only in the area of what we call 'Red Sea' today (in such a case the author would terminate his text at the points of Avalites and Aden), but incorporates all the details he knows about the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Quite interestingly, the famous Alexandrian scholar Agatharchides, who wrote in the Alexandrian Library around the middle of the 3rd century BCE, in his treatise (that has been only partly saved) 'On the Red Sea' ('Peri tis Erythras Thalassis' in Ancient Greek), when he narrates about the natural phenomena that stand behind the apparently 'odd' name of the Red Sea, describes details occurring in the area of the southern coast of the peninsula, somewhere between Hadhramawt and Dhofar (today's western Oman), which is of course a land far from the region we call 'Red Sea' today! On the other hand, these ancient sources help end the false controversy about the name of the Persian Gulf (that fanatic followers of the Pan-Arabic totalitarian ideology in various countries futilely attempt to call ''Arabic Gulf', since the ancient term 'Arabic Gulf' (meant as we already said for what we call today 'Red Sea') has fallen in desuetude in modern times. The term 'Persikos kolpos' is fully justified historically for the area in question, and goes back at the times of Achaemenid Iran (550 – 330 BCE). The Persians, after invading Nabonid Babylonia (539 BCE) incorporated in their vast empire, the southern coasts of the Persian Gulf (the coasts of today's Kuwait, S. Arabia, Qatar, and Emirates) that were earlier controlled by the Babylonians, and before them by the Assyrians. These lands were mostly inhabited by Babylonians and Aramaeans. Furthermore, the Iranians early invaded the coasts of today's Oman that became Iranian province for many long centuries. In addition, there were no Arabs in all that area, since the Arabs were all concentrated in Hedjaz , as we already said. The way to delineate the limits of the Red Sea was quite interesting indeed; since the African and Asiatic coasts and the islands of Indonesia demarcated the ' Red Sea ' of the Ancients from the West, the North, and the East, what was left for erudite precision in the times of Antiquity was the south. Having explored the southernmost confines of Africa, and got the knowledge that the Black Continent can be circumnavigated, the Ancients clarified that at its southernmost confines the 'Red Sea' was surrounded by part of the primordial stream of Soft Waters, named Okeanos (Ocean, as mythical concept it was formed under Assyrian – Babylonian influence, and corresponded to the Sumerian – Assyrian Apsu), that encircled the entire Earth's circular surface. This approach is explicitly expressed also by the author of the Periplus of the Red Sea . 4. The population of Avalites The text is very clear in this regard; there were no more Axumite Abyssinians in Avalites. The local population is Berberic. By stating that ' there are other Berber market-towns', and by presenting Avalites as the first of them, the author tells us very clearly that Berbers lived at the very edge of the Axumite kingdom that controlled the coasts in the north of Avalites up to Adulis and the Calf-Eaters. He repeats his argument, when he states later that 'sometimes' the Berbers themselves were involved in navigation and trade, exporting their local products by 'crossing on rafts to Ocelis and Muza on the opposite shore'. The same argument is found for a third time at the point where mention of the imports is made; Avalites imports 'dressed cloth, assorted, made for the Berbers'. Since these cloths were made to fit Berberic preference and taste, and then imported by the people of Avalites, we easily deduce that these people were Berbers. We have not doubt that they represent the African Kushitic background that expanded from Eastern to Western Africa, as attested throughout the Ages (Ibn Battuta in the middle Islamic times for instance). Whether they can be identified as the ancestors of the Modern Berbers of the Atlas area we are unable to specify. What further information can we extract from this text about the Berbers of the Other Berberia? First point, we have the inclination to consider them as the same ethnic – linguistic group as the Berbers living in Berberia, at the present day Sudanese coast. The difference is that in the Other Beberia, today's Somaliland , the Berbers were the only local inhabitants, whereas the Berbers of Berberia lived among the Fish-Eaters, in the coast, and the Wild-flesh Eaters and the Calf-Eaters further inland. To follow the text with accuracy, we are led to believe that the Berbers in Berberia (Sudanese coast and inland) lived in the inland, contrarily with the Berbers of the Other Berberia, who looked well versed in maritime activities. We cannot conclude anything about the Berbers' original place. Did they all first dwell in the Other Berberia, and some of them immigrated to the coast of present day Sudan that was named after them? If we accept this working hypothesis, we find difficult to explain the Other Berberia is called like this, and not Berberia which would seem more proper. It looks more plausible that they all first lived in the coast of modern Sudan, and, following the continuous pressure exercised on them by the Fish-Eaters, the Wild-flesh Eaters and the Calf-Eaters, the largest part of the Berbers emigrated to the south and settled in present day Somaliland's coast, whereas the smallest part was pushed in the inland. This justifies to some extent the identification of the two names with the respective areas. However, we cannot exclude the opposite, and in that case the names were rather due to the order in which the two areas became known to the Egyptians and the Greeks of Egypt who sailed to the south (Berberia first, and the Other Berberia second). Second, we realize that, having limited maritime experience, the Berbers of Avalites tried to exploit their natural resources and to export them by themselves. If we combine the text's reference to their navigation to the Red Sea Yemenite coast (Ocelis and Mouza, in the are of Al Mokha today) and their political – military attitude, which is mention immediately after (' And the Berbers who live in the place are very unruly'), we understand why both, the Yemenite kingdom of Saba and Himyar and the Abyssinian kingdom of Axum, failed to put this area under control. Realizing the value of their products in the various markets of the trade network around the Red Sea , the Avalites' Berbers were disobedient to any foreign ruler, who would exploit the natural resources of the Other Berberia. It would be safe to hypothesize that there had been many efforts anterior to the text we study, and the continuous resistance of the Berbers made the neighboring kings' dreams fail and the foreign navigators' and merchants' opinion focalize on the Avalites' Berbers' unruliness. Of course, the efforts to subdue Avalites must have been mostly deployed by the King of Axum, and this not because of the land vicinity. First, Axum did not control many harbours and ports of call; Abyssinian income hinged mostly on Adulis. Contrarily to that, the Yemenite kingdom of Saba and Himyar controlled the Yemenite coast and its African colonies, the entire Azania in the south of Cape Guardafui down to Rhapta. So, Yemenite income would not increase dramatically with the Avalites port subdued and controlled. Finally, the fact that the Avalites' Berbers preferred to export their products from Mouza and Ocelis, and not from Adulis (where they could supposedly bring their products) is quite telling! It is obvious that, by acting like this, the Avalites' Berbers wished to avoid extra interest or taxation on their products that would minimize their own income. By bringing independently their products to Ocelis and Muza, the Avalites' Berbers were present in one of the two most important ports of call (Muza and Adulis) in the entire area between Arsinoe ( Egypt ) and Barygaza ( India ). If we now take into consideration the excerpt's reference to the local Berberic products, the Avalites' Berbers exported, namely 'spices, a little ivory, tortoise-shell, and a very little myrrh, but better than the rest'. If we view this information in the light of the entire text, we realize that Avalites' most valuable products were spices and myrrh. Tortoise shell was abundant in other places as well, whereas the Avalites' ivory was little, and in addition it could be found elsewhere too. Through this text we can evaluate the strength and the significance of the Other Berberia in comparison with the other lands and peoples of the area. Without having the importance of the Saba-Himyarite kingdom or the Axum Abyssinian sovereignty, the Other Berberia had risen to a significant level of power, contrarily to Azania that was colonized and to Berberia and Arabia, which were chaotic realms of barbarism with one Roman colony or outpost in every case (Ptolemais Theron in Berberia, and Leuke Kome in Arabia). In the next feature, we will continue the analysis, referring to the next harbours of the Other Berberia, namely Malao, Mundum, Mosyllon, etc. ***Editors note: Prof. Dr M S Megalommatis is a historian and a specialist on eastern Africa , Yemen and the Middle East. He is also a contributor to this website, Somaliland.Org, so stay tuned for more articles from Dr Megalommatis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabbal Posted August 28, 2005 Megalommatis wants to take a Somali-wide history and change it into present-day tribal/regional historical (non)-achievement. The other Berberia ku ye. All the earlier historical observations of that part of the world used the word "Berber" to describe the Chushites that had lived on the eastern part of Africa from the rest of the Africoid, or as they called "Zanj", people. How is that so exclusive to the present-day secessionist state there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Suldaanka Posted August 29, 2005 ^^ The author is trying to give a good historical picture of the region in general but more so focusing on northern Somali coastline or present day Somaliland. This is the third part of the series... ------- Malao - Berbera As Possible Capital Of 'The Other Berberia' (Ancient Somaliland) By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis As continuation of our previous article, we will study further excerpts of ‘the Periplus of the Red Sea’ pertaining to ‘the Other Berberia’, which almost 2000 years ago was delineated within the present borders of Somaliland. It is true that we have somewhat earlier references to this area, and we intend to mention them within this series of articles, but they are rather due to hearsay (f.i. diplomatic reports of those times) and not to personal autopsy and navigational experience in the area in question as is the text of the Periplus of the Red Sea. Consequently, these references offer at times self-contradictory, confusing and/or erroneous information, which does not necessarily damage the importance of the author (in this case the famous Roman erudite Pliny the Elder) but makes of the excerpt a less valuable piece of puzzle in the reconstruction of the Ancient History of Somaliland. Sailing around Malao – Berbera The 8th chapter of the Periplus of the Red Sea is focused on Malao, a port of call that has been identified with the modern harbour of Berbera. We publish it integrally, adding our commentary next. Text 8. After Avalites there is another market-town, better than this, called Malao, distant a sail of about eight hundred stadia. The anchorage is an open roadstead, sheltered by a spit running out from the east. Here the natives are more peaceable. There are imported into this place the things already mentioned, and many tunics, cloaks from Arsinoe, dressed and dyed; drinking-cups, sheets of soft copper in small quantity, iron, and gold and silver coin, not much. There are exported from these places myrrh, a little frankincense, (that known as far-side), the harder cinnamon, duaca, Indian copal and macir, which are imported into Arabia; and slaves, but rarely. Analysis In the previous article, we analyzed the reasons for the identification of Avalites with the area at the southern suburbs of Assab, in Eritrea, and not Zeila (Seylac) in Somaliland. The distance mentioned in this chapter (800 stadia) makes plausible the identification of Malao with Berbera, and it seems that the mariners sailed at those days straight from the Bab el Mandeb to Berbera, without circumnavigating the Tadjoura Gulf in the area of modern Djibouti. Quite interestingly, the author, after identifying Avalites as ‘harbour’ and ‘small market-town’, describes Malao as ‘market-town’, which makes us conclude that Malao was larger than Avalites. This is also corroborated by the fact that more products were imported here than in Avalites, “the things already mentioned†being a textual hint at those earlier listed in chapter 7 about Avalites. Immediately after these words, the author comes up with an ‘additional’ list of imported items at Malao. Here starts the most interesting part of the Avalites and Malao imports comparison. Whereas in Avalites there are six different products mentioned as imported (“flint glass, assorted; juice of sour grapes from Diospolis; dressed cloth, assorted, made for the Berbers; wheat, wine, and a little tinâ€), in Malao seven more types of products are reportedly traded in. More than double! If we now pay attention to the quality (and consequently the value) of the products mentioned in both cases, we find out a striking difference. Let’s concentrate first on the Textile Sector. In Avalites were imported: “dressed cloth, assorted, made for the Berbersâ€. In Malao were imported: “many tunics, cloaks from Arsinoe, dressed and dyedâ€. We notice a kind of contempt in the textual precision ‘made for the Berbers’; it sounds like the French colonial expression ‘bon pour l’ Orient’ (‘’good for the Eastâ€), which implies that this sort of low(ly) French production was to be distributed outside France and Europe, somewhere in colonized areas (or at least in countries that were not technologically advanced as much as Europe was). It is apparent that nobody in Alexandria or Egypt would wear “dressed cloth, assorted, made for the Berbersâ€, except possibly traveling Berberic traders of course. But this concerns Avalites only! With respect to Malao textile imports, the atmosphere changes totally! Tunics were expensive cloths for important people in Alexandria, Rome and other important cities of the Roman world. On the other hand, cloaks from Arsinoe (Suez) were famous in Roman Egypt, and expensive. Subsequently, we feel that at Malao we are met with a richer and more important environment, where people are not dressed as in the countryside! Why is it so? Further comparison between the Avalites and Malao imports helps us shed more light on the issue. Let’s focus now on the Metals Sector, which involves also currency in cash (there was no plastic or even paper money at those days!). In Avalites were imported: “a little tin†only. In Malao were imported: “drinking-cups, sheets of soft copper in small quantity, iron, and gold and silver coin, not muchâ€. It becomes clear that not only more metal was imported in Malao, but also that the Malao imports corresponded to the needs of a local administration, not provincial authorities. Drinking cups were metallic in the Antiquity; that is why this product is mentioned at this order. But who would use at those days a metallic cup to drink except high-ranking magistrates, top military, wealthy merchants, local noblesse, palatial employees, and royal families? If this concerns the Malao imported drinking cups, it is even more so for imports such as gold and silver coin. The entire sentence allows us to assume that Malao was the capital of the Other Berberia, although the author does not state something like this explicitly. So, iron was necessary for the needs of the local arsenal, and currency (silver coin) and gold were for the payment of the various Malao exports. Everything indicates that there was power centralization at Malao, whereas Avalites was a border point where fights and disputes happened frequently. There is another point in the text to support this approach; the description of the Malao inhabitants as ‘more peaceable’ signifies presence of central power, culture and education, security and civil society. We can most probably assume the presence of a local royal authority that controlled as far as Avalites in the northwest. This stands in striking contradiction with the last sentence of the Avalites chapter (‘And the Berbers who live in the place are very unruly’), which should be interpreted as revealing the defensive attitude of the Avalites natives, with regard to foreigners, Axumite Abyssinians or any navigators and merchants; the attitude was due to the need of defending the Berberic exports’ maritime transportation to the Yemenite coast (Ocelis and Mouza). The mention of the Malao exports offers further information. Certainly the Malao exports were more numerous and more valuable than those of Avalites. Quite interestingly they were exported to the Yemenite Kingdom of Haribael, the king of the merged Saba and Himyar states. This happened in accordance with the maritime transport of the Avalites products to Yemen. It represents therefore the choice of a royal authority of which we hear nothing, although through the text’s lines we feel its existence. The independence of the Other Berberia and the existence of a central, royal power around Berbera are also indicated by the export of slaves. Since no foreign colons or invaders were present, the export of slaves can be a matter of a victorious central power of some size. We could assume that these Malao exported slaves were not local Berbers, but war prisoners of the local king who had to fight various inland tribes. Another interesting point is that faraway products, such as Indian copal and macir, ‘had’ to be transported to Malao to be further exported to Yemen. If there were no local authority, the omnipresent Yemenites of the two kingdoms, Saba/Himyar and Hadhramawt, who had already colonized Azania, would have ‘arranged’ that these Indian products, like many other Indian exports, be transported straight to their harbours, either in Yemen or in Azania, and consequently be sold to them in lower price! In the following chapter, the text of the Periplus of the Red Sea describes in detail eastern harbours at the coast of ‘the Other Berberia’, like Mundu (Bandar Hais), Mosyllon, etc. We will continue our analysis in the next article; here we intend to correct false interpretations that intend to minimize the importance of the coast of the Other Berberia in the entire East – West trade network of those days. Maritime and land routes in Eastern Africa Although the text of the Periplus of the Red Sea describes mostly coastal and open sea navigation, the author occasionally refers to land roads linking two harbours or an inland city with coastal ports of call. At a later point in the text, the author hints at a land road from the Azanian coast of Eastern Africa and the area of Rhapta (Daressalam in Tanzania) to Axum and to the Nile Valley. It is clear that this land alternative was not the frequent choice, and the reason is simple: it was not that safe because of the lack of central administrations, royal authorities, and proper communication network. The prevailing jungle conditions made the land trip extremely dangerous and unsafe. The alternative existed only, when there were major reasons to avoid the maritime route of circumnavigating the Horn of Africa. However, academic ‘militantism’ often disregards textual sources, epigraphic documentation, and archeological evidence in order to impose preconceived schemes and efforts of interpretation that lead to inaccurate reconstruction of the historical past. A good example of such militant historiography is the article “Of Nubians and Nabateans: Implications of research on neglected dimensions of ancient world history†by Jesse Benjamin of the Department of Sociology, of the Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Geneva, NY 14456, USA) that was published in the Journal of Asian and African Studies {Nov 2001, v36 i4 p361(22)}. An abstract can be found in the following link: http://www.stcloudstate.edu/socialresponsibility/articles/nubians.asp In his contribution, Jesse Benjamin, in the name of an inconsistent Afrocentrism that damages the pertinent reconstruction of the Eastern African past, tries to make a link between the Nubians (a Nilo-Saharan African people) with the Semitic Nabataeans of the Rekem / Petra kingdom at the area of modern Jordan. The article seems irrelevant of our subject, but in his effort to distort Eastern African History Jesse Benjamin disregards outrageously the Ancient sources. We reproduce here two paragraphs from his aforementioned abstract that bear evidence to total alteration of truth with regard to the frequency of the trade routes in the area we discuss, and at the same time introduce a novelty by presenting a foreign people as totally infiltrated in and even controlling large areas of Eastern Africa. All this is attempted in a completely anhistorical way. After the selected excerpt, we will analyze the basic historical mistakes and inaccuracies of the author. “While the search for the ruins of Rhapta still continues, Miller (1969) has also suggested, and with some substantial corroboration, that the transshipment from Rhapta and the East Coast of Africa followed several routes. While occasionally the route taken was the coasting trade around the Horn and into the ports of Aromata, Mosyllum, Mundus, Malao, and Avalites, the goods usually reached these entrepot ports via overland routes north from Mogadishu and Mombasa. It is even suggested that the Mombasa / Maji / Avalites route also diverged westward at Maji, to the Nile Valley routes from Juba and Malakal in Central Africa, northward to Egypt and its port, Alexandria. The first two overland routes (from Mombasa and Mogadishu) would certainly have been in Nabatean hands as soon as they moved northward in the Arabian Peninsula toward various Mediterranean ports. The latter route, much less traversed and less constant over time, would have furnished an alternative route outside of the Nabatean monopoly. Such extensive attempts to circumvent the main trade routes further demonstrate the centrality of Nabatean stewardship of this trade between distant regions of the Ancient World. This is demonstrated by Rome's later annexation of Nabatea under the title, Arabia Petraea (Houston 1926:111-114; Miller 1969), in their efforts to confront the power of Petra as a pivotal entrepot between Africa and China, on the one hand, and the Mediterranean, on the otherâ€. In the aforementioned excerpt, Jesse Benjamin misinterprets Miller first, because that scholar suggested alternative possibilities, and Jesse Benjamin pretends hereby that these routes were not the alternatives but the mainly used routes, which is false. Miller’s approach and text are in straight opposition to Jesse Benjamin’s sentence “While occasionally the route taken was the coasting trade around the Horn and into the ports of Aromata, Mosyllum, Mundus, Malao, and Avalites, the goods usually reached these entrepot ports via overland routes north from Mogadishu and Mombasaâ€. We have actually no textual, epigraphic and/or archeological material records to allow us think that the maritime route was taken “occasionallyâ€. There is no source indicating such a possibility. Contrarily, the Periplus of the Red Sea, and any other textual evidence, corroborates the evaluation of the maritime road from Avalites to Rhapta as the main, usual, ordinary, most frequented one. We can assume the land short ways were an exception that did not represent more than 2% of the trips effectuated. For a scholar, the baseless conclusion that “the goods usually reached these entrepot ports via overland routes north from Mogadishu and Mombasa†constitutes a serious blow for his credibility and seriousness. Even worse, Jesse Benjamin presents his erroneous assumptions and preconceived schemes as expressing other scholars’ opinions, without caring to specify who said so. When it is he who suggests the following, the argumentation presented as an objective observation with a verb in passive form (“It is even suggested that the Mombasa / Maji / Avalites route also diverged westward at Maji, to the Nile Valley routes from Juba and Malakal in Central Africa, northward to Egypt and its port, Alexandriaâ€) takes the form of deceitful treachery, which cannot be the way a scholar develops ideas and approaches. There is no proof for the identification of the land road ‘Mombasa / Maji / Avalites’, and it would take years for an academic interdisciplinary team to undertake explorations to find support (archeological and/or epigraphic) for this imaginative theory of Benjamin’s. What any specialist of the subject would have rejected is the next paragraph of Benjamin’s, which consists in the paramount attempt of falsification of the Eastern African History. After the land roads ‘become’ the most frequented, they are ‘offered’ to foreigners, who never crossed the Eastern African land trade roads! The sentence “The first two overland routes (from Mombasa and Mogadishu) would certainly have been in Nabatean hands as soon as they moved northward in the Arabian Peninsula toward various Mediterranean ports†is relevant of sheer fiction. We have no indication of Aramaean Nabataean presence in the south of Yemen (where they constantly traveled through the Arabian peninsula land trade roads) and – with respect to Africa – in the south of Egypt (where other Aramaeans, mostly Palmyrene from Tadmor / Palmyra, had also formed commercial communities and entrepots, particularly in the area of Qena – Kaine (‘new’) in Greek). The Nabataeans had no significant maritime tradition even in the area of the Red Sea (‘Arabian Gulf’ in the Antiquity), and one wonders how the Sabaean / Himyarite Yemenites, who had colonized and controlled the entire Azania in the south of the Other Berberia, would have accepted Nabataeans from the north cross to Africa and establish there a land road trade network that would have led the maritime network (that the Yemenites controlled) to extinction and dead end. A second, similar, question should be expressed with regard to the Axumite Abyssinian Kingdom. How would king Zoscales of Axum, mentioned in the Periplus of the Red Sea, have allowed the faraway Nabataeans to cross its territory (and if he had not done so, from where would they have arrived beyond Axum’s southern border?) to do something that, if it had been possible, he would have already done it (control of the land routes between Avalites and Rhapta and imposition of the land routes as the most frequent ones). How Axum, the country that would be the greatest beneficiary of such a development, failed to achieve such a change, and an intruder, the faraway Nabataeans, are reported to have got it done? If this mythical issue was even a matter of attempt for the Nabataeans, whose king Melichus II is modestly mentioned in the Periplus of the Red Sea, the Yemenites would have made a military expedition and erased the tiny Rekem / Petra kingdom from the earth. When one adds to this aberration the expression “the centrality of Nabatean stewardship of this trade between distant regions of the Ancient Worldâ€, one enters into the area of the ludicrous. At the end, Jesse Benjamin proves how little he knows of Roman History, let alone the History of the Trade between East and West. Rome’s annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom has nothing to do with a wrongly surmised strong position of that kingdom, but with the need of Rome to be closer to the area where the main rival, the Arsacid Parthian Empire of Iran, tried to levy the greatest commercial profit. Jesse Benjamin seems to forget that a few years after Octavian invaded Egypt (30 BCE), Rome sent a military naval expedition against Arabia Felix (Aden) to minimize the Yemenite control of the maritime trade routes. The author of Periplus of the Red Sea, although writing the text we analyze hereby about 100 years after the Roman naval expedition, expresses what could call as reminiscences of the greatest Roman effort in the East (up to his time). Finally, if the Nabataeans controlled the Eastern African routes (that were the ‘most frequented ones’), how could they not have kicked out the Roman garrisons at Leuke Kome (the major town at the northernmost confines of the Arabic Red Sea coast, so near the southernmost confines of the Nabataean Kingdom), since the Roman soldiers did not ‘certainly’ work there for the interests of Malichus II, but for the ultimate wealth and glory of Nero? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NASSIR Posted August 31, 2005 Suldaan, i am going to read the two other articles you posted should time permits. They seem voluminous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
