This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Somalia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

There seems to have been some confusion on the part of a new editor in that "Bilad al-Barbar" (Country of the Berbers) is being directly equated with the Classical "Barbaroi" regions mentioned by the Greco-Romans from the 1st Century onward (the Periplus, alongside other Latin sources and even one or so Aksumite sources). The Barbaroi regions mentioned by the Greco-Romans, as this map displays, were indeed widespread and seemingly referred to pastoral nomadic Cushitic speaking peoples who were the predecessors of modern Bejas, Tigres, Sahos, Afars & Somalis. In North-Central Somalia itself, these Barbaroi are noted to preside over numerous port-towns not unified under one King but each ruled by a local Chieftain, a system similar to later forms of Somali coastal towns and their decentralized rule (numerous Sultans/Garaads rather than one unifying King presiding over all of them) as noted here.

But, "Bilad al-Barbar" is a different area from that outlined by the Greco-Romans. The etymology does, most likely, owe its origins to the Greco-Roman terminologies used for coastal Cushitic speakers but the "Arabs" did not consider Northeastern Sudan (where the Beja reside) or the Eritrean coast part of "Bilad al-Barbar". The Beja were not referred to with terms like "Berberi/Barbara/Berbera/Barbar" during the Middle Ages (or the last 1,000 years or so) and were instead referred to by "Arab"-or-Islamic sources as "Bejas" (or some form of that etymology) directly, as can be seen via this document that outlines numerous historical sources on the Beja people of Northeastern Sudan and Southeastern Egypt. However, what was known to the Arabs as "Bilad al-Barbar" was tied more directly to the Somali coast. As most sources point out [1] [2], it tends to correspond with everything from Zeila down to Mogadishu or Merca or down to the mouth of the Jubba river. A land adjacent to Ard al-Ḥabash (Land of the Abyssinians) and Ard al-Zanj (Land of the Zanj). I.e. Ibn Battuta calls Zeila "A town of the "Barbarah/Berbers", a dark-skinned ("Negro") people who herd camels and sheep, a people who are Shafi'i Muslims.". Battuta then notes that their lands extend down to Mogadishu; he then visits Mogadishu and mentions that the Sheikh/Sultan of the town is a "Barbarah/Berber" as well, though he notes the presence of some foreigners like the Qadi being an Egyptian. [1] [2]

As a result of this, I've made a few edits to the page and essentially removed anything equating "Bilad al-Barbar" with the Classical "Barbara" region. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what Battuta wrote was that "the people are Berbers, black-skinned, and follow the Shafi rite" [2]. He racially distinguished these swarthy Berbers in Zayla and Mogadishu from the Zanj (Negro) populations further south: "Ibn Battuta referred to the two cities' inhabitants as Barbara or Berbers to distinguish them from the Zinj or Zenghi, the blacks, who inhabited the coast and hinterlands south of the Shabelle river" [3]. However, there was indeed a "pre-Cushitic Negroid" population in Somalia, but it wasn't centered in the north. It was localized to the south, as attested in both the local oral histories and early written testimonies. Ahad summarizes these traditions (page 46 - The Pre-Hamitic Agriculturalist Population between the Juba and Shabelle Rivers [4]). Battuta described the actual Zanj natives of Kilwa as "jet-black in color, and with tattoo marks on their faces" [5]. Evidently, they were an early Nilotic people. Soupforone (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling someone might fixate on the "negro" translation. It's not seemingly correct and I usually just mention that he called them dark/black-skinned but this is just arguing about semantics and has nothing to do with how "Bilad al-Barbar" and "Barbara" (the classical regions) are not the same area. It's very clear that they're not. Awale-Abdi (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, because the actual documented "Negro" presence in Somalia is in the south. George P. Murdock and a few other scholars speculate that the Midgan, Yibir and Tumal artisanal low-caste castes may represent the northernmost vestiges of these early, possibly Khoisan peoples (and, interestingly, they also claim to be the aborigines of the area). However, this is all very uncertain at this point [6]. Soupforone (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat off-topic to discuss but George P. Murdock is probably incorrect in that respect. The Midgan/Madhiban, Yibir and Tumal are essentially Somalis (they are the true Sab Somalis, in fact. Not the Rahanweyn who were labeled as such in one document you linked to on another page) and there is seemingly no physical distinction between them and other Somalis (this is at least common knowledge among Somalis themselves). They are, however, regarded as "low-caste" but this is because in Somali society, similar to certain Ethiopian societies like Gurage society, people who do work like black-smithing, leather-working and hunting are abhorred/viewed as inferior by the rest of the populace and intermarriage with them is deeply frowned upon, something you've seemingly taken note of.

Most writings on the Midgaan, Tumal and Yibir I have seen don't tend to point out any physical differences between them and other Somalis. But it is interesting that they have their own unique dialects of the Somali language and often claim to be older inhabitants of the area than other Somalis (granted, these could just be fables). Future genome-sequencing should help us understand all of this better, I suppose.

Finally, there's so far no evidence of "Khoisan-type" hunter-gatherers in North-Central Somalia's archaeological record. The area was overrun by arguably Cushitic speaking pastoralists as early as 2,000-3,000 BCE (though these pastoralists seem to have practiced some hunting as well). The "Khoisan-type" hunter-gatherers are mainly asserted to have been in Southern Somalia prior to the arrival of Cushitic speaking agro-pastoralists and there were, until recently, small surviving groups such as the Eyle whose name alludes to how they owned dogs they'd take on hunts with them. They were very small in number before the Civil War and seem to barely exist now as they were, due to assimilation. But yeah, let's end this tangent here for now. If you have no objections with the main subject at hand (Bilad al-Barbar not being the same as the Classical "Barbara" countries); things should conclude here. Awale-Abdi (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems about right. One slight correction, though: some authorities did indeed claim they could discern anthropological differences between the northern artisanal castes and their noble counterparts (mainly differences in stature [7]), whereas others asserted that they could not and that if there ever had been such dichotomies, they had since been obscured through mating. Soupforone (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another translation of Ibn Battuta's travelogue reads [8]:

"I then went from Aden by sea, and after four days came to the city of Zaila. This is a city of the Berbers, a people of Soudan, of the Shafia sect. Their country is a desert of two months' extent. The first part is termed Zaila, the last Makdashu. The greatest part of the inhabitants of Zaila, however, are of the Rafiza sect."

Battuta actually seems to be indicating that the Berbers were also among the denizens of the Western Sudan. This is clearly the more accurate translation since, in his chapter on this broad Sahel area, Battuta writes that it was inhabited by diverse peoples and that “the Sultan of Nakda is a Berber” (where Nakda=Takedda) [9]. Takedda was founded by Sanhaja Berbers and was under the control of a Tuareg dynasty during the 14th century, when he visited the town [10]. Ergo, Battuta does appear to establish ancestral ties between the Berbers in the south and those in areas further north, much like the Periplus written around 1300 years earlier. Soupforone (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sudan" ("Bilad/Ard al-Sudan" / "Land of the Blacks") as it was utilized by the Arabs, is referring to Blacks/Black-skinned peoples, it was the Arabs' equivalent to how the Greco-Romans called more southerly and dark-skinned people in Africa "Aethiopians". One of your own sources (shared in the below section) points this out here and here. There is really no disputing that Arab/Islamic sources did not really call the Bejas of their time "Berbers" (see my earlier source) and even if they sometimes did (which they seemingly didn't); I've already shown you that "Bilad al-Barbar" refers more specifically to the Somali coast, an area adjacent to Ard al-Zanj & Ard al-Habash, not to the coasts of Northeastern Sudan and North-Central Somalia which are the Barbaroi regions of antiquity.

Finally, whether or not Battuta or anyone was making any connections (ancestrally) between the Berbers of the Somali coast and those elsewhere is unfortunately not relevant to what this section is about which is that the Barbaroi regions of antiquity and the Medieval Bilad al-Barbar are not to be equated as though they are the same general region. Plus, Battuta doesn't call the people along Southeastern Egypt and Northeastern Sudan "Berbers" (predecessors of the Beja), as far as I recall. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ancient Barbara and the medieval Bilad al-Barbar were probably not the same region since the former territory was much broader, with northern and southern portions. Anyway, I just wanted to point out why "a people of Soudan" is clearly the accurate translation. Battuta has an entire chapter on this Sudan region (titled as such too), where he explains that it is inhabited by "Berbers", "blacks" and "whites". For example, he writes that-- "After ten days from our leaving Abu Latin we came to the village Zaghari which is large, and inhabited by black merchants. Among these lives a number of white people, of the Ibazia sect of heretics" [11]. Battuta also indicates that the Sultan of Nakda was a Berber, like the inhabitants of Zeila. Since Nakda (Takedda) was governed by a Tuareg dynasty at the time of his visit in the 14th century, this ruler was therefore of actual Berber origin. Soupforone (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, Soupforone, but unless anything you have to post has to do with Bilad al-Barbar and the Berber regions of antiquity being the same general region; I think the off-topic points should stop here. But thanks for everything otherwise. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. The above is on the Berbers generally, including those of the Bilad al-Barbar. Anyway, yes, let's focus on the ancient Barbara. Soupforone (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Greek "Barbara" is not the same as the Arabic "Country of the Berbers". I also agree that the mentioning of the Yibir (and other clans, see here: [12]) and "People of Sudan" (see here: [13]) are not that relevant to the discussion at hand. Also "'Hamitic' should be used not of an ethnic stock, but for a group of related languages". AcidSnow (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

You should probably tell that to the Somalia government then since it uses "Hamitic" in an ethnic sense [14]. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is going here, Soupforone? Are you being combative just for the sake of being combative? Surely you understand that the now collapsed Somali Republic (that source is not from the current Somali government, but from the pre-civil war one) using such a label doesn't at all disprove modern science where population genetics disproves the rigid "racial" connotations of the term "Hamitic", and where it has been dropped as a linguistic term. I showed you this in the section below very clearly and now your only argument is "you should tell that to the Somalia government" as though this is even a proper counter-argument? Seems more like a petty comment than an actual counter-argument, frankly.

Nevertheless, you're seemingly being defiant on this particular off-topic point no matter what concrete refutations other parties put forward which will go nowhere so; unless you wish to riddle this section with more off-topic content, please end this here. Unless you have something to say about the main subject at hand which is that "Bilad al-Barbar is not the same as the Barbaroi regions of antiquity". I know Acidsnow sadly brought up the off-topic "Hamitic" subject himself and you were responding but unless what you're going to post next has to do with the actual subject of this section; please end it there. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to an editor's remark addressed to me is not "combativeness". Actually, it is my prerogative per wiki policy. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your replying is not what came off as combative or petty but rather the reply itself. You clearly know at this point that the validity of the "Hamitic" term has been sufficiently disproved via numerous sources as well as explanations, and two different users. Yet you only reply with "You should tell that to the Somalia government" and link to an old document from a Somali government that hasn't existed since 1991 as though this is a sufficient counter-argument against current population genetics and linguistics? It just came off as petty combativeness / an inability to just let it go which resulted in a need to throw in a petty comment. Anyway, prerogative aside. I won't be replying to anymore posts you make in this section unless they have something to do with how "Bilad al-Barbar" and the Barbaroi regions of antiquity are the same general region as any other sorts of posts will be off-topic. Thanks for the discussion, nevertheless. Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one certain thing is that discussion of the ancient Barbara and later Bilad al-Barbar dichotomy is indeed better left for your blog [15]. Soupforone (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see this is exactly what I was talking about. You have no real counter-argument here so you're making snarky remarks (first at Acidsnow and now me) and bringing my online-life outside of Wikipedia into this. Keep at this off-topic snarky-ness and we'll see how an Administrator feels about your behavior. Awale-Abdi (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to get another users off-Wiki life involved. It clearly is a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and a case of WP:I DONT LIKE IT. AcidSnow (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, I actually wasn't trying to be snarky, though I apologize if you interpreted it like that. I had just read an interesting piece on the Barbaroi of Northeast Africa on your blog (a website which you had directed me to on AcidSnow's page), and it suggested a population continuity between the inhabitants of the ancient Barbara region and the Bilad al-Barbar; so I was unsure what to think given the above. Anyway, let's indeed focus on the 'other Barbara' chieftancy below. Soupforone (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no offense taken in that case and thanks for complimenting my blog but the blog also states that "Bilad al-barbar" is mainly the Somali coast as well but yeah, let's end things here as there's not really anything to add to the main subject matter. Thanks for the discussion either way. Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems as though someone misunderstood the Periplus translations found here and here. Zoscales did not govern the far-side ports seemingly found across North-Central Somalia. These port-towns are specifically noted to have a decentralized rule going:

"The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."

There are two "Barbaroi/Berber" countries and Zoscales is seemingly said to govern the "other one" (the one that seems to be in Northeastern Sudan, I suppose) whilst this one, with the far-side ports, is noted to not be subject to any King. So I removed the text claiming that the far-side ports are governed by Zoscales. Adding such text even contradicts prior text on this page which notes that the "Berbers" of this region had a decentralized system of governance in play. Anyway, I hope reading this talk page will help people understand why I made my edits. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Periplus actually indicates that the "other Barbaria" were the far-side ports in the south, and that Zoscales governed the entire territory including those entrepots:

"On the right-hand coast next below Berenice is the country of the Berbers. Along the shore are the Fish-Eaters, living in scattered caves in the narrow valleys. Further inland are the Berbers, and beyond them the Wild-flesh-Eaters and Calf-Eaters, each tribe governed by its chief; and behind them, further inland, in the country towards the west, there lies a city called Meroe.

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. These places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales; who is miserly in his ways and always striving for more, but otherwise upright, and acquainted with Greek literature.

There are imported into these places, undressed cloth made in Egypt for the Berbers; robes from Arsinoe; cloaks of poor quality dyed in colors; double-fringed linen mantles; many articles of flint glass, and others of murrhine, made in Diospolis; and brass, which is used for ornament and in cut pieces instead of coin; sheets of soft copper, used for cooking-utensils and cut up for bracelets and anklets for the women; iron, which is made into spears used against the elephants and other wild beasts, and in their wars. Besides these, small axes are imported, and adzes and swords; copper drinking-cups, round and large; a little coin for those coming to the market; wine of Laodicea and Italy, not much; olive oil, not much; for the king, gold and silver plate made after the fashion of the country, and for clothing, military cloaks, and thin coats of skin, of no great value. Likewise from the district of Ariaca across this sea, there are imported Indian iron, and steel, and Indian cotton cloth; the broad cloth called monache and that called sagmatogene, and girdles, and coats of skin and mallow-colored cloth, and a few muslins, and colored lac. There are exported from these places ivory, and tortoiseshell and rhinoceros-horn. The most from Egypt is brought to this market from the month of January to September, that is, from Tybi to Thoth; but seasonably they put to sea about the month of September.

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."

The ancient Avalites was situated around Zayla. Also, the larger Barbara area in Northeast Africa was not just inhabited by Cushitic speakers, but other related Afroasiatic-speaking populations as well. Soupforone (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what the Periplus is saying there looks to be the opposite of what you're asserting. It describes the first of the two Berber countries in paragraph 2 (in Northeastern Sudan) and mentions that this is the Berber country adjacent to where the calf-eaters are to be found. Then, in the next 3 paragraphs it outlines some places beyond this Berber country and where the Calf-eaters are, even mentioning the Aksumites (Zoscales is an Aksumite ruler) and Adulis. It then says that these places, from the calf-eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales. It's obviously speaking of the first Berber country that is adjacent to where the calf-eaters are. Paragraph 7 then says that from this place (everything described prior) the Arabian Gulf (Red Sea) trends eastward and becomes the narrowest (Bab al-Mandeb) just before the Gulf of Avalites (seems to correspond with the later "Gulf of Berbera" and the current Gulf of Aden). The next Berber country is then outlined and it is clarified later (paragraph 14) that this particular Berber country is not subject to a King (Zoscales is a King):

"14. The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."

This general outline actually makes sense with later Aksumite history where we know Aksumite rulers such as Ezana had subdued and governed the Beja tribes along the Eritrean coast and to their north (the Aksumites cease calling them "Barbaroi" and refer to them as "Beja"/some form of that etymology, however) but it's evident they have no control over the "Barbaria" to their southeast. [1] Anyway, what the Periplus says in paragraph 14 becomes a direct contradiction of what is said in paragraph 5 unless one understands that the other Berber country which is being mentioned alongside the calf-eaters is not the one where the far-side ports are to be found but the one northwest of the Bab al-Mandeb.

I don't want to edit-war so I'll wait until you've seen what I mean here to make any further edits concerning Zoscales' ruler-ship. However, I think we should edit the text to say that Zoscales governed one of the Berber countries while the other (Far-side ports) is mentioned to not be subject to a King. That would be more accurate than removing the text altogether. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I seem to have not replied to your mentioning of there being other Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples along this general coastline. Fair enough and I apologize for replying late to this bit, but I'll be replacing the term "Hamitic" with Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples. "Hamitic" may have a Wikipedia page but, as I've told you prior, this is an obsolete term. It has been dropped by linguists as a "Cushitic-Berber-Egyptian" node, to the exclusion of Semitic and Chadic, is not a valid linguistic node. As a linguistic term; it comes from a time when Afro-Asiatic studies was in its infancy and Omotic and Chadic weren't even acknowledged as sub-branches of the family. Finally, it's "racial" connotations are also not valid anymore as per population genetics. Berbers, Egyptians and Cushitic speakers are clearly interrelated but not part of a "pure" race together in the form of some phylogeny, especially to the exclusion of Semitic speaking West Asians. I've linked you to studies displaying this. Awale-Abdi (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamitic" traditionally served as a catchall category for the Afroasiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) speaking "Caucasoid" peoples of Africa. These "Berbers" also were not Omotic or Chadic peoples. Anyway, I'm aware of the linguistic phylogeny.

As regards Zoscales, the Periplus actually doesn't assert that he ruled Aksum [16]. However, what it does indicate is that he governed the entire Barbara, from the northern area just under Berenice to the southern "far-side" ports like Avalites in the 'other Barbaria'. Please see the fuller passage above, and also G. W. B. Huntingford's note on this 'other Barbaria' [17]. Soupforone (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always for compromises in order to settle disputes and appreciate that you didn't remove my edit but added "Hamitic-Semitic" in brackets but I'm still going to have to point out that "Hamitic", as a whole, is a totally obsolete term. I know it refers to how Somalis and other Afro-Asiatic speaking Northeast Africans are supposedly "Caucasoid" in terms of skull-morphology but this means nothing on an actual genetic level. Somalis (and company) are mostly just a mixture between pre-historic West Asians and pre-historic East Africans whose genetic profile was similar to much of the ancestry in modern Southern Sudanese. They are not members of a Human "sub-race" alongside Egyptians and Berbers specifically which is exactly what "Hamitic" implies. As a linguistic term, you're aware that the term is totally dropped at this point. And, in fact, the way you added it in brackets next to "Afro-Asiatic" makes it seem like "Hamitic-Semitic" is a valid alternate etymology to "Afro-Asiatic" which it is not.

As for the Zoscales issue... The Periplus makes it very clear that the second Berber country, which is home to the far-side ports, has no King and is subject to separate Chiefs who preside over the market-towns (unless Huntingford or anyone managed to argue that text away?). When it says Zoscales rules "the other Berber country"; it's speaking of places before the passage past the Bab al-Mandeb which is described at the beginning of paragraph 7. Simply read the text again yourself and you can see this. Granted, it's not even clear which Barbaria it means when it says "other Berber country" and any reader, whether they're a laymen or an academic, can draw their own conclusions. However, it becomes clear when the text clarifies that the one where the far-side ports are found has a decentralized mode of government and no King (this text would not be present if Zoscales preside over it). At any rate, we can come to a simple compromise... I'll edit the text to say "The Periplus mentions that Zoscales governs one of the Berber regions; however, the one where the far-side ports are found is also mentioned to not be subject to a King but is instead ruled by separate Chieftains who preside over the marker-towns." <- That is by far a pretty neutral piece of text and just says what's in the Periplus. I'll add it but do express any issues you may have with the edit. Awale-Abdi (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamitic-Semitic is the original name of the Afro-Asiatic language family. It was also explained to you why the claim that Somalis and related groups -- who aren't homogenous to begin with -- is laughably simplistic and inaccurate. Please don't devolve this discussion into such unrelated tangents.

As for Zoscales, he indeed ruled all of Barbara. The Periplus indicates as much, and so do of its official translations such as that of Huntingford linked to above. There is no argument here. Soupforone (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamito-Semitic is the old name of Afro-Asiatic from a time when Afro-Asiatic only included Semitic, Cushitic, Berber and Egyptian (the latter three were compounded together into "Hamitic"). This is no a completely obsolete term because (1) Cushitic, Berber and Egyptian are not a single branch to the exclusion of Semitic (2) This is from a time when Chadic and Omotic weren't even counted among the family's branches and (3) It was also seemingly dropped because of its racialist connotations. I explained this to you and you seemingly understood that it can't be used as a racialistic term (it is not valid in this way) yet you're still pushing it and now seemingly as a linguistic term despite it clearly not being valid as such? Please drop this. "Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples" works just fine and is not using an out-of-date term.

Finally, this text is very clear:

"14. The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."

The Barbaria where there are far-side market-towns is very clearly described in the Periplus itself to not be subject to a King (Zoscales is a King). Anyway, there's no need to get aggressive here. We're having a discussion, not an argument. Please try to be reasonable so we can both end this soon and move on with our lives. (btw, I made minor edits to my earlier post so re-read it) Awale-Abdi (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamitic-Semitic was the original name for the Afro-Asiatic family, not just its old name. It is also still very much in use in the Old World scholarly traditions, particularly among Eastern European linguists. Joseph Greenberg popularized Afro-Asiatic; not because of any "racialist" connotations but because he wanted to highlight the fact that it was spoken in Africa and Asia.

Anyway, enough digression. Zoscales indeed ruled all of Barbara. And all of the territory was decentralized, not just the 'other Barbaria'. The Periplus indicates this plainly -- "Further inland are the Berbers, and beyond them the Wild-flesh-Eaters and Calf-Eaters, each tribe governed by its chief... These places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales". It's also indeed quite clear where the 'other Barbaria' was located - see the Huntingford translation [18]. Soupforone (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It frankly doesn't matter why Hamito-Semitic was dropped (but I do apologize for seeming to get it wrong on exactly why it was dropped); I hope you understand why it is ultimately not a valid term to use, linguistically or "racially" the latter of which, by the way, is how you were originally using it which is why I took issue with it. But indeed... Enough digression. You're again misunderstanding the text pretty simply. Yes, it says that the lands the calf-eaters and the more northern Berbers in are decentralized just like the far-side ports area but it doesn't say that these lands are not ruled by a King, in fact it points out later that these lands are governed by Zoskales (a King). In contrast, it says very plainly that the far-side ports are decentralized (each town ruled by different chief) and are not subject to a King. For the prior Berber country and the area where the calf eaters live; it only says the first of the two:

"...each tribe governed by its chief..."

There's a clear difference here and I hope you see it. Zoskales did not rule the far-side ports or the statement that they had no King would not be there, it would only be mentioned that the separate Chiefs control the market-towns. Awale-Abdi (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what is and isn't valid. And Hamitic (in an ancestral, non-linguistic connotation) certainly is, even if the particular wording is imperfect [19].

Anyway, since for whatever reason you are unable to see the obvious in the Schoff translation, here is another, more explicit transcription by McCrindle: "Below Adouli, about 800 stadia, occurs another very deep bay, at the entrance of which on the right are vast accumulations of sand, wherein is found deeply embedded the Opsian stone, which is not obtainable anywhere else. The king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales, a man at once of penurious habits and of a grasping dispostition, but otherwise honourable in his dealings and instructed in the Greek language." [20] Soupforone (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your intuition is not an authority on what is and isn't valid (neither is mine). Modern science (i.e. population genetics) is, however, an authority on what is and isn't valid. Somalis, Habeshas, Agaws, Oromos and such do have a West Euraisan-like skull morphology and this has been proven in relatively recent cranio-metric studies. However, these populations are not part of a "Hamitic race" with Egyptians & Berbers (nor are they a part of any "pure Human sub-race" of any sort) which the genetic evidence has made quite clear: [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]. They are instead a somewhat diverse but substantively interrelated mixture of various pre-historic West Eurasian and, seemingly local, East African elements.

Now, please stop going off on this tangent as though the "Hamitic" concept really has any validity in modern science, particularly from a "racial"/"ancestral" standpoint which is how you were originally utilizing it. What's even more odd, by the way, is that your own source points out that "Hamite/Hamitic" should not be used as an ethnic term and that it also has clear issues as a linguistic term where "Afro-Asiatic" is a better suited term (see here).

Now, on the subject of the Periplus... You still keep missing my point. Firstly, we do not know, at first, with any surety which end, or other end, of Barbaria the Periplus is referring to when it says King Zoskales governs it, it could be the first one mentioned in paragraph 2 or the one with the far-side ports in it. However, things are clarified as to which Barbaria is being referred to when it moves on from telling us which lands Zoskales governs and goes on to describe the Barbaria where the far-side ports are found and eventually remarks on how this particular country is governed:

" 14.The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief. "

Here it is made crystal clear that this particular Barbaria is not governed by any King (Zoskales or otherwise) and is also decentralized (only the latter is stated for the former Barbaria, by the way). The text above is clear and would be a direct contradiction of this text- :

The king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales

-if someone seriously pushes that he ruled both Barbarias (which is what you're doing), as a country cannot be both subject to a King and not be subject to a King. In fact, things become even more clear when you realize that after describing all of the lands from paragraph 2 to paragraph 5; the text remarks on how they are governed overall which, in this case, involves being ruled by King Zoskales who is, indeed, traditionally seen as an Aksumite ruler. When the text then moves on from mentioning the lands he governs; it describes the far-side ports then mentions how they were governed, and I'm not going to keep posting the same quote over and over until you stop ignoring it.

Nevertheless, despite this, I was willing to edit the text in this article to note both what you and I noticed which is that the text says he governs one of the Barbarias or "the other end of Barbaria" but that it also says the one with the far-side ports has no King-> this is an extremely neutral piece of text that throws in both of our observations... If you are really unhappy with it then there might be some inherent bias here (pushing your perspective). If that's really how this is going to be then I'm quite done posting replies and I will be contacting an Administrator as well as other parties promptly to see what they make of this issue. I have zero energy for charged arguments where the other party is being unnecessarily hostile (and almost dogmatic) despite me showing them no hostility myself. Awale-Abdi (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you felt slighted by my comment above that "I think I know what is and isn't valid". This was meant as a statement on self-knowledge, not a remark on let alone an attack against you (hence, the pronoun "I")! LOL Likewise, I am not offended by your comment above that my "intuition is not an authority on what is and isn't valid", which perhaps could be construed as hostile had I been more thin-skinned. Anyway, I think we can both agree that any putative West Eurasian-and-East-African-elements have little to do with the ancient Barbara region (nor do the latest studies indicate that there is a single "East African" component to which all locals belong [21] [22] [23]). Before moving on to the topic at hand, I'll just briefly point out that Hamitic theory is the older, more popular analogue to the current Out-of-Africa theory. Like the OOA theory, the Hamitic theory had both neutral and racist proponents, as well as scientific and questionable elements (ranging from prominent scientists and government agencies to fringe parties). I linked you to the Fage treatise not because I wanted the "Afro-Asiatic" link in the lede changed to "Hamitic" -- I'm actually okay with it; had I not been, I would've tagged it as dubious like the Zoscales phrase -- but because it explains that while Hamitic terminology has waned, the actual ancestral ties that it outlines are still there (viz. "one problem here is simply that there is no satisfactory general name in modern use for the men of Caucasoid stock who do not live in Asia or Europe, as most Caucasoids do, but who are native to Africa in that they have been resident there for many thousands of years" [24]). Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this point.

I indeed don't follow that reasoning on the 'other Barbara'. The Periplus doesn't indicate that Zoscales was an Aksumite ruler. What it asserts is that both the northern and southern ends of Barbara had local chiefs. The northern Barbara, just under Berenice: "On the right-hand coast next below Berenice is the country of the Berbers. Along the shore are the Fish-Eaters, living in scattered caves in the narrow valleys. Further inland are the Berbers, and beyond them the Wild-flesh-Eaters and Calf-Eaters, each tribe governed by its chief". The southern Barbara, near the Gulf of Avalites: "The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief." It seems, therefore, that Zoscales was a king, with a vassalage over the various local chieftains in Barbara [25]. Anyway, since we seem to have reached an impasse, I've asked for a Third Opinion in the allotted area below. Soupforone (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{od} What I said about your intuition wasn't meant to be offensive as I counted myself in as well by adding that my own intuition is not an authority either. Because it isn't and neither is yours. This is about the text or data and such, not about what either of us personally thinks is valid.

Anyway, I'm going to point this out for the very last time... The "Hamitic" term is obsolete and the way in which it implies ancestral ties is incorrect. It was a "racial" term which posited that Egyptians, Berbers and Cushitic speakers were part of a "race" together. As in, they diverged from one ancestral population and evolved from there. This is not the same as how these populations share certain pre-historic ancestries as per population genetics (there are ancestries Berber speakers carry notably which Somalis don't and ones Egyptians carry which Berbers like Mozabites don't and so on). The genetic reality is more complex than the simple racialistic model. To equate the two is intellectually dishonest. Now, please, if you really meant it when you wrote that you have no problem with dropping the term; do not carry this tangent on and end this here. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; no offense was taken anyway. Also, just to clarify, it's the Huntingford text that indicates that Barbara was inhabited by Hamitic peoples [26]. I'm aware of the inter-group differences you allude to, though. Soupforone (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could u please make that shorter TBftf (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following phrase is attributed to the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, but it seems to be incomplete: "the Berber region where the far-side ports are found is also mentioned to not be subject to a King but is instead ruled by separate Chiefs who preside over the marker-towns". Besides these southern ports, the ancient text also indicates that the northern entrepots were similarly ruled by separate chiefs [27].

The northern Barbara, just under Berenice: "On the right-hand coast next below Berenice is the country of the Berbers. Along the shore are the Fish-Eaters, living in scattered caves in the narrow valleys. Further inland are the Berbers, and beyond them the Wild-flesh-Eaters and Calf-Eaters, each tribe governed by its chief... These places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales; who is miserly in his ways and always striving for more, but otherwise upright, and acquainted with Greek literature.".

The southern Barbara, near 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... The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."

It seems, therefore, that Zoscales was a supreme ruler (not necessarily a "king"), who held a vassalage over the various locals chieftains in the entire Barbara region, from the area just under Berenice in the north to the 'far-side' ports in the 'other Berber country' in the south [28]. Soupforone (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Soupforone, What exactly is the third opinion for? To the best of my knowledge the disagreement is that one side believes that Barbara was under the dominion of Zoscales, via vassals, but the other does not, is that correct? Iazyges (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale Abdi appears to believe that Zoscales did not rule the entire Barbara region, but rather only the northern portion of it. This is because of the phrase in the Periplus that reads "this country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief." However, the ruler Zoscales is never actually described as a king (he could've instead been a paramount chief), and the Periplus also indicates that in the northern portion "each tribe governed by its chief." So a decentralized governance appears to have existed in both districts. Other translations of the Periplus are even more direct, indicating that "the king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales" [29]. Soupforone (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iazyges. The problem here is that the text basically says that King Zoscales governs "the other Barbaria" (or "the other end of Barbaria") but this is not clear as it can mean either end (the first one which is in Northeastern Sudan or the other which is North-Central Somalia) or both, I suppose. However, things become clear as to which Barbaria it is referring to when it clarifies that the second Barbaria is not subject to a King:

" 14.The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief. "

Despite what Soupforone is interpreting now about Zoscales being a paramount chief and not a King (these are entirely his own interpretations; they're not in the text), one of his own translations mentions that he was a King (which he was, as he is traditionally interpreted to have been a King of the Kingdom of Aksum) and governs one of the Barbarias:

The king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales (Soupforone shared this as a seemingly better translation for clarification purposes)

So, clearly, the text I shared above for clarification, when speaking of the second Barbaria (the one with the far-side ports), clarifies that this is not the Barbaria which he governs as a country cannot be both subject to and not subject to a King. Also, Soupforone is ignoring that when the text describes the first Barbaria as being decentralized it only says that each tribe is governed by its chief but not that they have no King (something it states about the second Barbaria). There's a difference here. Both regions are indeed decentralized and governed by separate Chiefs but one is explicitly stated to not have a King and the other is not. I meandered over this several times above with Soupforone but he just kept pushing that Zoscales controlled both Barbarias and ignored the text I shared that explicitly states the second Barbaria (one with the far-side market-towns/ports) has no King. I even added in the following text to the article because it was very neutral (was supposed to act as a compromise) and mentioned that (1) The text says Zoscales controls the other end of Berber regions and (2) It also says the second Barbaria is not subject to a King:

"It also mentions that King Zoskales, who was a frugal but otherwise fair ruler that was conversant with ancient Greek, governs one of the Berber regions; however, the Berber region where the far-side ports are found is also mentioned to not be subject to a King but is instead ruled by separate Chiefs who preside over the marker-towns."

Soupforone was unsatisfied with this and was getting rather hostile and combative so I brought up the idea of bringing in a third party (or even an Admin) as I have no energy for a hostile argument. I've asked another party to join in as well but, hopefully, you chiming in should help. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if you felt slighted by my comment above that "I think I know what is and isn't valid". This was meant as a statement on self-knowledge, not a remark on let alone an attack against you (hence, the pronoun "I"). Soupforone (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear, the "other Berber country" is only mentioned once in the Periplus and specifically in relation to the "far-side" ports of the northern Somali territories. Hence, Zoskales is described in the text as the only ruler of the region between Ptolemais Theron on the Sudanese coast and "the rest of Barabaria" (=northern Somalia)" [30]. Soupforone (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I said about your intuition wasn't meant to be offensive as I counted myself in as well by adding that my own intuition is not an authority on what is and isn't valid either. Because it isn't and neither is yours. This is about the text or data and such, not about what either of us personally thinks is valid. But point taken, I never took offence at what you said there in particular, anyway. It's alright.

As for what you're saying about Zoscales... The second Berber country (North-Central Somalia) isn't ever referred to as the "other Berber country". Are you mistaking this text as saying "other Berber country": "there are other Berber market-towns, known as the 'far-side' ports" ? It doesn't say that it is the "other Berber country", just that there are other Berber market-towns known as the "far-side ports". And two paragraphs before this, the Periplus just states that he governs "These places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country". Which other Berber country, exactly? It becomes more clear when you keep reading after this text and it is stated that the second Berber country has no King (He was indeed a King, one of your own translations even explicitly states that he was a King) but it is never stated that the first Berber country (Northeastern Sudan) has no King; in this country's case, it is only stated that each tribe is governed by its Chief, something it also says about the second Berber country, except in the second country's case; it also says it has no King.

Also, lets stick to the primary source (the Periplus). I can link you to authors who state that the second Berber country (North-Central Somalia) was not subject to any kind of ruler (see here) but I haven't done so up until this point because these are secondary sources and, academics or not, these are just their interpretations of an original text we both have at our disposal. Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Others indicate that Zoskales was the governor of Adulis.[31][32] This makes sense since the Periplus states that the farside market-towns are "not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief". AcidSnow (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Acidsnow. A lot of authors interpret that he rules Adulis which you can somewhat tell from the text. To put it simply:

(1) The text describes everything in paragraph 3 & 4 without ever stating anything about how these places are governed (Adulis is among these places)

(2) It then goes onto describe a place 800 stadia from all of this

(3) It then says "these places" are governed by Zoscales. (one can indeed assume that it might mean all the prior places for which no rulers were mentioned)

(4) It also adds that, along with these places, Zoscales rules from the calf-eaters to the "other Berber country" as well, which seems to be adding that he rules all the prior described places in paragraph 3 and 4 alongside what is in paragraph 2 (the first country of the Berbers and the calf-eaters)

At least, that seems to be how certain authors partially interpret it. Though, they, like in your source, tend to just limit him to Adulis and do not connect him to either Berber country or the calf-eaters or what have you. They're still secondary sources with their own interpretations as I stated earlier; but again, it seems rather obvious the first Berber country (Northeastern Sudan) is the one he governs (if he governs one at all) as the second one (North-Central Somalia) is stated to not have a King (not that it is just decentralized like the first Berber country/Barbaria but that it also has no King), if we're to stick to the primary source.

I've been trying to show Soupforone this for a while now but he kept insisting Zoscales controlled both Berber countries and even started to suddenly claim Zoscales might have not been a "King" but, instead, might have been a "Paramount Chief" in order to argue away the text that says the second Berber country has no King. Despite the fact that he himself shared a different and more explicit transcription of the Periplus by McCrindle (for the sake of clarity) which refers to Zoscales as a King, something he is traditionally seen as. It frankly wouldn't even matter if Zoscales wasn't a King. A place wouldn't be described as both not being subject to a King and being divvied up between separate Chiefs if it also had some sort of single governing force presiding over it. But Zoscales was seemingly a King, nevertheless. Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, I am aware that Conti-Rossini and certain other scholars speculate that Zoscales may have been a ruler of Aksum, but other authorities like Huntingford dismiss this conjecture outright [33]. More importantly, the Periplus itself (which was written during Zoscales' reign) doesn't indicate this. Please have a look at the official translations-- Schoff writes that "these places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales" [34], and McCrindle writes that "the king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales" [35]. Also, your link above doesn't seem to mention Zoscales much less indicate that he only controlled northern Barbara [36]. Please at least produce one scholarly translation that does. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone, please carefully read what I wrote again as well as my source again. I said it said that North-Central Somalia had no single ruler, and was thus decentralized (I didn't say it touched on Zoscales):

" The author of the Periplus wrote that the Barbaroi were without a central government, with each port city an independent political entity; they were, he wrote, an unruly people..." - Mohammed Diriye Abdullahi, Culture and Customs of Somalia, pages 13-14

Diriye Abdullahi states clearly that the Barbaroi of North-Central Somalia are without a central government, with only independent port-towns. Also, here's a source that asserts he was a ruler/King of Aksum (on page 21) despite Huntingford's observations where he actually suggests Zoskales was a smaller tributary ruler (he equates him with the later the Bahr Negash):

"The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, notes the `city of the people called Auxumites' (Schoff 1912: 23) or `the metropolis called the Axomite' (Huntingford 1980:20), or `the metropolis itself, which is called Axômitês' (Casson 1989: 53), and gives details of the trade goods imported and exported. This anonymous report, which modern scholars view as either an official report, or a merchants' and sailors' guide to the known Red Sea and Indian Ocean ports, dating perhaps somewhere between the mid-first and the early second century AD, also describes the ruler of this region. This monarch, almost certainly the Aksumite king himself (but see Cerulli 1960: 7, 11; Huntingford 1980: 60, 149-50; Chittick 1981: 186; Casson 1989: 109-10), was called Zoskales; he is represented as a miserly man, but of good character, who had some acquaintance with Greek literature"

Now, this doesn't even matter as these are simply the opinions of random scholars on the primary source, which we have. As for your constant quoting of the same two translations as though they somehow argue away this text:

"14. The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi... This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."

How many times must I explain that "the other Berber country" or "the other end of Barbaria" is not clear enough as to which Berber country is being referred to? It could be the first one or the second one or could mean both, but things again become clear when you keep reading the Periplus and the second Berber country is clarified to not be subject to a King (thus, it is not the one being referred to). Zoscales was a King and even one of the official translations points this out, yet a while ago you were trying to argue away the possibility that he was a "King" (calling him a "Paramount Chief", something that wasn't even in the text) as though you'll adopt any point of view that aids your argument. You just keep ignoring everything I post to refute your arguments and push the same quotes and narratives consistently. This discussion between us is going nowhere and we should both stop replying for now and let Iazygus and Acidsnow chime in again, given that they're the third-parties we both called respectively called here. Granted, Acidsnow already chimed in and said he agrees the second Berber country with the far-side ports (North-Central Somalia) looks to have no King. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Periplus is clear on its stance on the far-side markerts as well: "This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief". The article should probably be left as it is since it provides both stances on Zoskales rule.

As shown above, Awale was referring to this passage when he cites Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi. Interestingly enough, you asked if he could "at least produce one scholarly translation that does" support these statements, yet you seem to have completely messed me and mine. Nonetheless, multiple have already been presented on the discussion at hand. In addition its probably best that you take into account what other editors say instead of simply ignoring them and repeating what you have already said. AcidSnow (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi just clarified above that his contention is "that "the other Berber country" or "the other end of Barbaria" is not clear enough as to which Berber country is being referred to". However, no official translation or scholarly interpretation of the Periplus has been presented which argues this. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi -- Thanks for the clarification. Per your remark above, your contention, then, is "that "the other Berber country" or "the other end of Barbaria" is not clear enough as to which Berber country is being referred to". Very well. Please produce at least one official translation of the Periplus or at least a scholarly interpretation of it that argues this (since your link above does not). Huntingford [37] and the Encyclopedia Aethiopica [38] are quite clear that the "other Barbaria" was indeed in the northern Somali territories. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already produced a source, Soupforone. For example, Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi clearly asserts that North-Central Somalia (the second Barbaria) had no central government and only has these separate Chiefs who run the market-towns. He clearly interpreted the text the way I have. Here too is another source which doesn't say that Zoscales ruled the Somali coast, it simply says it was ruled by the local Barbaroi. I never said my source claimed "the other Barbaria" is not clear enough (that was my own contention) but that it says the second Barbaria (North-Central Somalia) is not subject to a King/central government, something it says. Secondly, I've already told you that constantly harking back to the opinions of secondary sources is pointless and I'm saying this despite having secondary sources which support me. There are ones who may support your point of view and ones who may support mine because these are ultimately the opinions of people like you and me, they're scholars with more qualifications than we have but that's about it. We have the primacy source here and in that case... Can you produce one translation of the Periplus where it doesn't clarify that the second Berber country/Barbaria (where the far-side ports are found) has no King:

14. The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi. And ships are also customarily fitted out from the places across this sea, from Ariaca and Barygaza, bringing to these far-side market-towns the products of their own places; wheat, rice, clarified butter, sesame oil, cotton cloth, (the monache and the sagmatogene), and girdles, and honey from the reed called sacchari. Some make the voyage especially to these market-towns, and others exchange their cargoes while sailing along the coast. This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief.

? Please do argue away the Periplus text above if you can. If not; you have a clear dilemma on your hands. And, for the record, Huntingford (one of your secondary sources) may personally believe the "other Berber country" refers to North-Central Somalia but he believed Zoscales to merely be a small-scale ruler who essentially had a position akin to that of the later Bahr Negash who controlled parts of what is now the Eritrean coast. He also asserts that Zoscales controlled Adulis, something you keep denying (see here & here). But it's fine, even if he seems to not agree with your point of view. This discussion should center around what the primary source says (the Periplus) not how Huntingford, Diriye Abdullahi or such interpreted it. And, in that case, I'd like you try and argue away that very clear text above that you keep ignoring. Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I'd like to have cleared up is... What exactly is your issue with the following text in in the Wikipedia article:

"It also mentions that King Zoskales, who was a frugal but otherwise fair ruler that was conversant with ancient Greek, governs one of the Berber regions; however, the Berber region where the far-side ports are found is also mentioned to not be subject to a King but is instead ruled by separate Chiefs who preside over the marker-towns."

? It mentions that the Periplus says he rules one of the Berber regions/countries which is clearly in the text (paragraph/chapter 5). It can and should be altered to say he governs "the other Berber country" if we're to post exactly what is written in the Periplus at paragraph/chapter 5. Then the above text also points out that the berber region where the far-side ports are found is mentioned to not be subject to a King (that's exactly what is written the Periplus at paragraph/chapter 14). This was supposed to be a compromise edit so we could both move on with our lives and end this discussion since both of our observations are represented and both are found in the primary source.

Yet you marked the text from the article as "dubious-discuss" and are still carrying on this discussion (which is now basically an argument). Why? I'm not seeing the issue with that text. Does the Periplus not say the Berber region where the far-side ports lie has no King? Does it not say Zoscales governs the other Berber country? It clearly does on both counts so what's the issue here? Whether or not that text should remain in its current state is why we're still arguing anyway so I'd like this cleared up. If you're fine with that text then there's really nothing to further discuss here and Iazygus and Acidsnow don't need to keep reading through all our exchanges. Awale-Abdi (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, I explained here what exactly is wrong with the wiki passage. I realize that you were just trying to compromise with the wording, and that's appreciated. However, there appear to be a few misconceptions. First, I have never denied that Zoscales governed Adulis (I actually never mentioned Adulis). I am well aware that the Periplus indicates that he did. This is is clear from the McCrindle translation in particular [39]-- "Below Adouli, about 800 stadia, occurs another very deep bay, at the entrance of which on the right are vast accumulations of sand, wherein is found deeply embedded the Opsian stone, which is not obtainable anywhere else. The king of all this country, from the Moskhophagoi to the other end of Barbaria, is Zoskales". What I wrote was that the Periplus doesn't assert that Zoscales ruled Aksum, which was a separate ancient city located south of Adulis in the interior of northern Ethiopia [40]. Lionel Casson and certain other scholars think that this may be because Adulis was not yet at the time under Aksumite control. Also, since the Moskhophagoi were centered in northeastern Sudan, in an area to the east of Meroe, and since Adulis in Eritrea was part of the Berber country as were entrepots like Avalites and Mossylon in the northern Somali territories, it follows that McCrindle's "other end of Barbaria" is necessarily the northern Somali territories. Do you see now why Huntingford and the Encylopedia Aethiopica indicate this outright? Casson explains this all in his official translation [41]. With that noted, I think the wording that the Periplus "indicates that these entrepôts were each governed by a separate chief and overseen by a paramount ruler named Zoskales, who was frugal but otherwise fair and conversant with ancient Greek" is therefore more accurate. Soupforone (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I apologize. It does seem as though I mistook your saying he didn't control Aksum and as your saying he didn't control Adulis. However, you have yet another dilemma on your hands here as I noticed something whilst looking through your own secondary sources (Huntingford and Encyclopedia Aethiopica). Neither secondary source indicates that he ruled both Berber countries or the Calf-eaters/Moskhophagoi. Huntingford merely considers Zoscales a small-scale ruler over Adulis and seemingly also the some parts of the Eritrean coast around it (equates him to the later Bahr-Nagash/"Sea-King" who ruled parts of the Eritrean coast during the Middle Ages) whilst Encylopedia Aethiopica asserts that he controls Adulis, it does not indicate he controls much else as far as I could see. See here, here and here.

This is despite both secondary sources interpreting "other Berber country" to mean the one in North-Central Somalia (where the far-side ports are). Neither of them consider/indicate him to be a ruler of either Berber countries. Your own secondary sources do not support your interpretation of the text. This confused me until I carefully re-read the text on paragraph 5 in the Periplus:

"These places, from the Calf-Eaters to the other Berber country, are governed by Zoscales"

This text does not actually say he governs the calf-eaters and the other Berber country. Read everything from Paragraph 1 to 5 very carefully. In Paragraph 3 & 4, and the beginning paragraph 5, several places are outlined along the coast (including Adulis) and no ruler is established for any of these places then the text immediately says "these places...are governed by Zoscales" making it obvious that prior outlined areas like Adulis, which were not mentioned to have any sorts of rulers, are the places he governs. Why not the other Berber country and the Calf-eaters though? Why didn't Huntingford, Stuart Munro-Hay, Encyclopedia Aethiopica or even Diriye Abdullahi interpret the text as saying he controlled the other Berber country (or the calf-eaters)? Because the text in commas "from the calf-eaters to the other Berber country" is not seemingly saying he controls these two areas but that the places prior described, which he governs, lie in-between the calf-eaters and the other Berber country (which they do). Otherwise the text would have worded it as ",along with the calf-eaters and other Berber country,". This goes for the McCrindle translation too. If you don't agree with this interpretation of the text then you must explain why not one single source considers Zoscales the ruler of both Berber countries (or even just the one with the far-side ports in it) which is ultimately your contention. Huntingford doesn't, Encyclopedia Aethiopica doesn't, Stuart Munro-Hay doesn't and Diriye Abdullahi expressly points out that the second Berber country is without a central government.

In fact, one of your own secondary sources (Lionel Casson), which you just shared in your prior reply, interprets the text exactly as I do. Casson is of the opinion that the Periplus is saying Zoscales' realm goes from the border shared with the Moscophagoi to the border shared with "the rest of Barbaria". He did not assert that Zoscales controls the rest of Barbaria or the Moschophagoi. You ought to very carefully read your own sources as they do not support your view that he controlled the far-side ports. See here. According to Casson; Zoscales' Kingdom is sandwiched between the Moschophagoi and the rest of Barbaria, the latter of which he interprets to be in North-Central Somalia indeed.

All of this aside, you still need to properly "argue away" the text that says the second Berber country is not subject to a King. So your dilemmas at this point are:

(1) The Second Berber country is mentioned to not be subject to a King (paragraph 14)

(2) No secondary source so far indicates Zoscales as the ruler of Northeastern Sudan and North-Central Somalia (all of "Barbaria") along side Adulis and/or areas along what is now the Eritrean coast. All of them, so far, directly contradict or simply don't support you on this. Including three of your own secondary sources.

(3) The text doesn't seem to clearly state he controls the other Berber country but seems to be noting the places ("these places") he governs stretch from where the Calf-eaters are to where the other Berber country is (as in more in-between them, and this indeed seems to be how Huntingford interprets it whilst being outright how Casson interprets it).

(4) The only proof you have, at this point, that he controlled both Berber countries (or even just the one in North-Central Somalia) is your own interpretation of the Periplus (Paragraph 5) and this interpretation is contradicted when the second Berber country is mentioned to not be subject to a King in the Periplus/Primary-source itself (paragraph 14) and is also contradicted or not supported by all the secondary sources we so far have.

I'm afraid things are looking grim for your side of the argument in light of the above. Unless you can properly deal with all four points... I'm afraid the text you want entered simply isn't accurate at all as per the above. In fact; based on the above, my compromise text is incorrect too as it doesn't seem to be that Zoscales ruled either of the Berber countries (one to the North and one to southeast beyond the Bab al-Mandeb). Awale-Abdi (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, unless you can refute the interpretations of your own secondary sources and mine, as well as the text in the Periplus (primary source) that says the second Berber country is not subject to a King; I'm afraid even the compromise text should be deleted altogether as the page already mentions that the Berber country in North-Central Somalia is independent and, if your own secondary sources and mine are to be believed, Zoscales clearly had no control over this region. Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does looks like Soupforone's own sources don't say Zoskales controlled the far-side markets or even the calf eaters. He just looks like he was the ruler of Adulis and some of the areas along the Eritrean coast to its north and south. Huntingford believes this and Casson states this even more explicitly. Both me and Awale have also shown that the far-side markets is said to have no King. As such, the compromise text should be removed as per these statements since writing that he rules "the other berber country" is not actually something Soupforone's own sources interpret the Periplus as claiming. It's simply source misrepresentation (i.e. a breach of WP:VERIFY). AcidSnow (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Soupforone, he was trying to use those sources to prove that some secondary sources interpret "other Berber country" as meaning the one in North-Central Somalia but it indeed was a big failing on his part to not realize that these sources he was sharing don't support his main argument which is that Zoscales controlled the far-side Berber country as well as the first Berber country in Northeastern Sudan. I mean Casson literally points out right here that he believes Zoscales' kingdom is right in-between these two areas rather than these two areas being parts of his Kingdom. You really should have read some of your sources more carefully, Soupforone. Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, alright I get it. You believe that the Periplus translations indicate that Zoscales' actual realm was bracketed by (i.e., located between) the Moschophagoi/Calf-eaters to the north and the other Berber country/other Barbara to the south. I see what you mean now about the Huntingford and the Encylopedia Aethiopica. Casson appears to interpret the southern border of Zoscales' realm as ending just prior to the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Given this, I had a closer look at the main Schoff translation. In his analysis of the Periplus, Schoff does consider the possibility that Zoscales may have been an Aksumite ruler. However, as regards the actual coast subject to Zoscales, Schoff (quoting Henry Yule) indicates that "to the 10th century at least, the whole coast-country of the Red Sea, from near Berbera probably to Suakin, was still subject to Abyssinia" [42]. Of the Berber country, he writes: "the Berbers of the Periplus probably included the ancestors of the Bejas between the Nile and Red Sea, the Danakils between the Upper Nile, Abyssinia and the Gulf of Aden, and the Somalis and Gallas" [43]. Ergo, there in fact appear to be at least three different translated interpretations of the extent of Zoscales' realm (as well as whether he was an Aksumite ruler): Schoff's translation, which interprets Zoscales' realm as stretching from Suakin in the north to near Berbera in the south; Huntingford's translation, which interprets Zoscales as an independent king of the Adulis area only; and Casson's translation, which interprets Zoscales' realm as being located between the Moschophagoi/Calf-eaters in the north and the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the south. A phrasing that notes these three interpretations therefore seems most logical. Soupforone (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you finally get it that you misunderstood your prior sources but you've misunderstood Schoff's "interpretation" as well. Schoff does not directly base his text here on what is in the Periplus. He just quotes a 19th Century Orientalist (Henry Yule) who once stated that up until the 10th century; Abyssinia ruled the coast probably from Suakin to near Berbera. This is not at all based in what is written in the Periplus and nowhere does the Periplus indicate this which makes sense since Henry Yule did not base that statement on the Periplus at all (see here, in the footnotes). Also, Yule's text doesn't even mention Zoscales (since it's not based on the Periplus); it just says "Abyssinia". Schoff then, as you can tell via the next few paragraphs, seems to connect this to Zoscales by dubiously assuming he was an Aksumite King (and thus "King of Abyssinia", in a sense); something Huntingford, Encyclopedia Aethiopica and Casson, who base their interpretations directly on what is written in the Periplus itself, do not agree with. Something you did not agree with throughout most of this discussion. It's unfortunately not a valid source as this does not prove that any secondary source actually believes, chiefly based on the Periplus, that Zoscales controlled that general area.

In fact, this doesn't even support your original argument which is that Zoscales ruled both Berber countries (or at least controlled the far-side ports) since it says "near Berbera" and probably Suakin. Berbera is on the western end of what was the second Berber country which seems to stretch up to or just a little south of Hafun. And "probably Suakin" isn't even a concrete enough statement. Plus, Suakin is just around the middle of the Northeastern Sudanese coast whilst the first Berber country and where the calf-eater's lie had a coast that stretched all the way up to just south of Berenice in Southeastern Egypt down to just north of wherever "Ptolemais Theron" may have been (Huntingford even suggests Suakin as possibly where Ptolemais Theron was, or somewhere close-by to it). This text from Henry Yule correlates with little of what is in the Periplus because it's not even based on what's written in the Periplus. It's also contradicted by the Periplus itself which states, clearly, that the second Berber country is not subject to a King. I don't mean any offense at all but I have to say once again that you need to carefully read your own sources. You seemingly misinterpreted Schoff using an outside, and unrelated, source to map Zoscale's realm as equivalent to Casson and Huntingford basing their interpretations on the Periplus itself, especially in Casson's case.

Apologies but, based on the above, I'm going to have to call for what I stated earlier... The compromise text which I added to begin with should clearly be removed altogether (Acidsnow, a third-party chiming on our discussion, even agrees with this) and, unless you can sufficiently deal with the four dilemmas I put forward before, this issue should be concluded so we can both just move on with our lives. I won't remove that text now myself as it might seem as though I'm edit-warring with you so I'll leave it to one of the third parties (Acidsnow or Iazyges) to do so. Unless you agree here that that should be done, during which case; I'll handle the deletion myself as per our agreement. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, thanks for the summary. I agree with much of the above, but it seems that the official translations of the Periplus are somewhere in between what we had both originally thought. Huntingford [44] and Casson reject that Zoscales was an Aksumite ruler [45] (as I had assumed), but Schoff suggests that he may have been one [46] (as you had assumed). Huntingford at first postulates that Zoscales' dominion was limited to the Adulis vicinity [47] (as neither of us had assumed), but asserts in a later work that Zoscales' realm lay between the Moskhophagoi/Calf-eaters area and an unknown 'other Barbaria' [48] (also as neither of us had assumed). Casson posits that Zoscales' realm was situated between the Moschophagoi/Calf-eaters in the north and the Bab el-Mandeb strait in the south [49] (as neither of us had assumed), whereas Schoff suggests that Zoscales' dominion stretched from Suakin to near Berbera [50] (also as neither of us had assumed). However, as you just pointed out, Schoff seems to base his interpretation on a misreading of a work by Henry Yule. Thus, the official Periplus translations appear to buttress neither the idea that Zoscales ruled all of the ancient Barbara, nor that all of the far-side ports necessarily fell outside of his realm. With that established, please indeed remove the Zoscales passage altogether. Soupforone (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the gist here is pretty straight-forward. Huntingford and Casson believe Zoscales to have ruled areas along what is now the Eritrean coast (as well as Adulis). The former equates Zoscales with the later Bahr-Nagash/"Sea-King" of the Middle Ages and the latter outwardly interprets the Periplus as saying that his lands lie between where the calf-eaters are and where the "other Berber country" (which he assumes is in North-Central Somalia) is, something I too noticed upon carefully re-reading the Periplus. See here and here. Both of these perspectives, ultimately, hold that the second Berber country was not subject to a King like Zoscales as a result which is line with how the Periplus itself (the primary source here) states the second Berber country is not subject to a King ("The voyage to all these farside market-towns is made from Egypt about the month of July, that is Epiphi... This country is not subject to a King, but each market-town is ruled by its separate chief."). Encyclopedia Aethiopica, on the other hand, mostly just mentions that Zoscales controls Adulis (see here). Then we have Scoff who chimes in on where Zoscales' realm was (see here) by oddly quoting something Henry Yule wrote; Yule is a 19th century orientalist who's claim about Abyssinia ruling the coast probably from Suakin to near Berbera is not at all based on what is written in the Periplus, as is clear once you check the footnotes of his work here. So, yes, it wasn't really a valid source as a result in this case and doesn't even support your original position which was that Zoscales ruled both Berber countries (or even just one of them like the one with the Far-side ports) because (1) It's not based on what's written in the Periplus and (2) Suakin may have honestly, based on Huntingford's meanderings, been where the calf-eaters and first berber country's southern border began (just north of Ptolemais Theron, see here) whilst Berbera is just on the western end of the Berber country of North-Central Somalia which seemingly stretched to about Hafun or areas just a bit south of it. This makes no sense with what's in the Periplus because it's not at all based on the Periplus. You were also, partly as a result of the former, unable to address the four dilemmas I posed earlier. So yeah, I'm glad you accept that the text on Zoscales should be removed altogether and I see someone's already removed it so that'll be that. This issue seems officially concluded. Thanks for your time, Soupforone. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank all those involved for reaching a conclusion on this issue. Hopefully this was all simply a misunderstanding by Soupforone and not a breach of WP:VERIFY. AcidSnow (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awale-Abdi, just so that it's clear, if I don't address something, it doesn't automatically mean that I am unable to do so. 9/10, it actually means either that I don't think it's relevant and have moved on or that I actually agree with my interlocutor and have likewise moved on. Other times, it's per WP:GOAT, WP:WIN or WP:LETITGO. It varies. Anyway, Casson indicates that [51]-- "Zoskales' sway, we are told, extended as far as the border shared with the Moschophagoi and that shared with the "rest of Barbaria." This means that, to the north, it included Ptolemais Theron which, being below the territory of the Moschophagoi... must have fallen within the embrace of Zoskales territory and, to the south, it reached as far as the Straits of Bab el Mandeb; the "rest of Barbaria" was the "far-side" Barbaria... that which lay on and beyond the straits as against the Barbaria that reached from below Berenice to the northern border of Zoskales kingdom." This is a much broader area than just the Eritrean coast (as indeed neither of us had assumed). Also, I didn't link to Henry Yule - the Schoff translation itself does [52]. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, it was a broader area than the Eritrean coast according to Casson, apologies for not being as exact as possible on that (granted, I did, in an earlier post, elaborate on Casson's exact views on the realm's extent as you just did) but the point is that your original contention is directly contradicted by Casson who doesn't interpret the text as saying Zoscales ruled both Berber countries (or even just the far-side port one). Also, I never stated that you linked to Yule's text, I state repeatedly that it was Scoff who basically did this. I also brought up you not addressing those dilemmas because they were important to the discussion and proved very detrimental to your point of view. But anyway, regards to you as well. Thank you for your time. Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the clarification on Yule. It's ironic how both of our original assumptions actually turned out to be different from the official Periplus translations. But one lives and learns, I guess. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Barbara (region) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The discussion already has at least three participants (Soupforone, Awale-Abdi and AcidSnow). Third opinion is a process which almost always deals with a discussion between two people. So I am declining the request for now. I can give a few general comments to solve the issue. You can try WP:DRN for a moderated discussion. You can also propose two alternate drafts and ask for people in an WP:RfC to comment on which one is better. Let me know if there are any questions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kingsindian. It seems there's been some sort of mix-up. Soupforone and I already called in two users for their opinions on our discussion (Acidsnow & Iazyges) hence why there are three users discussing things above. It was originally just me and Soupforone until I called in Acidsnow & Soupforone called in Iazyges. But thank you for popping in nevertheless. It seems our discussion's coming close to a close, at any rate. Hopefully, anyway. Awale-Abdi (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian, greetings and thanks for giving my Third Opinion a look. Fortunately, it seems that Awale-Abdi and I have just worked out a compromise. Soupforone (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also something else I'd like to address before moving on from this page. There seems to be some confusion in that two separate Berber countries/regions are conflated in the article as one continuous region. This confusion somewhat stems from how this article was originally focused on just one of the Berber regions; the one found in North-Central Somalia (see here). This is why the article originally, incorrectly, equated the "Barbara region" with "Bilad al-Barbar" because both corresponded with parts of the Somali coast. It's also why this article originally stated that the "Berbers" are the ancestors/predecessors of modern Somalis (not any other group of Afro-Asiatic speakers); because it's original focus was just on the Berber country/region found along the North-Central Somali coastline.

Soupforone then made one substantial edit to this article's former state where he made the article more about both Berber countries/regions. The one found along Upper Egypt and Northeastern Sudan and the other one found along the North-Central Somalia coast (see here). This led to some confusion where the two Berber countries/regions are conflated as though they're one continuous region that stretches from Upper Egypt to Northeastern Sudan when this is simply not the case (see here and here). They're clearly two geographically separate areas and are not adjoined regions. It'll take a few edits but I'll just edit the page to make it clear that these are separate Berber regions and not one, and continuous, single region. I hope there'll be no objections so I can just make the necessary edits and move on, as this is pretty straight-forward and clear. Thank you, Awale-Abdi (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I made the edits. I hope that'll be all and we can all move on now. I see nothing inaccurate about the page at this point. Thank you for your time, Awale-Abdi (talk)

Yes, per the Schoff [53], Huntingford [54] and Casson [55] translations of the Periplus, there are two subdivisions to the "Berber country", both of which were inhabited by the Afroasiatic-speaking "Berbers" [56] [57]. Hence, why I noted the northern Berber territory alongside the "other Barbaria" or the "rest of Barbaria" in the south. Given our re-readings above, the adjustment therefore seems fine. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Awale-Abdi (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaria has nothing to do with central somalia TBftf (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Simur and Mandel. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Simur and Mandel until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Danski454 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seeing inclusion of new edits that don't make sense. First there is inclusion of original research and personal opinions all over the page.

Furthermore vast majority of the edit don't seem to be unsupported by the sources that are being listed. For example on this source [58] it states that the locations are all unknown and everything is speculative . But on the page it's given a definite location and added text that has no mentions in the source.

As it stands now Barbaria is an appelation broadly applied to different regions and people across NortheEast Africa. It doesn't only relate to Somali city states which is misleading and factually incorrect.

I would suggest if improvement should be made, it should be so under a broader scope. Ragnimo (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to I know that Barbaria is not only Somali it would have consisted of different ethnicity’s that inhabit the area such as Harla,Beja,oromo,somali,Afar,saho and many others TBftf (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also replied to my edit the fall of Barbaria on your talk page TBftf (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot include that because those groups are not mentioned in the sources and they are modern groups. But clarity that Barbaria is applied generally to a wider raning groups in North East Africa is needed. Ragnimo (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the conflict was mentioned in the anicent engraving the As indicated by Cosmas Indicopleustes, an old engraving known as Monumentum Adulitanum from the 3d century recorded of by an unknown King of Adulis, bragging about his triumphs. please read page 52 and page 53 of this source it clearly states the axumite king and the barbary city states engaged in a conflict https://books.google.no/books?id=2O3MRjQycg4C&q=barbaria&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=barbaria%20&f=false according to the source>

[...]the king turned his attention to five orther egions Annene Metine Sesea Rauso and solate, All are unknown and guesses about the topynoms have hitherto been unproductive. Nevertheless the descriptions of th intervening terrain allow, within the geographical framework of the kings narrative for reasonable speculation. Sesea includes an inacessible mountain,Rauso evokes people who live in the midst of the incence gathering barbarians between the great waterless plains and solate is obiously close to the seacoast which it is to protect. That very high mountain can onlu lie southeast of the mountainous simen, where the king had already fought, and the allusion to waterless plains suggest that he moved yet father to the southeast into djibouti or somalia.^[1]

the source i mentioned above me is based on an anicent engraving the monumentum of adulitanum and According to historian Glen Bowersock was a refference to the king of axums conflict with barbaria,whatever it is its a refference to the earliest conflict involving the somali people and i think its of huge historical signifcance to all somalis. also please read the sources and the history i would advice you also take a read through of the monumentum of adulitanum which is what this information is based on

In the source qouted is says it's speculation by tha author, that all of those locations are unknown and guesses have been put forward. Some even identify it with Danakil Desert, others with different regions.

Therefore i don't think we should add that section on this wikipage. And it's certainly not true to put an absoulute around it because thats not what the sources say. Ragnimo (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragnimo: It is perfectly reasonable to include the opinion, clearly attributed as such, of a scholar like Bowersock: According to Glen W. Bowersock, ancient Barbaria may be safely identified with Somalia. Beyond that, what do you object to? This isn't about speculative identifications. The word Barbaroi in the Adulis inscription is a well-known Greek word. The only question is whether it refers to barbarians (foreigners) or the inhabitants of Ptolemy and the Periplus's Barbaria. There is nothing wrong with citing Bowersock for this. The text in question was written by me and there is no "absolute" in it. Srnec (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of contention isn't Barbaria which i have explained was just a general name for two seperate regions. Barbaria from Southern Egypt to Eritrea (Nubians,Beja and Afar) and Barbaria covering the Somali litoral. It was the locations mentioned like Rauso etc which he writes are all unknown and guesses has been brought thus far. The next he states the followins is speculation on his part meaning he has no evidence. Ragnimo (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with user srnec the historian glen bowerstock made a statement and not a speculative guess he even dives on his point furthur in the book so i will just interpret it as an educated historical statement and that still should be in the wiki article if you have other theories then i suggest you add that as well so far you have not offerd any evidence other then your own personal view which is not enough. To me its clear by the description offerd in the incription of monumentum adulitanum that it refers to somalia in particular not any other region also highlighted by historian glenn bowersock himself. Also rauso isnt unknown as its mentioned clearly in the inscription to lie in the waterless plains of the incence gathering barbarians also in a later part of the inscription the axumite king literally declares that the lands of the incence gathering barbarians to be in the east of ethiopia in the lands of the aromota which clearly points to mordern day somalia also somalia was known as the lands of aramota for the incence it produced.

[...]I reduced all the nations bordering my country, on the east to the country of frankincense and on to the west to Ethiopia and sasu.^[2]

this is a source taken directly from the monumentum of adulitanum which i suggest you read also most historians agree that this statement is clearly a description of mordern day somalia.

[...] according to the inscription the territory the axumites controlled included the following "in the east right up to the Incence Land ie somalia and in the west right up to the land of the etiopians and sasu .^[3]

historians dont dissagree on Rauso and what the lands of incence meant but dissagree on about what sasu insinitated with most pointing towards sudan or western. I will now go ahead and re add my section i also plan to enlarge the article in the future.

Okay , as we know that the Cushitic migration took place in the early 1st century. Meaning there is not that much of a chance that Berbera was Cushitic. How ever Al waaqidi notes Nuban’s (cushites) Living in south eygpt he also notes that Bajuwa and Berbers inhabiting the area. There has been a constant Argument that Barbarians Somalis and Berbers are the same I can clarify that this is wrong because every Somali clan claims descent from a Arab Ancestor. But now they start to deny this. Even if they weren’t Arabs Somalis was with a population of 15 million did not inhabit from south eygpt all the way to Somali land. I can clarify this because Somalis inhabit 4 country’s Somali land Somalia Kenya and Ethiopia. All of them together populates to 17 million. But How could a people that inhabited From south eygpt to northern Somalia be Somalis. So there must of been other ethnicity’s The Beja and Harla are notes as a major ethnicity’ By the Locals and This is backed up by many study’s showing the area was inhabited by A ethnic group called the Harla. Also there is another group That must of been on here The Afar who inhabit Djibouti Ethiopia and Eritrea. My Evidence is because people know them as the indigenous of there land. Another people’s must of been the Oromo group. There is a folk story that they migrated which if you get my opinion is not true. But even if they did migrate that was only the Borona group oromos inhabit Somali land Somalia Ethiopia And Kenya as well as The Sourhern Afar Djibouti borders. The Oromo that live in these areas Wardey,Akisho,Gurugura (Gurgurre have claimed Dir since 1991 due to there land being given up to Somalis and many others. Thanks please add more ethnicity’s other then Somalis because I am Somali my self and I know this is not true the periplus doesn’t even mention it being a Somali only civilisation yet even Somali. Thanks 😊. TBftf (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have some spelling errors I will try better next time TBftf (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention cushites, or any of these ethnic gorups or clans in any of those sources. You are applying your own original research and personal opinion to a text.

You are dragging a seperate issue here as well, it doesn't matter what Somali clans claim Prophetic lineages. What is scientific and observable historical fact is that they are indigenous to the somali coast and speak a indigenous cushitic language. Therefore those city states along the Somali coasts are consider Proto-Somali. As Cambridge History of Africa states it:

The traditional view that the Galla preceded the Somali in the Horn is no longer valid. It is rather the Somali who are referred to in the accounts of early Arab geographers. In fact, there was a basic continuity in the use of the term Berber since the first century of the Christian era to describe the land and the people of the Horn. The Periplus, Claudius Ptolemy, and Cosmas Indicopleustes employed it in much the same way as the Arab geographers did after the ninth century. There seems to be no doubt that the Arab geographers had particularly the Somali in mind when they spoke of the 'Black Berbers' of the Horn; and the earlier use of the term by Greek writers may very well indicate a more ancient occupancy of the Horn by the same stock of people.

The contacts between the Near and the Middle East on the one hand, and the African side of the Gulf of Aden on the other, were very old and regular; and the earliest advent of Islam in these regions must have certainly occurred within the first century of the Muslim era.

The inhabitants of the Horn at that time seem to have been the ancestors of the present-day Somali. Their most important coastal settlements were Zeila and Berbera on the Gulf of Aden, and Mogadishu, Merca and Brava on the Benadir coast. Each of these settlements apparently owed its growth and development to regular stream of merchants from Arabia, and from the countries around the Persian Gulf, who visited these places and who later started to live in them. - Page 135

They cannot be called Proto-Cushitic because cushitic speakers themselves by that time have already split out and formed into their seperate ethnic groups and languages long prior to the periplus

Also read the talk page conversations between older editors, it really clarifies the way Barber and Barbaria was applied. It was applied to several seperate regions and people in a general manner. IT does not mean they were connected or even united in any sense . But the berber applied to Somali coast speaks about Ancestral Somali people. The Berber applied to other areas and regions speak to other groups.

Ragnimo (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should add a section called the fall of Barbagia because well Barbaria isn’t alive today. Here is some info I have gathered around this topic.

The periplus mentions one Notable Negus of Barbaria Zoskales or Za haqla he Would invade many neighbours and invaded the majority of Barbaria. Barbaria was basically a slave or a vassal state for Adulis and Aksum. Zoskales sent Genreals and soldiers to the area which would rule important port city’s Like Salweyn and Heis as well as Malao. After A century they would get independence. But not for long as 2 Major groups were expanding The Harla who had good trading realationships with the Chen dynasty there was also another group the periplus mentions Avalites who we’re expanding Around The Djibouti Somali land borders. In between these two groups was a city called Malao we now know as Berbera. The Harla and Avalites were in a war until the 4th century the Harlaa turned out victorious. If we look north In Adulis there was a king called Ezana I of Aksum who would conquer the rest of Barbaria and Cush. Later in the 10th century Harlaa and Avalites were at war again but now the Avalites identified them self’s as Adalites in this second war the Avalites won decisively defeating the Harlaa At the battle of saylac. Which was a Harla city that was inhabited by a group called the cisse. This is my info on the fall of Barbaria please read and add this information thanks TBftf (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is mentioned in the Periplus as far as i know or all the sources on it don't even mention any of this Harla fighing in Malao or anything to that end. Barbaria is not even mentioned as a collective by Periplus and it's a general appelation to wide range of groups, regions even applied to Sudan/Southern Egypt and Eritrea.

And also can you link the source so we can access it, because when i google search for it nothing comes up. It needs to be reliable and verifiable. Ragnimo (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we know that before Barbaria there was a civilisation called The land of puhnt which was established to be a Cushitic civilisation. That stretched from South eygpt all the way to Somali land (Awdal region). This kingdom contained Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti,Somali land. It’s capital was based in Eritrea we can confirm they Barbarians were just cushites who had succeeded Puhnt And had migrated in the area. Some Somalis claim that Barbaria also contained central Somalia. This is wrong centreal Somalia was ran by a ruling Tribe and civilisation Abgaal and sarapion. Another southern civilisation that was not part of Barbaria was Azania that stretched from Mozambique to Jubba land one of the largest states of greater Somalia. Another State was Opone which was in the Xafun peninsula. All of these 3 states I have noted would rule Somalia but Somali land and other Horn country’s were either part of Adulis or Barbaria. TBftf (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaria mentioned throughout the somali coast was a toponym applied generally. It does not refer to one united kingdom or anything like that. None of what you are saying is even mentioned in the periplus. Everything else you stated is incomprehensible.

Also can you please stop spamming the talk page with more sections. Keep the discussion in the one i created. Wikipedia is a verifiable encyclopedia WP:MAINSTREAM and not a place for your propaganda or ethno nationalist squable. See WP:SOAPBOX . Nor is it a place for you to insert your own opinions and original research See Wikipedia:No original research Ragnimo (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaria is a term from ancient historical texts and maps, and it is not widely recognized in contemporary historical scholarship. However, it is often associated with the region that is now Somalia. In classical antiquity, the area was known for its various ancient civilizations and trade routes.

The term Barbaria likely derives from the Greek word "barbaros," which was used by ancient Greeks to describe people who were considered outsiders or not Greek-speaking. This term was often applied to regions and peoples that the Greeks had limited knowledge of or contact with. Over time, it became a general term for regions perceived as foreign or exotic.

In the context of ancient Somalia, the region was known for its involvement in trade with the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent, and other parts of Africa. It was part of a network of trade routes that connected various civilizations, including the Roman Empire, and was known for its involvement in the trade of goods such as frankincense, myrrh, and gold. 2601:49:8400:20F0:7D25:9B20:673A:FD2A (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]