Talk:History of Africa

Africa Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Top‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Clarification

@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)[reply]

Colonial historiography

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

@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)[reply]

@M.Bitton you're right to flag it up, the source cited [1] 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)[reply]

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

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

Periodisation

There's no agreed upon periodisation for African history. ([2], [3]) Currently we have Ancient Africa, Medieval and early modern Africa, Colonial Africa, Postcolonial Africa. Below is what I propose.

Ancient Africa (4th millennium BC - 6th/7th century AD) following this, contradicted by this which uses 300 CE
Postclassical Africa (7th century-1250) the term postclassical has no support from sources, but the date range is supported by the General History of Africa (this is the one I'm least happy with)
Medieval Africa (1250-1800) following this
Early modern Africa (1800-1935) the term "early modern" has no usage, but Modern Africa starting from 1800 follows this and this. To clarify, from what I've seen no books periodise African history into colonial and postcolonial.
Africa since 1935 or Contemporary Africa (1935-present) the 1935 break follows the General History of Africa, books generally have a break between 1930-1945. The growth of independence movements is crucial to the postcolonial history, so it makes sense to start here.

I'd be interested to hear what people think, it's all very contentious Kowal2701 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NutmegCoffeeTea Thank you for your edits, but I think it might be best to avoid using these terms where possible due to the complete lack of academic consensus and variety of usage. For example, "Postclassical Africa" is entirely WP:Original research, in that it isn't proposed by any WP:Reliable source.

The different regions of Africa developed at different times, meaning the terms "ancient" and "medieval" differ widely in when they refer to. For example, Mapungubwe is considered ancient in Zimbabwe despite existing from 1250-1300, and Empire of Kitara in Uganda despite existing from circa 10th-15th century, while the ancient period in North Africa usually goes until 300 AD or the 7th century. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've typed this out, then reverted. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources above and these are just headings. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same person proposing this, but the titles for the time periods are just because we need WP:Article titles. The sources above aren't indicative in any way of an academic consensus for the titles of the time periods, and in the absence of one we should avoid using them where possible. They're overly simplistic and inappropriate for different regions. What do you mean by these are just headings? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana

@Catjacket idk about the 6th century as a founding date, it contradicts the ancient section, and I can't find it in that source, idk whether a thesis on a different topic is the best source. This says in archaeology Ghana Empire refers to 3rd-13th centuries, and this says from the 2nd century (although makes a fringe argument) Kowal2701 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say 6th century as a founding date, it says that Ghana was a dominant regional player by the 6th century. Frankly all we know for sure is that it was powerful by the 800s, when it appeared in written sources. Unless there's an archaeological source somewhere that argues a more precise founding date, we probably shouldn't lean much on one or the other estimate. Catjacket (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we sort of have to imply a date Kowal2701 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...do we? Why can't we just say "Ghana existed for sure by this date", or "Ghana emerged sometime in the middle centuries of the 1st millennium CE." Catjacket (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a section break at the 7th century, if we discuss Wagadu prominently in the ancient section it implies it was founded between 3rd-7th century Kowal2701 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that pre-7th century discussion of Ghana is limited to the Tichitt culture, its collapse during the Big Dry c. 400BCE-300CE, and the revival of some vague proto-Soninke world 300-700 CE. We can say that Ghana (along with Takrur, Djenne, Mema etc.) were established as actual states sometime during this period, but we can't speak on how it was constructed, what trade was going on, etc. We just don't have any sources for that period, including archaeology (to my knowledge - might be worth checking the few papers that have dealt w/ the Mema area, but I don't believe they speak to any kind of state structure). Catjacket (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds much better Kowal2701 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trim down the Ghana section and move the detail to post-7th century. Catjacket (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what to do with the Prehistory of Africa section. Technically anything before c. 800 for west Africa should be in there. I guess it should just cover history before the 4th millennium BC Kowal2701 (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you're right. The iron section does not fit at all with a discussion of early hominids. Maybe rename it 'early prehistory' or something. Catjacket (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good idea Kowal2701 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Mossi not be covered in the Sahel and Sudan sections? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Mossi are within the Niger bend. I'm not a huge fan of that relatively arbitrary delineation but it's what was there so I didn't change it. Catjacket (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah agreed, the Mossi should be in the Sahel and Sudan section, and the other section renamed to The forest regions, it was just that the GHoA used the Niger bend Kowal2701 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have much info on Silla mentioned here such that we could create a page? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link isn't working. Catjacket (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, here's a working one Kowal2701 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much information on Silla on hand, but I can dig back through my notes and find some stuff. If you make a page, I will help fill it out. Here and here are some sources on the archaeology of Sinthiou Bara, which may have been Silla. Same author as the link you shared, but maybe will have more detail. Catjacket (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Page is Silla (Senegal River Valley), not sure whether that's the best disambiguator Kowal2701 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Silla (Senegal) is sufficient. Catjacket (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it definitely in Senegal? Could it not be on the other side of the river in Mauritania? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

@181.90.227.246 @176.113.180.173 Hi, keeping reverting back to a version you like best is called Edit warring, which goes against Wikipedia’s policies. In the future, if someone reverts your edit, please follow WP:BRD and start a new section on the talk page. You also need to provide better WP:Edit summaries which explain why you’ve made the changes. Kowal2701 (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request(?)

No clue how this works. The link underneath the image of Lucy in the "prehistory" section redirects to St. Lucy, rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus) Greyknauer (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]