Talk:History of Africa

Medieval and modern era
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)

Copying from other pages
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)

Remove too many links warning?
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)

Image
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)

Update
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)

Eurocentric periodization
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)