,
101 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
I want to talk a little about maybe my second favorite cultural worlds that has disappeared into the modern state system: The Rub' al-Khali.
For those of you who prefer something long form to a tweet thread, I've linked a paper I wrote on the subject here:
To begin with, the importance of this place and time for me is twofold. 1. The relative absence or weakness of the state. 2. The beauty of
the (very strong) cultural norms that guided behavior in this area. I rely a great deal on British travelers in describing this, due to
my language limitations, and the fact that locals writing on the desert regions were almost exclusively urban dwellers, who looked down on
rural and desert peoples, who were sometimes the victims of their raids, and who had a (sometimes exaggerated) cultural rivalry with them.
To begin, I have to explain the terrain and economy of the region and define the region and timeframe I'm talking about.
My direct research is limited to the late 19th to mid 20th centuries. After this, modern states are established. Before?
Some of these cultural patterns may date to very soon after the domestication of the camel near 1,000 BC. But change is the one constant.
There were many great movements of people after this time, climatic change (desertification; higher sea level), the rise of Islam, etc.
And, in any event, I am unaware of sources that would enable to put even rough dates on these practices.
Suffice it to say that human needs have not changed and there is nothing technologically to limit these practices to more recent history.
The Rub' al-Khali is one of the largest continuous sand deserts in the world. In Arabic, it means, roughly, The Empty Quarter.
Bedu who lived in the desert did not call it that. I suspect it is akin to New Yorkers deciding the Midwest is Flyover Country.
To the Bedu who lived in the desert, it was highly differentiated. Wells were days apart in some areas, weeks apart in others.
In some areas, the wells were deep and sweet, but took a great deal of labor to establish and maintain. In others, the wells were shallower.
These tended to brackishness, some unfit for human consumption - but fit for camels.
Some wells always had watet, some only in good years. Some gave only a trickle, some a torrent. Some had gone dry.
There were bands of different types of grazing and regions in which grazing was better or poorer. These were known to Bedu and named.
They were named according to the shaoe and color of the sands, named after wells (which, in turn, were named after men who'd dug them)
or named after the grazing within. Grazing varied year to year and seasonally. Rain was very limited and scattered.
Bedu would note and track rain and would remember it - it meant grazing in thise areas i subsequent years.
Camels were essential to survival. They were transportation, food, status, and were walking desalination plants. Camels were wealth.
If grazing was good in an area without drinkable water, Bedu could and often would live entirely off camel milk while their camels grazed
perhaps drinking water not suitable for human consumption - though desert camels can survive indefinitely with enough fresh (not salty)
grazing, provided they are not pushed too hard.
Camels also varied greatly. Camels bred to the desert had softer soles, allowing for better balance in the loosest sand.
These camels struggled in the mountains and rocky steppes, the sharp stones cutting their feet. Likewise, camels were bred to steppe
and to mountains, and these struggled coming down the steepest, loosest dunes. There were also camels fit for milking, for desert endurance,
for beauty, and for racing. These latter were status symbols of rulers near the desert, but likely would not have survived the longest treks
They could not handle the saltiest water and grazing. Even desert camels had to be habituated to hard travel after a span in good pastures.
They had to be force fed, and have water poured down their throats to keep them alive, as they would otherwise scorn the saltiest water
and thorniest grazing. The skill of the Bedu was also key. The saltiest grazing might keep the camels alive, but cause continuous diarrhea.
The travelers whose accounts I've read describe the Bedu sewing their anuses to prevent them from shitting themselves to death
and sewing patches of leather into their soles to patch cuts from sharp stones after crossing rough terrain.
They also had to know the location of wells by rote - the desert was not mapped - and where to find grazing. Few Bedu knew the whole desert.
Rather, tribes of Bedu knew their home regions very well and might have guides who were better traveled. Even then, knowledge of the land
of hostile or far off groups might be limited, as they would only have heard accounts of those regions, except in rare cases.
All this is to say that travelling into the desert was not possible except with the cooperation of the tribes through whose land you wished
to travel. And it is for this reason that the authority of states (or whatever term you prefer for areas of authority pre-state) did not
reach far into the desert. Moreover, groups of people split, merged, became more or less sedentary, became wealthy or poor generation to
generation. Thus, much of the territory under the sway of a ruler can be imagined under constant negotiation.
Even in a powerful, wealthy and comparitively stable country such as Oman (by local standards), a bad ruler could easily lose most of "his"
country. (Most of Oman is mountainous, not desert. The country was several times split between a more secular minded ruler controlling the
coast and a popular, elected religious leader - an Ibadhi Imam - controlling the mountainous interior and the edge of the desert)
Great leaders, meanwhile, coukd attract tribes to settle in his lands, as did Sheikh Zayed bin Khalifah of Abu Dhabi in the 19th century
(Zayed the Great) & his grandson Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan in the mid-20th century, both of whom became legendary figures as far away as Yemen
This flexibility in loyalties extended to many settled regions, such as the oases in Liwa and near Al 'Ayn in Abu Dhabi.
Leaders were expected to be competent, generous, to be accessible - the good ones held open majalis daily at which anyone could present
grievances or request assistance, whether or not they were considered to be subject to their authority.
In fact, the Bedu who lived deepest in the desert typically did not recognize anyone's authority. But rulers could court loyalty through
generosity, force of personality, a reputation for honesty, hospitality, justice, bravery, excellence and knowledge of camels -
Essentially by exemplifying (or appearing to exemplify) the values of Bedu society.
Rulers on the edge of the desert who eschewed these values were vulnerable.
Nearby rulers could and did amass the support of the Bedu and use it to take their territory or wealth by force.
Returning to the stateless areas of the desert and (to lesser extent) border areas, order was maintained in a couple important ways.
One important factor was reciprocal violence. Retaliation in kind. If a boy in the Steve tribe takes the hand of a boy in the Dan tribe
We find a boy from Steve, hold him down and cut his hand off. A male death for a male death. A female death for a female death.
The circumstances of how it happened only matter if you can convince us to negotiate a peace and accept compensation.
Outside the tribe, in theory, you are vulnerable. And in fact there were groups that were considered weak, not tribesmen, who were
subject to arbitrary violence, who could not marry women from tribesmen, etc (according to at least one traveler; not the best account).
To understand the deeper factors in maintaining these social mores, however, I have to tell you about "the news."
The practice of exchanging the news, at length, in detail painful to the British interloper, was reported by every traveler's account.
(I should interject here that I have strong personal connections to a handful of people from this region and discussed this with them as
an imperfect check on my necessary over-reliance on British travelers' accounts)
This echange took place wherever and whenever Bedu met, whenever they passed settled areas, whenever they met Arabs.
They would describe in detail everything they saw. Every camel track. Grazing. Clouds. If they stayed with anyone they described their stay,
their meals, the news they received from anyone else they spoke to, things that happened on any journies they took.
I've left out specific examples to this point for a reason. They are too long for tweet form. I refer you to the paper linked above
for the more interesting version of all this, with the color of the source material illustrating my points.
But, the memory of the Bedu is much commented on. Travelers, govenrment bureaucrats and oil men alike have commented that Arab acquaintances
routinely remembered shockingly trivial details of comments made in passing years before and asked thoughtful follow up questions.
In the travelers' accounts it becomes clear how this came to be, as Bedu repeated stories at length, from years before on their journeys -
often the same stories, told to the same people. Retold. Commented on anew. They were living memories and oral records that ranged from
who stole whose camel, who married whom, who acted bravely in a battle or gave good hospitality, who served cold coffee to guests once,
who cried out when they were circumcised (they did this in adolescence in the group I'm referencing) in an unseemly way, whose long-dead
grandfather was flatulent, etc.
These stories were then passed as "the news" far and wide.
These stories were then passed as "the news" far and wide.
In one example, news of a minor battle spread no less than 1,000 miles South to Thesiger's traveling party in the span of a couple weeks.
In this battle, there would have been people from Northern and Southern tribes, so that it is likely that it spread the 1,000+ miles North
and West to the court of Ibn Saud of Arabia, as well. Along with the news of that battle went the news of hospitality, grazing, and other
of what we would consider minutiae, not fit to repeat, but which collectively formed the fabric of society around the desert,
reinforcing social norms, strengthening and maintaining connections over great distance and time, and forming a sort of surveillance
(to put it in the least generous terms) that encouraged hyperbolic performance of social values like generosity and deterred bad behavior.
One's reputation, after all, would have affected very real aspects of life - access to marriage, assistance from others, trading.
More importantly, however, one's reputation - honor - was the underlying social currency, it was status.
In one telling example, Thesiger meets a decrepit, penniless, toothless old man in a tattered loin cloth. He (British) thinks little of him.
(Thesiger was new to the region) Everyone around him, however treats the man like royalty. His companions privately express acute jealousy.
The man used to be the wealthiest in the tribe. “No one ever came to his tents but he killed a camel to feed them. By God, he is generous!”
I will try to add details on what these norms were tomorrow. The upshot of all of this is that it was a functioning model of how you can
have a very intricate society and culture without the state - something we are too often told is impossible.
Far from the lawless, hellish wasteland we are led to expect, what we call crime was exceedingly rare among the Bedu.
Nor was it "survival of the fittest." Every social more they had was bent on cooperation, at least within the tribe, and often between them.
And protection of the vulnerable - such as travelers, the poor and hungry - was paramount.
There was a constant state of low-grade conflict. Tribes were never entirely at peace for very long. But the casualties in these conflicts
were relatively small - certainly compared to the amount of people we imprison, allow to starve, send to die in war, etc.
And, even within the tribe (in SE Arabia specifically), consensus ruled, not authority. A tribal leader sought compromise and consensus
He settled disputes and, after consultation and consensus building, made decisions in the realm of what we would call "foreign policy."
But he was not an autocrat, and could not be, because he needed the support of his people and they would replace him.
(Again, I hope to add to this tomorrow. It's time for bed. I'll link again the relevant papers for those immediately interested)
