- Jun 2013
- 865
- Universe
Aye... I didn't even want to make this thread really, but I feel I had to clear things up, because the topic of "did Africa have any civilizations" is a popular talking point on here. And to be honest I am kinda getting tired of it.
Anyhow I'm not going to be talking about Ancient Egypt or Nubia because they are already well known. Also for this I will be focusing on architecture, because as Westerners that what we "scale" a civilization by.
Focusing on the interior of Africa, when people see that there are no fancy large lasting stone structures they come to the conclusion that most of Africa did not have any large kingdoms and was mostly primitive. Sure there are exceptions like Great Zimbabwe and the Swahili Coast, but those are the assumptions that people make.
The thing that people have to understand is that Africans in the interior and Sahel USED DIFFERENT building material compared to for example Europeans who mostly built in stone. Africans did not use long lasting building material. But instead temporary and perishable material. They were NOT permanent!
When Europeans first visited these African cities like Benin, they noted that they were quite large. For example here is Benin.
^^Its quite large ain't? Well, that city is no longer there and is almost like it has vanished. Including the Benin Wall. Due to wars, but also not keeping up with the maintenance.
Another example...The capital of the Kongo Kingdom.
They too built in material that was only temporary. And to make my point even more these suburbs if not maintained for at least 50 years would probably vanish like those African cities.
This is the reason why cities like Timbuktu in West Africa most constantly maintain their mud infrastructure or else they too would vanish. And we all know Timbuktu, like those other Sahelien cities were all astonishing civilizations and their cities large during their heyday.
But to make my strong point many African cultures built large cities however very few of them were constructed by stone. In African cultures, large monuments and structures constructed of permanent and endurable material such as stone was built for spirits of the dead or the gods and meant to last for eternity, whereas large monuments and structures constructed for the living people were constructed of more temporary and perishable materials such as adobe (mud-brick) or wood.
And btw Ancient Egypt was NOT exempt from this. Virtually ALL cities in Egypt were constructed of 'mud-brick' and 'wood'. This is the reason why Egypt was popularly called by archaeologists a civilization 'without cities.' And yet many Africans built cities large and small with the same materials the Egyptians used and still most of Africa is deemed "without civilization..."
Anyhow I'm not going to be talking about Ancient Egypt or Nubia because they are already well known. Also for this I will be focusing on architecture, because as Westerners that what we "scale" a civilization by.
Focusing on the interior of Africa, when people see that there are no fancy large lasting stone structures they come to the conclusion that most of Africa did not have any large kingdoms and was mostly primitive. Sure there are exceptions like Great Zimbabwe and the Swahili Coast, but those are the assumptions that people make.
The thing that people have to understand is that Africans in the interior and Sahel USED DIFFERENT building material compared to for example Europeans who mostly built in stone. Africans did not use long lasting building material. But instead temporary and perishable material. They were NOT permanent!
When Europeans first visited these African cities like Benin, they noted that they were quite large. For example here is Benin.
^^Its quite large ain't? Well, that city is no longer there and is almost like it has vanished. Including the Benin Wall. Due to wars, but also not keeping up with the maintenance.
Another example...The capital of the Kongo Kingdom.
They too built in material that was only temporary. And to make my point even more these suburbs if not maintained for at least 50 years would probably vanish like those African cities.
This is the reason why cities like Timbuktu in West Africa most constantly maintain their mud infrastructure or else they too would vanish. And we all know Timbuktu, like those other Sahelien cities were all astonishing civilizations and their cities large during their heyday.
But to make my strong point many African cultures built large cities however very few of them were constructed by stone. In African cultures, large monuments and structures constructed of permanent and endurable material such as stone was built for spirits of the dead or the gods and meant to last for eternity, whereas large monuments and structures constructed for the living people were constructed of more temporary and perishable materials such as adobe (mud-brick) or wood.
And btw Ancient Egypt was NOT exempt from this. Virtually ALL cities in Egypt were constructed of 'mud-brick' and 'wood'. This is the reason why Egypt was popularly called by archaeologists a civilization 'without cities.' And yet many Africans built cities large and small with the same materials the Egyptians used and still most of Africa is deemed "without civilization..."
