Talk:History of Africa/Archive 1

I've spent so much time on states that I have neglected this article. It should have been first on my list. I just wrote the intro. Notice I said wrote instead of re-wrote, because what was put there before me was NOTHING. Written history may indeed start with Egypt, but history as defined by happenings and the evidence they leave behind goes well beyond that. I'm using the History of Europe page as my model and they put one pathetic line up saying the history of that continent started with the first literate civs. They include everything as we should here. The periodization scheme i put up should work rather well here. It's obvious Africa developed differently than the rest of the world. What sucks is that it's like the least studied continent in the world despite it being the origin of the most important race ever- THE HUMAN RACE. Time for me and all who give a hoot to step their game up. HOLLA! Scott Free (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Alatari (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that there is not much known about sub-saharan african history before colonialism because there are no records of anything, and basically anything that you might say is hypothetical and has no place in history. The theory of evolution and the idea of the human race originating in Africa are very loosely based theories and in fact they are wrong. Modern humans originated in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.224.134 (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The notion there is "no records of anything" is patently false, African history is based of verbal, archeological, and written accounts.^[1]~~~~ Inferences from limited information is a key part of historical study and claiming that anything said using these methods isn't credible would remove the entire paleolithic period from history. Evolution and humanity's evolution in Africa is proven through extensive archeological evidence and analysis.^[2][3] Ardenter (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Africa being the second largest continent in the world can not be covered as a whole. In the same way one could not seriously write about a history of Asia, one can not write about a history of "Africa." North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa should be covered separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.174.196 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very large subject but it can be divided into sections properly. I replaced one tag because there are some major gaps in sections of the Sub-Saharan history that need addressing. Genetic differences between East, North and South African ethnic groups are extremely wide and so are the histories. Some examples:

• Overall, the nucleotide difference within African A1 (4·4 %) was larger than within Asian A1 (2·1 %) or European A2 (1·1 %), pointing to a higher degree of genetic divergence of genotype A on the African continent.
• Sprinters vs cross country
• When he analysed the genes in present-day human populations from around the world, he found that one important haplotype of ASPM was more abundant in populations living outside Africa than in sub-Saharan populations. This led him to suggest that this variant "originated at a time that coincides with the spread of agriculture, settled cities, and the first record of written language. So, a major question is whether the coincidence between the genetic evolution that we see and the cultural evolution of humans was causative – or did they synergise with each other?"

I'll see if I can find some more Sub Saharan info or someone who is better at archeaology topics then me. Alatari (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and at the same time there are more genetic similarities than differences between any two of these populations. Additionally there is the fact that more than seven out of ten indigenous males are paternally descended from E-P2*, in large part being descendants of two brother haplogroups - E1b1b and E1b1a - which are less than 8kya apart in their divergences in ancestral E-P2* bearing populations either way you slice it.

We have:

• ["Phylogeography of the human Y chromosome haplogroup E3a"]

In this study we analyzed more than 1,600 Y chromosomes from 55 African populations, using both new and previously described biallelic markers, in order to refine the phylogeny and the geographic distribution of the E3a haplogroup.

The most common E-DYS271 sub-clades (E-DYS271*, E-M191, E-U209) showed a non uniform distribution across sub-Saharan Africa. Most of the E-DYS271 chromosomes found in northern and western Africa belong to the paragroup E-DYS271*, which is rare in central and southern Africa. In these latter regions, haplogroups E-M191 and E-U209 show similar frequency distributions and coalescence ages (13 and 11 kyr, respectively), suggesting their involvement in the same migratory event/s.

By the use of two new phylogenetically equivalent markers (V38 and V89), the earlier tripartite structure of E3 haplogroup was resolved in favor of a common ancestor for haplogroups E-DYS271 (formerly E3a) and E-M329 (formerly E3c). The new topology of the E3 haplogroup is suggestive of a relatively recent eastern African origin for the majority of the chromosomes presently found in sub-Saharan Africa.

- F. Cruciani et al 2008

Also, Africa's genetic diversity - such as noted by the poster above - is for the most part within-population diversity and not between population diversity, as is most human diversity. The only real part of Africa i see as differentiable is the coastal North African and sparse Saharan populations -- but this is only differentiable from the perspective of non-Africans because non-African DNA influence is very rare in Africa South of the Sahara.

• The Making of the African mtDNA landscape

The AMOVA analysis performed on the 16 Bantu-speaking populations analyzed in the present work showed that almost all the genetic variation (98.8%) was found to be within populations, with the remaining 1.2% between populations (but not significantly different from 0; P=.103). These results again reflect the very high level of genetic homogeneity among these populations.

AMOVA analysis was also applied to the whole African data set, using several designs:

Taking all the African populations separately, 79.2% of the variability occurs within populations, whereas 20.8% of the variability occurs between populations.

Grouping the populations by main geographic areas, 10.6% between groups, 12.5% between populations within groups, and 76.9% for variance within groups.

Considering the main groups of African languages (Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan), similar values were obtained for the variation within groups (76.8%), but 18.9% was found to occur between populations within groups, with the remaining 4.3% corresponding with differences between groups. (This last was not significantly different from 0; P=.068.)

When populations were grouped into Bantu versus non-Bantu, a similar apportionment of genetic variation was found: 74.9% within populations, 17.2% among populations within groups, and 7.9% among groups.

Therefore, it seems that, in Africa, geography plays an important role in defining differences between the main groups, whereas language plays a lesser role.

- A. Salas et al 2002

Even if whatever definable and overall **distinct** (if there was one) ancestral East African population from which all non-Africans are descended had remained together but segregated from all other populations, you'd see much more diversity within this group than outside it. This wouldn't necissarily equate to any definable groups such that some are more destinct from others than are they to non-Africans.

Africa is a vast continent and of course geographical distance is important (culturally, linguistically, genetically, whathaveyou) but numerous migratory events criss cross the continent both before and expecially after the migration of non-Africans. The criss crossing E-P2* (and its derivatives) which as we all know is found in it's highest frequencies in Ethiopian groups and in Senegal (Senegalese sample having been found with more from a percentage standpoint than a few of the said Ethiopian cases) attests to this. The fact both NorthWestern Amazighen speakers and al Tamasheq (both speaking Berber languages that originate in the Eastern Sahara) ultimately descend from derivative E1b1b1* lingeages that expand West from the Western desert of Egypt around 2kya, and the finding of Benin Sickle Cell in Predynastic Egyptian mummies and further aid my point.

Lastly, concering E-M2's very origins and connections to metallurgical and agricultural advancement, as well as its constant linking to the Sahara as seen in the Alexandra Rosa et al study entitled "Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective" cited here at wiki as a source for the time frame and geographical origins of E1b1a* here are a few citations that may clear the picture up.

• Human population and paleoenvironment in West Africa

A cultural flow, from the southeast of Subsaharan Africa and to the Sahara, could explain the diffusion of the microlithic industries all the way through West Africa. We observe them initially in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30.600-29.000 BC), then at the Ivory Coast in Bingerville (14.100-13.400 BC), in Nigeria in Iwo Eleru (11.460-11.050 BC), and finally in Ounjougou (phase 1, 10th millennium BC).

[...]

Outstandingly, there has been evidence of the presence of pottery and seed grinding implements since at least the beginning of the 8th millennium BC. It is therefore the oldest site. The eighth millennium (Phase 2 of the Holocene in Ounjougou) known of this socio-economic type in sub-Saharan Africa...

The pottery and the seed grinding implements of phase 2 of Ounjougou are the oldest artefacts of this type known at present in sub-Saharan Africa. To current knowledge, the pottery of Ounjougou could either have been invented in the actual Sudano-Sahelian zone or been imported from the Central Sahara, where there has been evidence since the ninth millennium BC. Still, the oldest pottery known in the Sahara, from the site of Tagalagal in Niger, is already quite diversified at the moment of its appearance, possibly meaning that the technique has been introduced.

The lithic industry of the phases 1 and 2 on the other hand shows similarities to both more southern and Saharan industries. Quartz microliths, obtained through bipolar debitage on anvil, are a characteristic of the West African techno-complex according to Kevin MacDonald. Bifacially retouched arrowheads, in contrast, are specific for Saharan production.

The Sahara, before this wet-phase (where rock art even in Egypt shows animals like Giraffes) that begins around 14,000 years ago, had previously been abandoned by its hunters and foragers due to the hyper-arid phase it went through over 21,000 years ago. When arid conditions returned is likely when people of the Pan-Saharan melting pot culture migrated out of the desert in all directions including some taking refuge EastWard in the Nile Valley.

Infiniti28 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any merit of speaking of the "Middle Ages" of Africa? It strikes me not only as misleading but actually rather tasteless in the context of a history of centuries of highly prejudiced Eurocentric history writing. Do modern scholars in African studies accept this type of periodization?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe there is merit to the term since Africa as whole or in portions needs a scale of periodization as much as any other portion of the world.

• • Roland Oliver and John Donnelly Fage's "Cambridge History of Africa" assert that there is no acceptable periodization of Africa as a whole. Keep in mind these two are european scholars. They have however contributed in a relatively unbiased way to African studies if you look at their works.
  • The study of Medieval WEST AFRICA according to David C. Conrad's 2005 "Empires Of Medieval West Africa" encompasses from the beginning of the Ghana Empire to the end of the Songhai Empire or approximately 750 AD to 1591 AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4shizzal (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't strike me as particularly strong arguments for using a term invented by Europeans for a European context. Of course the article needs some sort of periodization, but simply grafting on European periodization doesn't seem very logical unless there is widespread agreement among scholars of African history about this. Peter ^Isotalo 10:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you, but I haven't seen any other names for the period in question. Besides, there is a medieval period in Asia, so why not in Africa? But heck, I'm still not sure where the African "Middle Ages" begins and ends. I did do some digging tho and came across the UNESCO General History of Africa series. The authors are almost all African (though Western educated, but who isn't). There periodization goes something like this...

• 5 million years ago - 8000 BC
• 8000 BC - 700 AD
• 700 AD - 1100 AD
• 1100 AD - 1500 AD
• 1500 AD - 1800 AD
• 1800 AD - 1890 AD
• 1890 AD - 1935 AD
• 1935 AD - 1945 AD

With the exceptin of 8000 BC (which the authors dub the beginning of Africa's Stone Age), there are no period names to speak of. I think 700 AD is supposed to be when ALL of Africa was fully in the Iron Age. These books rely mostly on events, though. According to this scheme of things, I guess the Middle Ages would be 1100-1500 in Africa. I'd love to hear any published names/dates to the contrary, though. Scott Free (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Asia, which is even larger and more diverse than Africa, has absolutely nothing resembling a unified medieval period. It's impossible to unite such varied empires and cultures as the Ottomans, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. under one single periodization scheme, and the same goes for just about every region of it. The concept of a medieval period is largely based on the relatively high level of cultural unity of Europe, and is not usefully applicable anywhere else. The closest one can get is to date all of world history based on a strictly European timescale, but that really doesn't amount to anything more highly misleading Eurocentrism for everything short of the late modern period.

It would be far more preferable to simply date by centuries, and the UNESCO history could be used as a rough guideline since it's actually written by African scholars.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed :) Scott Free (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that necessary to establish periods in the lead, so I removed that part from the lead. I also tried to give other relevant tidbits and some comments on historiography. African history is largely unknown territory to me, so don't hesitate to correct me.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Prehistory does not apply to Africa, particularly sub-saharan Africa. Prehistory refers to the time before writing was invented. Writing was only introduced to Africa on a limited scale after European contact in the 15th century. Writing was only introduced on a wider scale after colonialism. Therefore it would be confusing to refer to any time prior to the 15th century in Africa as prehistory. In short we should not model African history after European history. Instead we should periodize African history in a logical manner that represents the various stages that are unique to Africa. I think we should not use the terms "prehistory" or "medieval". Maybe we can use what anthropologists have been using such as the Lower Paleolithic, the Middle Stone Age, the Late Stone Age, and the Neolithic as reference points. Second of all the idea that the history of Africa has filled with turmoil and turbulence is very much incorrect. Africa's turmoil is fairly recent, as a result of its highest population density Muntuwandi (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem here, but the early writing of Egypt, Kush and the introduction of the Arabic script after the spread of Islam are more than just notable exceptions. I don't quite agree that prehistory in this case is as inappopriate as you suggest. It certainly can't be compared with speaking of "medieval" Africa.

The removal of the turmoil wording was a good call, btw.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking of Africa as a whole, then prehistory ends when Egypt started using glyphs. The differences between Europe and Africa become really apparent in situations like this.

If we look at prehistory as ending when people started recording it, we have to decide if that means aracheological records (which is what Egyptian hieroglyphs really are), indigenous written records (like the stuff written in Ge'ez by the Axumites), adopted written records (like the use of Greek by Nubians) or the oral record (history recorded and remembered by specified peoples of institutions like the chroniclers of Mali). Just cuz people weren't writing down their history, didn't mean they weren't recording as we see with the traditional epics in much of the Sahel.

Regardless, we must all remember that writing was introduced way before 15th century Europeans popped up. As Peter pointed out, Nubia and Ethiopia were using home-grown scripts that descended from outside Africa. And Arabic was used widely (at least among the nobility) in states of Sub-Saharan Africa since the 8th century of the Common Era (specifically with the Ghana Empire and later Sahel empires). The penetration of the written word happened at different places in Africa just as it did in Europe. Most of Europe wasn't literate when the Romans were, but we don't regard the entire continent (or region) as being stuck in prehistory. Btw, I agree with Peter's removal of the "medieval" line, which I originally put in. Good call. Scott Free (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still black Africans living today as it was several hundred years ago, why don't you go to them for your history? You will see the reason why there isn't much, which isn't neccesarily a bad thing! Yes euroasians have all kinds of technology, writing, history, wars, etcetera but these aren't neccesarily a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.224.134 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• African history is under construction, just like European history is - the difference is that Europeans have had a headstart in the art of creating and promoting thier legends and myths into a written narrative of history. The trick for Africans is to promote legends and myths as successfully as Europeans and Asians have done. Interesting is Jan Guillou's findings that the Viking saga is nothing much but a saga. --85.226.85.52 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think he said that.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, actually, Pre-history should only refer to the time before which history was written about. Most of what we know about Africa in medieval times was written about, and so is therefor history. Cases like the Nok culture and Dar Tichitt Walatta complexes are prehistory for instance. I do agree that little is known about many of Africa's indigenous states do to writing primarily having been done by foreigners but at the same token many of the European legends and stories are not counted as prehistory to my knowledge. Also, all a history is is a record and if it's not written in native script it ain't written but that doesn't negate it as history nonetheless. And for your information indigenous scripts were created and implemented by people located geographically South of the Sahara (which from an African abd cultural standpoint arbitrary and purely geographical anyway) such as the Bamun Script of Cameroon which chronicled a history and even the arrival of the Germans. In many instances indigenous scripts were outlawed for obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti28 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user 216.212.248.59 has committed repeated acts of wanton vandalism on this site today, 18 April 2008. This user, whomever he/she is, is hereby warned not to repeat these acts again. Notification will be made to the administrators and the user will be blocked. Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This page seems to be troubled by many random acts of foolish vandalism. Some people seem to find that funny. I personally find it a nuisance, as it takes a lot of time to undo things time and again. Is this a case for the administrators and semi-protected status? Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RE this tag, below is a copy of the note I left on the talk page of the editor that tagged this article
Hi. You tagged History of Africa as a copyvio. Note that both the Wikipedia and about .com .com/od/aentries/a/11_africa.htm articles derive from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, sometimes called the 1911 Encyclopedia to avoid trademark problems. That encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it's not a violation. I'm not sure about the 2nd URL you listed though as I can't see the violating text in the Wikipedia article. Ha! (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's this bit "The Beaker culture began to affect western North Africa. Named for the distinctively shaped ceramics found in graves, the Beaker culture is associated with the emergence of a warrior mentality. North African rock art of this period depict animals but also places a new emphasis on the human figure, equipped with weapons and adornments." I really that the fact the a century old encyclopedia is being used for copy and paste, but I guess there is little that can be done about it except fix it.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that text was added to Wikipedia on 04:50, 28 October 2006. According to Internet Archive, the same text was added to The Metropolitan Museum of Art page during June 2001 at the latest . I've removed the text and left a message on the contributing editor's talk page. I guess the rest of the text added at the same time needs checking. Ha! (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about Africa and the other articles about continents, I would like to see this article improved, so that it can be more easily summarized in the Africa article. Could I suggest the following periodization:

1. Origins of humanity to 3000BCE ("prehistory" in the sense that there was no writing anywhere on the continent)
2. 3000BCE to 500CE (ancient civilizations and empires)
3. 500 to 1500 (spread of Islam and Christianity, emergence of states)
4. 1500 to 1950 (colonization)
5. 1950 to present (decolonization)

Ideally the periods would be those used by most historians, but it seems that historians differ or say that it is not possible to divide African history into periods. The ones above seem to be based on real changes and developments, so I hope that they will not prove too controversial. I suggest that when there is consensus about periodization we remove the division of the continent into regions. Obviously the geographical focus will be different in each period: east Africa is of supreme importance in the origins of humanity, while much later the Niger Bend was a major centre of civilisation. As someone said above, the division into north and south of the Sahara can be very unhelpful, especially when there are developments in Saharan area itself that need explaining. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• My preference is that a small section should stay in this article, linking to a much longer main article on Prehistoric Africa. The reason is that some good sources treat the prehistorical (neolithic, at least) and historical periods alongside each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What should define prehistoric? I guess pre-historic can be any entity on which one would be hard-pressed to find an account. Including the PreDynastic Nile Valley.. Infiniti28 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient African kingdoms has a number of issues, the main being that it doesn't define "ancient", so includes everything from the Calabar Kingdom, which is claimed to originate several thousands years BC, to the Aro Confederacy, which ended in 1902. Its scope overlaps this page pretty much in its entirety and, if someone was going to make era-specific subpages, the logical way to do so would be to merge here and then break them out of the sections here in order to avoid fragmenting the wiki coverage. - BanyanTree 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It's almost as if, on one hand, for Africa anything after writing should be medieval and not ancient, but then for many they don't get this until colonial times. And this all hearkens back to that poster who was dissident toward using the Eurocentric time scale. While i don't give a .. rat's behind about the nomenclature being Euro it is backward for Africa. African states weren't behind at around the medieval ages but ahead, though, then again it isn't as easy generalizing what people were doing across such a vast continant compared to Europe. Generally, the medeival age for any region usually starts sometime around or after the Eleventh Century BC. For Africa i'd say anything starting when or after Mali did is Medieval i guess..

Infiniti28 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone assist me on what the bolded below has to do with the topic, the rest of the paragraph, or the other paragraphs for that matter if you want to go check?

By 3000 BC agriculture arose independently in Ethiopia, where coffee, teff, finger millet, sorghum, barley, and enset. Donkeys were also independently domesticated somewhere in the region of Ethiopia and Somalia, but most domesticated animals spread there from the Sahel and Nile regions. Agricultural crops were also adopted from other regions around this time as pearl millet, cowpea, groundnut, cotton, watermelon and bottle gourds began to be grown agriculturally in both West Africa and the Sahel Region while finger millet, peas, lentil and flax took hold in Ethiopia.

Ethiopia had a distinct, ancient culture with an intermittent history of contact with Eurasia after the diaspora of hominids out of Africa. It preserved a unique language, culture and crop system. The crop system is adapted to the northern highlands and does not partake of any other area's crops. The most famous member of this crop system is coffee, but one of the more useful plants is sorghum, a dry-land grain; teff is also endemic to the region.

The entirety of the article section is strictly centered agricultre, sometimes zero-ing in on specific cultures or regions, but staying on topic, which is the beginnings of agricultre.

Pray tell what the "close connections" Ethiopia's hunter-gatherers kept with "Out of Africa" hunter-gatherers has to do with the beginnings of agriculture which come much later? I'm aware that Ethiopia has interacted with SW Asia (from modern times to way back, even forming states there) and vice-versa, but if Ethiopia's "distinct" culture with contact with exodus humans is relevant to the topic does anyone care to shed light?

I'd just like to discover how the interaction between the two is important to early agriculture is all, but for now i'm moving the bolded out. Or better yet, i'll put a "how?" in those bracket thingys after it. Infiniti28 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

==donkeys== info on domestication of donkeys lacks citation, contradicts the (correct) information on the page about donkeys.

All editors with a specific interest in African history are invited to help start a new African history Wikiproject. This is not a substitute for the Africa Wikiproject, but editors with a historian's perspective on African history articles (as opposed to a generalist interest in Africa) would collaborate on improving the historical quality of Wikipedia articles about Africa and African history. For more details click here or here here.

Ackees (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

black history is about people fighting for there freedom like for instance martin luther king .jr worked hard for all black american people freedom back then we use to be treated like slaves but if it was not for the black american heros we would be still be sitting in the back of the bus and still be treated like slaves so we should take black history serious.we should be more interested in black history because it is things that we don't now that we should learn about things that happened in the past black history is very important because you can learn about your ansester .

by . sierra giles . the end . and merry chrismas. and a happy new years . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.213.228 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a typo in last sentence of the palaeolithic section, homo erectus should be replaced by homo sapiens. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.236.201 (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kacembepower recently deleted big chunks of this article. Are sections being split off into another article? I see no evidence of that. Wizzy…☎ 10:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to revert it back to the rubbish that was there before. I find this article to be an improvement.Kacembepower (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about History of Africa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system next week. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I see no reason to change per MOS:VAR. Masterhatch (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree. Great initiative: --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, as User:Eupnevma brought this up on multiple pages, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The MoS says don't change without a good reason, but here there is a good reason. History of Africa, not a Western topic. And most recent scholarly work uses CE/BCE. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since this user brought this up on multiple pages, I think it's something that should be discussed in one spot--that being at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Masterhatch (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As for not a western topic, that's not how wikipedia divides things up. Imagine the fights that would happen if we went down religious lines for styles? As for scholarly work, wikipedia isn't just for scholars but regular people too. And as far as I know in everyday life, BC and AD are still more common. Masterhatch (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is divided up in all sorts of ways, and we see here that one of those ways is by continent. Wikipedia is to be read by non-scholars, yes, absolutely, but those who take an interest in history will certainly be encountering CE/BCE - which precisely does not go down religious lines. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You said, "...but here there is a good reason. History of Africa, not a Western topic." Not sure what you mean by that in the sense of how it relates to the use of AD, BC, CE, BCE. I don't think AD & BC are exclusive to the West. Christianity (if that's what you're implying) has been in Africa for 2,000 years and, for example, Alexandria was a major Christian centre for hundreds of years. As it sits today, Christianity is the largest religion in Africa and it makes up about half the population. The MoS is clear that both styles are acceptable and MOS:VAR is equally clear "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change" -- key on substantial reason. "History of Africa, not a Western topic" is hardly a substantial reason, IMHO. Masterhatch (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this section is just summarizing the results of a single academic's work (published in two papers). In addition, the opening of the section calls out this academic by name and seems to function as an advertisement of his work more than an objective summary of the field. Is this section really appropriate? If so, should it be condensed? 130.132.173.122 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

agree--a long section based on two articles by an obscure writer needs proof of impact on the scholarly field. I just dropped the whole section. Rjensen (talk)

It seems like there is a lot of valuable information here -- and while I didn't see a problem with it, I can see that people might feel it could be trimmed and curated, but to delete the entire section seems excessive. I'm restoring so it can be worked on. -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't figure out what Wawat is as there wasn't an Upper Egyptian/Nubian state at this time as far as I can tell. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just putting it here that most of what I've written is copied from other pages, I know I should credit that in the edit summary but I forget. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth expanding this section a bit to summarise the main article Medieval and early modern Africa?

At the moment I do think this section is very bare and I don't think its content is logical or broad enough, I find the paragraph on the Xhosa, whilst excluding all other ethnic groups, very strange Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And possibly even separating it into two sections, Medieval era (CE 500-1500) and Early modern era (1500-1800), as there's just so much content that I imagine would be difficult to summarise without either ignoring the difference in pace of state formation/centralisation between and within regions or ignoring some regions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

with only ancient period and ignoring historiography section, 6000 words Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

After reading over the article I wanted to ask if the too many links warning should be removed which I think it should since it seems to have a necessary amount of links. Wastelandhero18 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the removal of that warning. Masterhatch (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Tbf when that was put there was one big paragraph of links, it's now better organised but the policy seems ambiguous. I do think the current version is necessary and not a huge eyesore Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok I'll remove it. Wastelandhero18 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw if anyone wants to add anymore to it feel free, I'd like to add another Madagascan one but they're talked about on the pages of ethnic groups rather than having their own page Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the slow progress, there’s been very little work done on a modern general history of Africa and I’m still learning African history as I go. I’m on west Africa at the moment, about half way through, and have a skeleton for east Africa. I need to learn more about oral tradition before going much further so I’ve bought Vansina’s book and plan to edit oral tradition as I learn. If anyone has any expertise or knowledge of sources regarding the empty sections please provide them below, people are welcome to help. What I’m doing might be too ambitious idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't apologize! Wikipedia is collaborative :) the work you're doing is amazing. I will contribute to Madagascar's sections down the line. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the content you want to add, it's just, for the place where the blank sections were, not there. One blank section, maybe just saying "sub-Saharan Africa" with an empty section template, would suffice — we don't need ten different empty sections which aren't properly formatted to be present when just one is enough of a line between reader usability and invitefulness to edit said section. All the necessary information to add is additionally already on the main article, Medieval and early modern Africa, so we don't necessarily need to write a whole new large block of text in this article (which is already too long at ~11,500 words) when we can simply summarize that article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What if we had those sections and had for northern Great Lakes for example {main|Empire of Kitara|Kingdom of Rwanda|Busoga|Nkore|Buganda etc. so that the reader can still read about the region in that time period? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to delete and rewrite the Historiography section so it’s only a couple medium paragraphs, page length is an issue though, the post classical section for North Africa will be by far the longest because that period of history was utter turmoil Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the goal for this page is to have a history of africa where readers can trace the threads of african history from ancient times to the various colonies and modern day countries, I think the post colonial section should probably be quite short, and the colonial section just cover the conquests and the various rebellions, with a couple sentences on colonial rule from the african perspective, and then an overview of the independence wars. I like the tone of the current colonial section Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The map at the top of this article ignores, at least, Madagascar's successive pre-colonial states. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, the map is very biased, I put Merina in the description but it’s still not great. It needs to be edited to include more kingdoms from central, east, and southern africa Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to request editing/creation on Commons? I'd be willing to put together a list of kingdoms and compile some other relevant maps to guide the creation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There should be but idk, if there isn’t it might be worth messaging people who have made maps of African kingdoms in the past and nicely asking if they would be interested in making a big one for the main African history page? Idm doing this? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a request at Commons and pinged you, dk if it worked Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is applying a clearly Eurocentric and irrelevant periodization on the entirety of African history. There's really no excuse for doing this. The classic-medieval-modern periodization isn't even fixed for Europe but varies depending on region and historical theme.

Africa as a continent doesn't really have a single megahistorical periodization scheme and it's not appropriate to try to make one up out of thin air just because it's convenient. In fact, I'd say it's very much not a global perspective.

Here are some quotes from several volumes of The Cambridge History of Africa regarding periodization:

• "There is obviously no scheme of periodization which is valid for Africa as a whole, and the opening and closing dates of this volume are not intended to be more than notional." (Oliver, "Introduction: some interregional themes", Volume 3: From c.1050 to c.1600)
• "As is remarked in the Introduction to the third volume of the Cambridge History of Africa, there are obvious pitfalls in marking out periods of African history which are equally valid for all parts of the continent." (Fage, "Introduction" Volume 2: From c.500 BC to AD 1050)

There's likely more commonality towards the 19th century and the development of hallmarks of modernity (including colonialism) but that's still probably not something that can be applied to the continent as a whole. Peter ^Isotalo 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about this earlier today. I’m mostly going off of the periodisation in the General History of Africa. The academic discipline of history is naturally Eurocentric in the assumptions it makes. At the end of the day this is English Wikipedia and it makes sense to show African history through these European conventions. We’re still a long way off from historians unpicking colonial histories and localising the study of history, so I don’t think this concern can be addressed. Is your concern about using the 16th century as a period break? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This’ll all be written from the African perspective, I’m trying to be very careful in that, only European conquest and colonisation will have them as subjects of sentences Kowal2701 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I do have European constructs which makes this very problematic, but this page was practically empty, a slightly Eurocentric history is better than none. I can only go off of what I read Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to extend the ancient period to the 6th century, with the 7th century as the period break due to the coming of Islam (this is a very common break). The 16th century is also very common as a period break. I think the issue is more with their names, I’ll just have the dates Kowal2701 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no quick fix to this, especially not by simply removing the labels but keeping the dates.

And you seem to be missing the point here: Africa doesn't have a single applicable periodization scheme. There's no quick fix to this either. The article needs to be restructured. Peter ^Isotalo 22:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't just remove the label. The periodisation reflects reliable sources. The General History of Africa was solely written to be an Afrocentric general history of Africa, and it uses these periodisations. Vague assertions are useless. This is how history articles are structured on wikipedia. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't just pick and choose periodizations. As you can see, I've provided very citations that the matter is more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be.

Please engage in discussion here based on the sources here and leave your own opinions on the matter out of it. Peter ^Isotalo 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It is very complicated, but fortunately we just have to follow reliable sources. The General History of Africa is what this page is being based off of, as it is reliably Afrocentric. It uses the 7th, 12th, and 16th centuries as period breaks.

• The 7th century makes a lot of sense because it is the coming of Islam and the Muslim conquest of North Africa. This is followed by our first written history of west Africa, allowing for a natural break in the speculative tone of the prior centuries to a firmer tone and stronger narrative. The Muslim expansion harmed Aksum’s trade in East Africa, hastening its decline from being a major global power. It also simultaneously caused a trade expansion in the Swahili coast. It doesn’t work for Central Africa unfortunately, but it coincidentally works for Southern Africa as it’s when Leopard’s Kopje was founded, the predecessor for the Kingdom of Mapungubwe.
• The 12th century only works for North Africa and West Africa. It’s laughably bad for East Africa and Central Africa.
• The 16th century works generally very well. It’s just before the first European written records with Sub-Saharan Africa, giving us an opportunity to showcase African history without European interference in the previous section. It’s just before the Ottoman conquest of North Africa, and the rise of the Songhai Empire in west Africa. It’s also just before the Portuguese campaigns across the African coast, which includes the Kongo-Portuguese, Kilwa-Portuguese, and Somali-Portuguese wars. We also see the first kingdoms in Madagascar. It’s also just after the founding of Mutapa in Sohthern Africa, allowing for some nice foreshadowing.

This is why these are the most common periodisations in reliable sources and why I’ve gone with them (I’m sure there are other reasons I’ve not touched upon) Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously implying that The Cambridge History of Africa is not a reliable source? Peter ^Isotalo 23:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

When did I say that? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the first volume of the GHoA it says that the Cambridge general history doesn’t challenge the colonial narratives and comes down quite hard. It is still a very useful resource, but not what this page should be based off of if your concern is Eurocentrism. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

If you’re interested in African history I recommend reading a GHoA volume and then the corresponding Cambridge one, but remember they are 40 years old, lots of advancements have been made in the last few decades. I could always do with more input from other editors, although I struggle to work collaboratively on creating from scratch Kowal2701 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with GHoA from when I took a course on African history as part of my bachelor's in history. I haven't dived deep into the topic, but it's not completely new to me either.

You're making some very bold claims about the superiority of one source over another. It's possible that either source takes on the topic from rather different perspectives, but that's not something we can decide just on our own. Both are clearly standard references in this topic and are equally valid. The only reason for us here at Wikipedia to lean more into one source over another is if there's some sort of consensus about it in the historical community. Unless you have plenty of solid third party sources (books reviews, critical articles and books, conference papers, etc) claiming Cambridge is outright unreliable, you can't just ignore it in favor of GHoA. It's possible that both sources are also heavily outdated, but that's also a matter of looking at what more recent sources claim. Some 40-year-old sources are hopelessly outdated while others are still perfectly relevant; some fields of history change faster than others.

Either way, the issue of periodization that we're discussing here isn't a Eurocentric vs Afrocentric, but simply that the history of Africa is much too varied to be squeezed into a single periodization scheme. The way GHoA is structured as a published work doesn't seem to be an overt attempt to present itself as the periodization scheme for all of African history. In fact, you have quotes like this from Volume 3:

Historical research over the last thirty years has taught us, especially for Africa, that there are no uniform models and no automatic periodizations that can be safely applied, especially for the period w e are dealing with here. (Devisse & Vansina "Africa from the seventh to the eleventh century: five formative centuries")

I genuinely think we need to look at how we can find a somewhat different structure for the article other than just a simply pan-African chronology for the entire continent. Rather than simply copying the multi-volume structure of a GHoA, what would be a more balanced way to structure the information in this article? Peter ^Isotalo 09:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there is a better way to structure this article, we could structure by region but that wouldn’t work since the regions being talked about change, for example Nubia is a topic in post-classical period but not early modern period because it wouldn’t make sense. Is your issue largely pan-Africanism? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The original discussion was about Eurocentrism vs Afrocentrism, which matters most when selecting narratives. We should absolutely prioritise Afrocentric ones over Eurocentric ones just like History of Europe favours Eurocentric over others. Therefore we should be more inclined to use the GHoA. An example of a Eurocentric narrative is that the 7th crusade caused the Ayyubids to rely on Mamluks giving rise to the Mamluks, when the reality is that it was because of Mongol expansion. An Arab-centric one is that the Almoravids caused the collapse of the Ghana Empire, when in reality it was caused by changing trade routes and epicentres strengthening their vassals due to climate change. An example of an Afrocentric one is that the Zanj Rebellion contributed to the collapse of the Abbasids and rise of the Fatimids. We should recognise the trend and prioritise Afrocentric narratives and therefore sources in this climate. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we should weight different narratives depending on their veracity, and I read lots of different sources and do so accordingly, but this needs to have an overarching source to make the skeleton Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find the page but they said that the Cambridge History of Africa doesn't challenge colonial narratives enough, and that a senior history professor in 1981 said that because history requires movement and change, Africa has no history, with this indicative of problematic bias (although not a brilliant point). Kowal2701 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Eurocentricism isn't the primary issue, but rather the concept of having a single periodization for all of Africa or not. And in this case, I need to stress that you simply don't have any source support, not even GHoA. So you really need to stop trying to argue that your favored periodization scheme is the most appropriate, because that's not how WP:NPOV works. Again, we can't just declare this or that source more superior and then favor it over others, both in terms of choice of content and periodization.

But I do agree that this article should absolutely focus on sources that are overarching for the entire continent or major regions, so we're talking about the following kinds of sources:

• General History of Africa
• The Cambridge History of Africa
• The Oxford Handbook of Modern African History
• A History of Sub-Saharan Africa

I think we should also as much as possible avoid light-weight general encyclopedias like Encyclopedia of African Nations and Civilization and older, general history works like Encyclopedia of World History. Same with non-academic popular histories like Shillington (1995).

I also think it's advisable to also weed out overly specific sources like Osypińska (2021) and Vogel (1978). Not saying these two specifically are unreliable, but on a macrolevel like "history of Africa", an article can very quickly get buried in overly specific sources. What's definitely overkill and unnecessary is 5 citations for detailed statements about early Homo sapiens remains or the development of iron smelting around the Great Lakes. Peter ^Isotalo 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

These period breaks do have source support, as I've explained. The 16th century is an almost universal period break, although the 7th century is more debateable. I use Oxford Research Encyclopedias and specific books via internet archive, such as and , and use journals where I feel more detail is needed. I'm incredibly careful when writing and aim to have a consistent level of detail for all regions. I treat every entry as a work of art, but I'm only an amateur and these are only first drafts. The post-classical section for north Africa needs to be trimmed 500 words.

The prehistory section could do with some work, I'd like to trim it by 500 words and have it subdivided into the different macro regions, but I'm not familiar with prehistory and its study. That'd be a good place to start. I'm currently writing the post-classical section for the Swahili coast and Madagascar. Ignore the Horn of Africa section, it needs to be completely rewritten, I was trying to make a skeleton. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we’ve got to go with a broad periodisation, as that’s what RSs do, but I agree it lends itself to pan-Africanism and homogeneity Kowal2701 (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I’ve been combative, I’ve gotten too comfortable on this page and have a vision for what I’d like it to be, but obviously that is just the opinion of one editor Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you be interested in looking into the possibility of splitting the article up article thematically or regionally? I'm thinking the article could be improved, for example, Southern Africa and Northern Africa aren't tied to the same timeline.

Are you against the idea of treating the article like the history of closely related topics rather than just one monolithic topic? Peter ^Isotalo 11:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm certainly not against that, but there was some interaction between the regions and there do seem to be general themes such as the use of oral tradition and lack of writing and social organisation/collectivism. Tbh it might be good to sandbox what splitting it into macro regions looks like, although there was interaction between west Africa and the Maghreb, and the central Sahel and Nubia. It makes most sense to split into regions for Central Africa and very south of the Zambezi, but less so for North, West and East. I think if we do stick with the status quo, how isolated certain civilisations were would need to emphasised, it also works as an explanatory factor for their later development Kowal2701 (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe in the lede we can discuss the interactions or relations/isolation of certain regions? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

tbh I'm leaning towards splitting it into regions, although the other continental history pages don't do that, History of Europe, History of Asia, History of North America Kowal2701 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaniCBP: I already explained what the problem is (WP:OR), so you not "seeing it" doesn't make much sense to me. Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it not able to cite tertiary sources like other sourced maps on WikiCommons? I haven't studied that period in depth, but I can't find fault with it Kowal2701 (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Maps are like any other content, WP:VERIFY and WP:SYNTH apply to them too so that we don't have to check for errors ourselves. M.Bitton (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know which is your problem man.

If I have done in depth research of the topic, I’ve researched into the sources of the content from Commons, where is the problem to begin with? A 25-page list of sources where only in a couple of regions you can find something referencing Commons, does that invalidate all the work?

”We don’t have to check for errors ourselves”, aren’t you unable to think properly to maybe acknowledge that I myself may have checked for errors?

“ Why should we resort to original research when we have plenty of properly sourced maps to choose from?” Yeah, sure, why improve, why make better content, let’s hate innovation and people working hard for the good of the readers and research. DaniCBP (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem and I would really appreciate it if you could refrain from trying to personalize the discussion.

let’s hate innovation it's not our job to innovate. In fact, it's against our policies. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, let's not personalize.

Let me go to the point: it is claimed (by you) that my map, which is properly sourced on its description, is OC and thus shouldn't be included.

Let me tell you some unsourced or partially unsourced maps used in this same page without complaints:

File:The Kingdom of Aksum.png

File:Ghana successor map 1200-es.svg

File:Ghana empire map.png

These maps have been used here for years without full sources nor complaints.

I'm telling you again, my map isn't OC, you have a file with a full list of its sources on its description. Again, I'm not claiming that the map is 100% correct and accurate (it's impossible to do that for 1880's Africa), but every region has been researched as you can look up on the source list.

If you find it necessary, I'll copy here the full list of sources if you don't want to check the PDF file. DaniCBP (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because other OR maps exist (though, I'll note that those are about small areas and not the whole continent), doesn't mean that we can add more to the article.

every region has been researched researched and combined (by yourself) into a map that hasn't been published by reliable sources is where the issue lies. I understand that there are times when some minor OR is tolerated (because no maps exist for the period), but this isn't one of them, and while I sympathise with what you're trying to achieve, you also need to understand that the rules are have been created for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zoocat56 the phrase "the revolution of history is commonplace" is meant to there was a lot of movement and change with lots of states rising and falling, but I can't think of a better way of saying it Kowal2701 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton how is it factually incorrect? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: stating (in Wikipedia's voice) that "the academic discipline of history arrived with conquest and colonisation of Africa" cannot be right given that Ibn Khaldun is considered (by some) to be the "father of history".

Out of interest: which page of the cited source says that? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton you're right to flag it up, the source cited doesn't say anything close to that. The sentence "African historiography became organised at the academic level in the mid 20th century" also contradicts it. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Saved me the trouble of reading the whole document. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries thanks for pointing it out :) Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)