What do you think?
Rate this book
UNESCO General History of Africa #2
UNESCO General History of Africa, Vol. II: Ancient Civilizations of Africa
The result of years of work by scholars from all over the world, The UNESCO General History of Africa reflects how the different peoples of Africa view their civilizations and shows the historical relationships between the various parts of the continent. Historical connections with other continents demonstrate Africa's contribution to the development of human civilization. Each volume is lavishly illustrated and contains a comprehensive bibliography.
804 pages, Hardcover
First published December 29, 1980
8 people are currently reading
256 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 27, 2022
Part of the important UNESCO history of Africa series this book surveys the whole continent of Africa in antiquity. Interesting because most books on antiquity cover only Egypt's influence on Greece and Rome's war with Carthage, but this book goes beyond this and try to due justice to every region of African and also provide more information about this civilization outside of their European context.
However...
Most of the civilizations discussed in the book did not leave behind any writings, or very few writings, or the language has yet to be fully deciphered (the authors are certain Meroitic will be deciphered, alas this did not come to pass). With the major exception of Egypt, the authors must rely on sources from outside of Africa, either Ancient Greek or Roman, or sometimes accounts from the Arab world. Obviously these sources provide an outsiders perspective and the information they can give is limited. As a result there is great reliance on archeological research. Once the book moves south of the Sahara the book rely almost exclusively on archeological data. This makes for quite dry reading with the typical stuff you see when reading about pre-history, a lot of information on pottery styles, different tools, and the dietary habits of the civilization discussed. It should also be noted that because the book relies so heavily on Archeological data it risks being outdated. More research has been done in the thirty years since the book was originally published, hopefully new information has been come to light and old hypotheses either rejected or given more support.
On the whole my big problem with the book was that it was often boring. Even the chapter on Egypt, the civilization that there was the most information on were boring. The political history was simply a succession of dynasties. The culture and society of Ancient Egypt was disappointing. There were only a few reference to ancient Egyptian religion!
However...
Most of the civilizations discussed in the book did not leave behind any writings, or very few writings, or the language has yet to be fully deciphered (the authors are certain Meroitic will be deciphered, alas this did not come to pass). With the major exception of Egypt, the authors must rely on sources from outside of Africa, either Ancient Greek or Roman, or sometimes accounts from the Arab world. Obviously these sources provide an outsiders perspective and the information they can give is limited. As a result there is great reliance on archeological research. Once the book moves south of the Sahara the book rely almost exclusively on archeological data. This makes for quite dry reading with the typical stuff you see when reading about pre-history, a lot of information on pottery styles, different tools, and the dietary habits of the civilization discussed. It should also be noted that because the book relies so heavily on Archeological data it risks being outdated. More research has been done in the thirty years since the book was originally published, hopefully new information has been come to light and old hypotheses either rejected or given more support.
On the whole my big problem with the book was that it was often boring. Even the chapter on Egypt, the civilization that there was the most information on were boring. The political history was simply a succession of dynasties. The culture and society of Ancient Egypt was disappointing. There were only a few reference to ancient Egyptian religion!
Read
February 9, 2024I read the first and the second volume. Very interesting, but very variable level, because of the long list of authors. Correction on the colonialists view.
January 5, 2023
The second volume of UNESCO’s General History of Africa covers “ancient” civilizations, beginning with the Nile Valley civilizations of Egypt and Nubia and traversing time and geography throughout the African continent. As should be expected, this volume is jam-packed with detailed information on the peopling of the various civilizations at issue, along with the methods of socioeconomic, political, and cultural organization they implemented. This book discusses the extent to which African societies were influenced by non-African peoples from the east (Asia) and north (Europe), as opposed to their independent development (especially in terms of metallurgy / iron-work, language, and agriculture). The book also spent much time engaging in the longstanding debate regarding the “race” of the ancient Egyptians, as well as the peopling of other groups of North / North-East Africans, including Ethiopians and “Berbers.”
This book is very formulaic and academic in nature. It is careful not to make broad, sweeping conclusions and deliberately avoids undue hypothesizing. However, it does push the reader toward overarching belief that African societies were far more advanced than they’ve been historically given credit for. In 2023 we of course know this, but back when these volumes were published there was still an active debate as to whether Africa owed its “civilization” to outsiders. This book is a valuable addition to the library of works that answer that question in the negative.
This book is very formulaic and academic in nature. It is careful not to make broad, sweeping conclusions and deliberately avoids undue hypothesizing. However, it does push the reader toward overarching belief that African societies were far more advanced than they’ve been historically given credit for. In 2023 we of course know this, but back when these volumes were published there was still an active debate as to whether Africa owed its “civilization” to outsiders. This book is a valuable addition to the library of works that answer that question in the negative.
January 3, 2024
It is quite a good book… but it NEEDS a new edition (more of this later).
The book is well written and I think easy to understand for casual readers who have interest in the history of Africa. The book’s interest is the period from prehistory to (around) the 7th Century.
One third of the book mainly treats ancient Egypt, the second third treats the horn of Africa and the remaining Mediterranean Africa, the last third talks about the remaining continent (sub-Saharan). This is simply due to the fact that the first 2/3 of the book have available plenty of written resources while the other part of the continent have to rely strongly on archeology. Archeology that in some cases i s impossible to obtain (due to geographical conditions, e.g., soils that do not allow fossilization), and in other cases is entirely missing (e.g., Angola). But overall, it is well written, with some chapters that are easier to read than others (depending on the historian of course).
The book itself is quite good and I really appreciated the fact that when theories are presented they are presented as such. Unfortunately, I saw often people online quoting this book and these theories as absolute facts. Obviously not fault of the author. I appreciated the abridged version of the Cairo proceeding after the first chapter by professor Anta Diop, simply because it is important to state that often some historians will push some theories more than others. There are also sometimes different point raised by different historians. I think this shows very well to the casual reader that often history is not as straightforward as they think, but often there are no answers, but more or less probable theories, which evolve in time depending on new discoveries.
It is mentioned in the book that before the 60s it was believed that sub-Saharan metallurgy originated in East Africa around 1000, but later research found that it originated in west africa some 1500 earlier than east Africa. I think this thing alone shows how “flexible” and “evolving” historic knowledge is.
It must be said though, the book is quite old and throughout the book we read often things along the lines of “we await more research in this”, “new research is being conducted” or “we wait for the results of new research”. It is clear that a lot of nove research was being conducted on the time this book was written, a book published in the 80s, with the majority of sources coming from the 60s (rarely from the early 70s)… I wonder what were the results of these researches. Moreover, the historians suggest, where key research is missing, which directions should be taken, quite often in the book… did any historian or PhDs follow these routes? Did anybody manage to translate some Meroitic languages?
I guess we readers who are interested in the matter will have to find these answers elsewhere, but it would’ve been nice already having them in a newer edition of the book, because some of us are reading it 40 years after its publication.
The book is well written and I think easy to understand for casual readers who have interest in the history of Africa. The book’s interest is the period from prehistory to (around) the 7th Century.
One third of the book mainly treats ancient Egypt, the second third treats the horn of Africa and the remaining Mediterranean Africa, the last third talks about the remaining continent (sub-Saharan). This is simply due to the fact that the first 2/3 of the book have available plenty of written resources while the other part of the continent have to rely strongly on archeology. Archeology that in some cases i s impossible to obtain (due to geographical conditions, e.g., soils that do not allow fossilization), and in other cases is entirely missing (e.g., Angola). But overall, it is well written, with some chapters that are easier to read than others (depending on the historian of course).
The book itself is quite good and I really appreciated the fact that when theories are presented they are presented as such. Unfortunately, I saw often people online quoting this book and these theories as absolute facts. Obviously not fault of the author. I appreciated the abridged version of the Cairo proceeding after the first chapter by professor Anta Diop, simply because it is important to state that often some historians will push some theories more than others. There are also sometimes different point raised by different historians. I think this shows very well to the casual reader that often history is not as straightforward as they think, but often there are no answers, but more or less probable theories, which evolve in time depending on new discoveries.
It is mentioned in the book that before the 60s it was believed that sub-Saharan metallurgy originated in East Africa around 1000, but later research found that it originated in west africa some 1500 earlier than east Africa. I think this thing alone shows how “flexible” and “evolving” historic knowledge is.
It must be said though, the book is quite old and throughout the book we read often things along the lines of “we await more research in this”, “new research is being conducted” or “we wait for the results of new research”. It is clear that a lot of nove research was being conducted on the time this book was written, a book published in the 80s, with the majority of sources coming from the 60s (rarely from the early 70s)… I wonder what were the results of these researches. Moreover, the historians suggest, where key research is missing, which directions should be taken, quite often in the book… did any historian or PhDs follow these routes? Did anybody manage to translate some Meroitic languages?
I guess we readers who are interested in the matter will have to find these answers elsewhere, but it would’ve been nice already having them in a newer edition of the book, because some of us are reading it 40 years after its publication.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews