Africa (500 - 1000 A.D)

Oct 2011
3,738
the middle ground
#51
Geographically yes, but using the term SSA also implies Black African peoples not influenced by outsiders.
'Sub-Saharan Africa' is a conventional term for a region. Since when does 'Scandinavia' or 'Central Asia' imply peoples "not influenced by outsiders"?

There are/were tribal peoples living primitive lives all across the globe, so not unique to SSA. They are self explanatory terms.
And in the Sub-Saharan African region (as you know from having read the history) there were also herders, farmers, fishermen, traders, professional soldiers, and troubadours living lives comparable to their counterparts all across the globe, some in social and political organizations not based on clan relations.
 

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#52
One also needs to exclude the heavily North African/ Middle East influenced regions of the border lands of Sahel, Ethipia, and the Horn, to reach the real Sub-Saharan Africa (actually this influence penetrated further down in some areas).
Would please be more specific. Iron technology in Africa is older in at the heart of the African continent than in the periphery of the continent. Animal husbandry in the Sahara is also older than in the Middle East. So what are you talking about exactly?

There is nothing logical or sensible about your definition of SSA. You seriously are trying to convince someone that the Sahel is not part of SSA, as well as Somalia and Ethiopia. That's a bit buffoonish.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
3,263
Des Moines, Iowa
#53
North Africa cannot be easily separated from the rest of Africa, except perhaps for the very northernmost coastal strip, which is part of the Mediterranean world.

Take a look at this linguistic map:



You will notice that many Sub-Saharan languages like Hausa, Amharic, and Oromo belong to a language family (Afro-Asiatic) that spans both North Africa and large parts of West Africa and East Africa. Likewise, the Nilo-Saharan language family includes many peoples living in both Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no magical dividing line that separates Africa into trans-Saharan and cis-Saharan regions; rather, there is a continuum of cultures and languages that extends across the Sahara.


Also take a look at this map of ancient Africa:



You will notice that depictions of chariot rock art have been found both in parts of Sub-Saharan West Africa near the Niger river valley, and in Saharan North Africa.
 
Jun 2013
854
Universe
#54
Sub Saharan Africa had remained predominantly tribal till modern times. Still true pretty much.
Yeah I can not say I wont have to waste my time with you, because it would be amazing if anyone even takes you seriously after this...

One simple Google search debunks this baseless statement.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,406
USA
#55
Last edited:
May 2015
1,299
Germany
#56
These are not tribes but ethnical groups. At all such things like 'tribes' and 'tribalism' do not exist but are rather fantastical constructions, created by imperialstic Europeans of the 19th century.
 

mansamusa

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,308
#57

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,406
USA
#58
These are not tribes but ethnical groups. At all such things like 'tribes' and 'tribalism' do not exist but are rather fantastical constructions, created by imperialstic Europeans of the 19th century.
The google site I provided is not created by "imperialistic Europeans of the 19th century", but a 21st century one. There are tons of such info. online about the countless tribes in Black Africa.
 
Sep 2013
1,493
United States
#60
To my knowledge there were states as well including kingdoms and empires in SSA which may or not have been composed of smaller tribes, but one can not deny the existence of these larger organized states.
 

Similar History Discussions