Great thread:
That I'm not sure of. He's been writing about African history for years though.What's his academical background?
That diffusion is the only that threw me off too, everything else seems kinda align with what we already knewI didn't find anything to critique between what I already knew, statements I didn't even know were misconceptions and stuff I'm not knowledgeable about enough to even have an opinion (for example, "Copper and its alloys had more value than Gold for most African societies").
I'd ask what he means by "there's little evidence for the diffusion of metallurgical technology" though.
What's his academical background?
Probably referring to africans developing metallurgy independently vs it be brought to africans by outsiders would be my guessI didn't find anything to critique between what I already knew, statements I didn't even know were misconceptions and stuff I'm not knowledgeable about enough to even have an opinion (for example, "Copper and its alloys had more value than Gold for most African societies").
I'd ask what he means by "there's little evidence for the diffusion of metallurgical technology" though.
What's his academical background?
For sure, that's a constant in African historiography, from mining techniques in Southern Africa to the centralization of the State on the continent. Always gotta disprove narratives that African "achievements" can't be indigenous.He alone would know what he means but I’ve heard many Whites disparage the Benin Bronzes, calling them fake bronzes because many of them actually made of copper. (Important to note they were crafted separately over like 700 years)
The second part is just saying multiple African societies discovered iron working SEPERATELY rather than whats called a “heroic invention” where one sole person creates something and it spreads.
Very often if you leave the door open the White man will use it to say “oh it must have been [non blk] trade networks that brought this.“ They do that ALOT with Kush so I see why he did that.