The Eastern Coast of 'The Other Berberia' (Ancient Somaliland) according to the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’

The Eastern Coast of 'The Other Berberia' (Ancient Somaliland) according to the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

From: http://www.somaliland.org/ns.asp?ID=05091702

Completing the series of articles on the excerpts of the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ that bear evidence to the ‘Other Berberia’, a country that before 2000 years was found within almost the same borders as present day Somaliland, we will focus on the eastern coasts of the land.

It is true that we have somewhat earlier references to this area, and we intend to mention them within this series of articles, but they are rather due to hearsay (f.i. diplomatic reports of those times) and not to personal autopsy and navigational experience in the area in question as is the text of the Periplus of the Red Sea.

From Malao to Mundu / Bandar Heis

The 9th chapter of the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ is exclusively dedicated to the market-town of Mundu, a port of call that has been identified with the modern harbour (Bandar) Heis in the vicinity of Maydh. The two modern harbors serve as maritime connection of Erigavo, capital of the Sanaag province and Somaliland’s eastern largest city. We publish the text integrally, adding our commentary next.

Text

9. Two days' sail, or three, beyond Malao is the market-town of Mundu, where the ships lie at anchor more safely behind a projecting island close to the shore. There are imported into this place the things previously set forth, and from it likewise are exported the merchandise already stated, and the incense called mocrotu. And the traders living here are more quarrelsome.

Analysis

The text gives us the impression that there was parity between Malao (today’s Berbera) and Mundu (Heis), at least with regard to the imports and the exports. The specific mention of more quarrelsome traders at Mundu makes us think that this market-town was not the epicenter of political and economic power of the Other Berberia, contrarily to Malao, and the local traders, taxed by the central authorities, did their best to to maximize the profit ensuing from their products.

On the other hand, Mundu seems to be as large as Malao; contrarily to Avalites (Assab in Eritrea) that is described as ‘small market-town’, and in contrast to other toponymics at the east of Mundu/Bandar Heis, Mundu and Malao give us the impression of constituting the central and most populated part of the ‘Other Berberia’.

Mundu seems to have been more privileged a place for anchoring because of the existence of a ‘projecting island’; we remind the reader that in Malao ‘the anchorage is an open roadstead’.

Mocrotu incense seems to have been the particularity of the Mundu port of call; it could be found further in the eastern coast of the ‘Other Berberia’ but it was not of the same quality as that exported from Mundu.

The easternmost confines of the ‘Other Berberia’ and Azania

The ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ refers to the easternmost confines of the ‘Other Berberia’ beyond Mundu. Mosyllon (Bossasso), Little Nile River, Cape Elephant and Elephant River, Acannae (a large laurel-grove), Akroterion Aromation (‘Cape of Spices’: Cap Guardafui), Tabae promontory, Pano and Opone (Ras Hafun).

Of all these toponymics, few relate to markets and towns, as it is already understood. Mosyllon is mentioned without any specification, but it seems rather smaller than Avalites (Assab) and famous only for its cinnamon. Akroterion Aromaton is a market town with fewer products and a very dangerous anchorage. Pano is just a ‘village’, whereas Opone is a market town famous for its cinnamon, similarly to Mosyllon. Clearly, Mosyllon and Opone are not as sizeable as Malao and Mundu, and they seem peripheral to the central part of the ‘Other Berberia’.

Beyond Opone (Ras Hafun), the entire Eastern African coast down to Rhapta (Daressalam in Tanzania) is called Azania and belongs as colony to the Yemenite merged kingdom of Saba (Sheba) and Himyar. The distinction between the ‘Other Berberia’ and Azania is very clear. There was political and economic autonomy in the former, whereas the latter area was colonized.

Recapitulative Chapter on the ‘Other Berberia’

Before embarking on the narration of Azania, the anonymous Alexandrian Egyptian author of the ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ makes some key comments of economic, commercial and navigational character only to end up with a remark about the prevailing political conditions throughout the (already described) ‘Other Berberia’; this is to be found in the chapter 14, which is a recapitulation of the narrations about the ‘Other Berberia’. We publish the text integrally.

Text

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 is administered by sovereigns who rule separately the various market-towns.

Analysis

The reference to the navigational practices clearly indicates that the ‘Other Berberia’ could very well be a merchant’s and a captain’s end destination. The fact that Azania lies beyond did not imply that every ship sailing from Egypt would reach the Azanian ports of call. We have good reason to believe this, because precisely of the reference to Indian navigators and merchants, who sailed to ‘Other Berberia’ to bring their products there. When the author says ‘bringing to these far-side market-towns’, he means the harbors of the ‘Other Berberia’. The Indian merchants did so to avoid the heavier Yemenite customs at the harbor of Aden (Felix Arabia), and it seems that some of them were able to avoid Other Berberian customs altogether by exchanging ‘their cargoes while sailing along the coast’. Barygaza is modern Broach in Gujarat (India) and Ariaca refers to the Indo-Scythian state around Barygaza, a political formation that rose in the aftermath of the collapse of the Hellenistic state of Bactria.

The last sentence of the chapter should not be viewed as abnegation of central political power in the ‘Other Berberia’; the Greek text employs characteristically a verb (basileuetai), not a substantive. The expression signifies that the country was not ruled by a recognized ‘king’ of the same rank as the Roman Emperor, the King of Meroe (in Sudan), the King of Yemen (Sheba and Himyar) or the King of Axum (Abyssinia). This does not deny the existence of central political power in the ‘Other Berberia’, but clarifies that the power was not of the top rank.

Central Oligarchy, not Monarchy, in the ‘Other Berberia’

To state that there were sovereigns in the various market-towns, the text uses the Greek word ‘tyrannos’ that does not mean ‘tyrant’ as it derived in modern Western languages, but a sovereign based on an oligarchy, which was conceived as another type of political rule by the Ancient Greeks (monarchy, oligarchy and democracy being the three main types). The difference between monarchy (ruled by a king / basileus) and oligarchy (ruled by a tyrant / tyrannos) is that the king has seized larger power and rules uncontested, whereas in the case of an oligarchy the sovereign has to take into account and consult with the elders, the wealthier and the high priests. The ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ mentions precisely in the case of the merged Yemenite kingdom Sheba and Himyar the parallel existence of King Haribael and the Mofar tyrant (chapters 16 and 24).

With regard to the ‘Other Berberia’, we can conclude that the economic riches accumulated in Malao and Mundu contributed to the supremacy of the local sovereign, who may have risen to a level of ‘primus inter pares’ among the other ‘tyrants’ of the trade oligarchies of the country. If the division had been perpetuated, it would have been possible either for the Yemenite King Haribael to extend his Azanian colony in the area of ‘Alli Berberia’ (that is closer to Yemen itself) or for the Axumite Abyssinian King Zoscales to expand his territory in the south of the Bab el Mandeb straits.

The reason we claim the existence of an oligarchy with central power around Malao – Berbera is the fact that the local inhabitants took their destiny in their own hands, fought hard to preserve their right to sail and transport their products across the straits to Mouza in Yemen, made of their land a favorite location for Indian merchandises’ transit, and opposed foreign threats that may have come from either shores of the Red Sea.

With this collapses also the academic myth that the inhabitants of the ‘Other Berberia’ have "consistently relied on Arab middlemen and transporters" ( http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C8/COM-1098.html) that was already a mistakenly expressed inconsistency since the Ancient Yemenites were Semitic but certainly not ‘Arabs’. The ‘Periplus of the Red Sea’ reveals to us an impressive divide between the civilized Yemenites and the barbaric Arabs of Hedjaz (Civilized Yemen and Barbaric Arabia: the historical divide will shape the future: http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-4-2005-74218.asp).