I think Mx history is less well known maybe due to the lack of it or because most of it is oral - There aren't enough writers on this subject who are distinguished.
Starkast, no you are incorrect about what you interptet from that assumption. Marehan is actually one of the top most, if not most documented Somali clan in writren history.
For example, I have 73 direct files specifically about Marehan in British colonial intelligence records, more than ALL other specific files about Somali clans combined.
Combined, dude. And people think it was everyday occurrence that the British gave up a territory the size of Jubbaland with the only permanent River in the entire land (as it's natural boundary even).
No, the British gave it up because of MAREHAN.
You know how we used to debate with the OGs about the "Aulyahan Uprising" and Abdirahaman Mursaal?
The articles we were debating were using THESE files as references.
You know what I showed Saddam like I said above, but never even disclosed it publicly.
EVEN the moment where Abdirahaman Mursaal and his band did that infamous ambush of Eliot and killed him, ON THE SCENE the Brits were dividing themselves up sending most of the arrivals on the scene to MAREHAN, including the force commander, to prevenr Marehan and/or convince them nor to shelter Mursaal. He literally writes on the spot and even to the Secretary of the Colonies later of the issue 1st, 2nd, priority was Marehan what they would infer from this which of the murder of Eliot was tragic would be calamitous and the last priority was how quickly it would take to get Mursal.
So no, you are absolutely incorrect on documentation.
What explains the question what Somalis havr had for.modern print is called "GRIEVANCE."
1. Apparently Somalis have no history before 1969, because almost ALL of what Somalis have written about history is primarily about post-1969 Somalia, Siad Barre, the civil war.
2. And thr majority of them were grievous about Siad Barre and the Kacaan speaking ON their grievance, including even the small and heavily biased part devoted to some of the colonial era repurposed to contrast with fhr grievance they claimed under Barre.
So I have actually ironically come to understand the entire psychological underpinning of "Marehan history starts at 1969" is really THEIR CONCEPT OF SOMALI HISTORY ACTUALLY STARTS IN 1969 AND MAREHAN WAS THEIR MAIN ANTAGONIST.
Have you seen a SINGLE Somali historian writing on the 1800's? How about before the 1800's?
Have you seen a SINGLE Somali historian write in medieval Somali history or a book abouy Adal or even write a mainstream normal history book about the mythical Ajuuraan?
No, you haven't.
You know why?
98% of Somali groups do not show up in the record.
And Marehan does.
So you are right in one thing; we don't have many mainstream historians and writers, but what you don't understand is, the few we have were motivated by feeling of GRIEVANCE (against Kacaan) and it is they who made Somali history and relavance limited primarily to the timeframr that informs their grievance.
Because the irony is, thr longer you move back from that time frame, the less Somali social groups in general are part of written history and among the few that are, it is the greatest of ironies that Marehan is among the most illustriously and DISPROPORTIONATELY identified and documented Somali groups in the written record