In this engaging episode, Stefan Milo delves into the historical debate surrounding the origins of ironworking in Sub-Saharan Africa. While traditional narratives often attribute such technological advancements to diffusion from the north, Milo explores the possibility of an independent invention within the continent itself. The discussion highlights significant archaeological sites, examines the challenges of radiocarbon dating, and weighs the evidence for both diffusion and independent invention. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, the episode leaves viewers with a sense of wonder and the understanding that Africa's metallurgical history is as complex and rich as the continent itself.
Highlights
Stefan gets up early for a sunrise metaphor but ends up exploring Africa's ancient ironworking. 🌄
The debate over whether ironworking in Africa was independently developed or spread from the north is sizzling hot! 🔍
Ancient blacksmiths were amazing, relying on skill and instinct without modern thermometers or blast furnaces. 🔨
Radiocarbon dating issues muddy the waters, especially with the old wood problem in these archaeological sites. 🌲
No concrete evidence yet of Sahara-Saharan trade, so the diffusion of ironworking remains speculative. 🤔
The Nok culture in Nigeria had significant ironworking activity, possibly bypassing the copper stage entirely. 🛠️
Some archaeological sites in Africa might be the world's oldest for ironworking, dating back to 2340 BCE. 🗿
The mysteries of early African metallurgy are a thrilling puzzle for both historians and archaeologists. 🧩
Key Takeaways
Ironworking in Sub-Saharan Africa sparks a hot debate between diffusion from the north and local invention. 🔥
Radiocarbon dating poses challenges in accurately dating ancient ironworking sites, leading to ongoing debates. ⌛
Africa's metallurgical history might rewrite the book on ancient technologies, bursting with untold stories. 📚
Diffusion theories lack hard evidence of ancient trade or contact with communities below the Sahara. 🛤️
Despite uncertainties, the allure of ancient Africa’s technological narrative keeps the excitement alive! 🗝️
Overview
Stefan Milo takes viewers on a compelling journey to explore the origins of ironworking in Africa. His mission is to dissect whether this incredible technological advancement was a product of external influence from North Africa or a homegrown revolution within Sub-Saharan regions. Through examining key sites like Carthage, Meroe, and the Nok culture, Stefan invites us to ponder the possibilities and challenges of ancient Africa’s metal mustering mastery.
Throughout the episode, we groove along the complexities of radiocarbon dating and the 'old wood problem,' which adds a layer of intrigue to the historical puzzle. The narrative vividly paints a picture of ancient craftsmanship, where skills were passed down across generations without the aid of modern technologies like thermometers and blast furnaces. As Stefan humorously struggles with conclusions, the passion for unraveling Africa's past is infectious.
In the end, the story is one of endless curiosity and open-ended exploration. The possibility of independent invention meets the allure of potential trade connections. While definitive answers are elusive, Stefan leaves us with the excitement of missing links yet to be discovered. It's as if Africa's rich past whispers tales of technological prowess, waiting for the world to listen more closely and dig a little deeper!
Chapters
00:00 - 01:00: Introduction and Early Debates The chapter begins with a personal anecdote about an early morning attempt to capture a sunrise, which sets the stage for a discussion on the use of the sun rising as a metaphor in archaeology. This metaphor was prevalent in the 20th century and underscored the belief that significant advances in civilization were rooted in eastern cultures such as those in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt. This idea was often encapsulated with the Latin phrase 'Ex Oriente Lux,' meaning 'light from the east.' The chapter seems to lay the groundwork for examining how these early debates influenced perceptions of civilization's origins.
05:00 - 07:00: Radiocarbon Dating Challenges The chapter discusses the challenges and debates surrounding the use of radiocarbon dating in determining the history and origin of ancient artifacts and civilizations, particularly focusing on the Near East. It questions the widely held belief that the entire world owes its cultural and technological advancements to this region, suggesting a more complex web of historical developments across different regions, including sub-Saharan Africa, especially in relation to the origins of metalworking.
10:00 - 12:00: Diffusion vs Invention Arguments The chapter examines the ongoing debate about whether a certain technology, possibly the production of iron, diffused from North Africa through the Mediterranean or was invented independently in the region. The author aims to explore evidence supporting both arguments and seeks to provide an introductory overview of this debate.
13:00 - 15:00: Evidence from North Africa This chapter references several resources for further exploration on the spread of iron technology. It points to two YouTube creators, From Nothing and Ollie Bye, who have created videos on the topic. The chapter concludes by gearing up for a discussion or debate, suggesting that more in-depth analysis or argumentation will follow.
16:00 - 18:00: The Role of Meroe in Iron Production The chapter explores the historical role of Meroe in the production of iron. It starts with a brief disclaimer that humans have long created iron objects from meteorites, and mentions ancient Egyptian artifacts, including iron beads and Tutankhamun's iron dagger.
20:00 - 22:00: Trans-Saharan Trade Networks This chapter focuses on the history and complexity of trans-Saharan trade networks, particularly emphasizing the technological and metallurgical challenges and advancements of transforming iron ore into usable items for trade. Although no detailed blacksmithing techniques are discussed, the content highlights the difficulty ironworkers experience, such as maintaining appropriate temperatures well below 1540 degrees Celsius to avoid melting iron. The narrative also touches briefly on the economic impact of iron commodities within these trade systems, symbolized by manufactured goods ranging from bridges to soft drinks, illustrating the broad scope of applications for processed iron resources. Overall, the chapter portrays the intricate balance required in ironworking and its critical role within the broader context of trans-Saharan exchange.
23:00 - 25:00: West African Ironworking Evidence The chapter explains the traditional West African ironworking technique, focusing on producing iron blooms. Achieving the right temperature, between 1100 and 1400 degrees Celsius, is crucial to avoid creating brittle cast iron. The desired bloom forms a spongy texture, which is repeatedly heated and hammered to transform into usable tools or weapons like spears. The narrative contrasts these historical techniques with modern advancements in iron production.
29:00 - 31:00: Central African Early Ironworking Sites The chapter 'Central African Early Ironworking Sites' explores the traditional ironworking techniques in Central Africa during pre-industrial times. It highlights the absence of modern technologies such as blast furnaces and thermometers, emphasizing the reliance on the skill and experience of the ironworker. These craftsmen intuitively understood the precise conditions needed, like the right furnace temperature and the correct iron consistency, for successful iron production. The chapter underscores the complexity and expertise required in this ancient craft.
44:00 - 47:00: Conclusion and Future Research The chapter discusses the evolution of iron working, tracing its origins back to bronze age Anatolia. It highlights the theory that in the Mediterranean, iron working emerged from copper production, noting that copper ores often contain iron. Despite this connection, the chapter emphasizes the uniqueness and complexity of the technological advancements required, which were primarily mastered by experienced copper workers.
Did Africa Have The First Iron Age? Transcription
00:00 - 00:30 [tired sigh] I got up a little bit earlier today
to uh try and get a sweet visual metaphor of the sun rising but nature had other ideas. The
image of the sun rising in the east though had been used by archaeologists a lot in the
20th century to describe this notion that the major advances in civilization came from
mesopotamia, anatolia, egypt, from the east from their perspective. "Ex Oriente Lux" they
would write. And you know, the civilizations of
00:30 - 01:00 of the ancient near east, their place in history
is guaranteed they are of course spectacular. No one can take that away from them. Uh, but does
the entire world owe them absolutely everything? Almost certainly not. The more we learn about
ancient history, pre-history the more complicated it becomes. Naturally, that's as it should be.
One area where there has been huge debate, for well over 100 years actually, is on the
origins of metal working in sub-saharan Africa.
01:00 - 01:30 Some say that it sort of diffused, this technology
diffused from north Africa through contact with the mediterranean world. Others that it was
invented independently. It may even have been the earliest region in the world to start
producing iron. So today i want to take a look at those two arguments and see the evidence
that they put forward, see if we can come to any satisfying conclusion. Don't consider this
anything other than an introduction to the debate,
01:30 - 02:00 there's always more that could be said. As always
all the sources are in the description if you want to look into anything further. If you don't
want to wade through all the sources though, From Nothing the best African history youtuber and
Ollie bye, the king of maps, have put together two videos illustrating the spread of iron technology
around the world. Both those videos will be in the pinned comment, in the description. All right
enough shenanigans let's get to the debate!
02:00 - 02:30 First a quick caveat, humans have been able to
create iron objects from fallen meteorites for a long time. The oldest iron objects found so
far are these lovely 5,000 year old beads from Egypt. Perfect for any occasion. Tutankhamun also
had a pretty posh iron dagger. We can often tell
02:30 - 03:00 when an iron object is made from a meteorite
because of how high the nickel content is. What we're talking about today though is the
production of iron. Turning iron ore into bridges, ovens, Scottish soft drinks, etc etc so on and
so on. There's so much debate around this issue because turning iron into something usable is
pretty tough. I'm no blacksmith so this is a very basic explanation. The iron cannot get so hot that
it will melt, it can't get above 1540 degrees c.
03:00 - 03:30 If the iron becomes liquid, it's going to pick up
too much carbon, become cast iron and be brittle and rubbish. It needs to become just the right
amount of hot, between 1100 and 1400 degrees, so that it picks up the correct amount of carbon
and forms this spongy blob called a bloom. This bloom can then be hit with a hammer and
reheated and hit with a hammer and reheated, hit with a hammer, again and again so on and
so on until it's something usable like a spear. Obviously now we have better techniques
of producing iron, we can make things like
03:30 - 04:00 cast iron pans and stuff like that but uh back
in pre-industrial times there was none of this technology. No blast furnaces, no thermometers.
The ability to create good iron rested solely on the skill of the person creating it who through
a lifetime of experience just knew instinctively when the furnace was the correct temperature,
uh when the iron was the right consistency, when the bloom was ready for a hammering.
It's so difficult that a lot of people
04:00 - 04:30 believe or would argue that it's only happened
once in human history back in bronze age Anatolia. In the mediterranean world it's believed that iron
working evolved out of copper production. Copper ores do often feature large amounts of iron and
experienced copper workers were probably the only trades people in the ancient world with the skill
required to control such sophisticated furnaces. However, even there even with those conditions,
despite the presence of iron in copper ore, it
04:30 - 05:00 still took a long time to master. There are still
technological leaps to be made. To put it simply, copper melts at 1083 degrees c and can be directly
cast or poured into a mould. So comparing iron production to copper production, the temperatures
needed are lower and the finished product looks totally different. You could imagine a scenario
though where copper smiths accidentally let their furnace get too hot, ended up with an iron
bloom and tried to work it for whatever reason.
05:00 - 05:30 There are also some fundamental problems with
radiocarbon dating that are especially relevant to this topic. As many of you know radiocarbon dating
can't provide an exact date but provides two dates and whatever you're measuring could have been
produced, or made, or or existed, whatever, at any point between those two dates. The problem is
due to varying levels of atmospheric carbon there are certain periods of time where the distance
between those two dates is quite big. One period
05:30 - 06:00 where it is particularly inaccurate is between 800
and 400 bce. 400 years is obviously a very large window of time and it creates a lot of doubt about
controversial sites from this period. This can be mitigated when we have multiple ways of dating
a site, multiple points of reference, but when we only have a radio carbon date it's a legit
problem, no two ways around it. Another issue with radiocarbon dating is they can only measure
organic matter, like bacon sandwiches perfect archaeology video prop, when you're looking for
the origins of metal working that's a problem,
06:00 - 06:30 metal was never alive. So what archaeologists
do is take samples from the charcoal inside the furnaces. That would be great, that would
be fine if it wasn't for the old wood problem. Which is not why your dad takes those little blue
pills but rather what if the wood is significantly older than the furnace what if they're not the
same age? For a start some tree species are very long lived, so if you are measuring charcoal
that was made from the heart of the tree it
06:30 - 07:00 could give a signal that is literally centuries
older than if you measured another part. Also in certain conditions, particularly arid
conditions, dead trees can persist for centuries. If someone used this wood to fuel their furnace
and we later measured the resulting charcoal, the radiocarbon date would be centuries older
than the furnace. Again as with the problem of the broad date range, the solution is not to rely
on one single method of dating, or trying to find
07:00 - 07:30 other items within the archaeological
layer, such as bone, that could be dated. Those three issues are basically central
to this whole bloody debate. So let's take a look at the two arguments which for the sake
of these i'll call diffusion versus invention. The earliest ironworking site so far discovered
in north Africa comes from Carthage. Just outside the city walls was an industrial
area of the city now called Bir Massouda.
07:30 - 08:00 Iron production here dates to around the middle
of the 8th century bce, around the year 750. So did Carthage's neighbours, the ancient Libyans,
Numidians, Amazigh, learn some iron working from Carthage? Well yeah, probably they did it seems,
excavations at El Kef in western Tunisia, about 180 kilometers west of Carthage, revealed iron
slag dating again to around the 8th century bce. There are other signs of Phoenician contact at the
town as well. So it seems knowledge of ironworking
08:00 - 08:30 did travel with the Carthaginian traders and
started the iron age in the region adjacent to Carthage. How far this knowledge went
into Africa is the million-dollar question. Over in east Africa, the most likely conduit of
iron technology is the city of Meroe, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Kush. Similarly to
Carthage the earliest evidence of iron production dates to between 765 bce at the earliest and 411
bce at the latest. Meroe was the hub of an ancient
08:30 - 09:00 trade network. Raw materials such as ivory, and
ostrich feathers, were brought in by traders and exchanged for luxury goods produced along the nile
and the mediterranean. Excavations from the Gash delta in eastern Sudan show that contact with
Meroe extended at least that far and who knows probably much further into Africa. Were iron goods
and knowledge of iron production exchanged for raw
09:00 - 09:30 materials at Meroe? Considering the the scale of
the production it would be hard to think that it wasn't, yet i personally in my research, i tried
very hard, i could not find any evidence of it. Um that could be my fault entirely of course,
i'm not perfect nor am i the world's number one expert on Meroe, or on anything, um but it
could also reflect the fact that there is just less archaeological research being done in Africa.
We're talking about regions that just haven't been
09:30 - 10:00 excavated that much. That's, that's just the way
it is. Hopefully that will change in the future, no doubt it will change in the future, but as it
stands right now we just don't have evidence of Meroe inspiring a technological revolution in
in the neighbouring regions. Just isn't there.
10:00 - 10:30 Obviously a key aspect of the diffusion argument
is evidence of trade and connections between north Africa and below the Sahara. In terms of hard
evidence there is basically none in the time periods we're talking about. No Carthaginian
artifacts are found in sub-saharan towns and villages. If you're picturing caravans of
camels slowly plodding along the desert, then you need to scrub that image from your
grey cells. Camels are native to Asia and, although still debated, it seems large herds of
camels were not present in the Sahara until the
10:30 - 11:00 first few centuries ce, until the roman period.
People still lived in the Sahara of course but horse and chariot were the preferred, or maybe
only method of transport and there is a ton of rock art throughout much of the Sahara depicting
this. Presumably these ancient saharans had metal to produce chariots and in one excavation, copper
artifacts were recovered. Excavations at the site of Iwelen, in Niger's air mountains, revealed
two villages dated to this chariot period and
11:00 - 11:30 crucially in amongst the houses, three copper
spearheads, awls, axes, clamps, various copper doodads and ding dongs. Did this copper producing,
chariot riding, culture extend out of the Sahara? Well, the furthest south these images have been
discovered was at Essouk in Mali, 170 miles north of the Niger river, which would be an excellent
gateway to the land south of the Sahara. Again
11:30 - 12:00 we have no hard evidence of this culture extending
to the river though so whether they did or not is just down to your own ideas, your own speculation.
Such proximity to the Niger river is interesting because this was a major region in the development
of urbanism and large formal states in west Africa. At the time of Carthage's founding
this region was occupied by millet farming, cattle herding communities. By the 3rd century bce
though, about 500 years later, large cities such
12:00 - 12:30 as Djenne Djenno had been founded. Archaeological
evidence suggests that from the very earliest layers at Djenne they were using iron. All right
let's summarise this diffusion debate. Pros. Iron working by around 750 bce at multiple
locations. These cultures all had a long tradition of metal working, they each went through copper
ages, bronze ages, the history of their metallurgy is very well understood. Trans saharan network
of chariot riding chaps and chapettes did exist.
12:30 - 13:00 Cons. Despite the evidence of
this trans-Saharan network, what's the evidence of trade and connection?
Basically none, nothing. These ancient Saharans could work copper but not iron. If iron is as hard
to work as people say, then how could it diffuse through the Sahara into west Africa but the people
in the Sahara aren't producing it or using it, at least not that we can see in the archaeological
record. This brings us to the invention side of
13:00 - 13:30 the debate. It's possible that these copper
working saharans introduced the idea of metallurgy into west Africa but due to a lack
of copper ore, which is genuinely very rare, people started experimenting with iron.
Anyway let's see that side of the argument. The best evidence for this idea is in the
west where Mauritania meets Senegal. In the first millennium bc around the town of Akjoujt,
lived some chariot riding, pastoral communities,
13:30 - 14:00 who included copper production in their seasonal
movements. So far, so similar to what i discussed earlier. What is interesting about Akjoujt though,
is that it's only 250 miles from Walalde in Senegal, one of Africa's earliest iron producing
sites. At Walalde, excavators uncovered a village of millet farming, cow herding, agro-pastoralists,
a similar economy to those that lived along the Niger river at the same time. There were two
archaeological layers identified, the earliest
14:00 - 14:30 level dated to between 800 and 550 bce and the
second 550 to 360 bce, roughly, it is in that bloody black hole. Iron objects were recovered
from the earliest layers and 19 kilograms of slag were found in the second layer. Crucially for this
debate, various copper artifacts were also found, including these lovely earrings. The copper
used to make these bears the same chemical signature as copper from Akjoujt. There's no
evidence for copper production at Walalde, so
14:30 - 15:00 presumably these two groups were in contact.
Copper ore from Akjoujt is also high in iron, the copper objects that were produced there
were also hammered. These are basically the same preconditions that are believed to have
started iron production back in western Asia. The only issue that we have at the moment is
that we have no evidence of anyone from Akjoujt producing iron but who knows what the future
will reveal. Also, as i said the dates from
15:00 - 15:30 Walalde annoyingly fall into that 400-year weak
spot of radiocarbon dating. Without another point of reference for dating we can't narrow it down
any further. This idea that copper producing cultures in the Sahara inspired ironworking in
regions where they didn't have access to copper might have a lot of merit to it. Especially if you
think that ironworking can't exist without copper production. If we have a spectrum of the ideas,
on one hand total indigenous invention, and on the
15:30 - 16:00 other hand purely an outside influence giving this
technology, then this idea sort of sits between the two and it has a lot of merit. Who knows what
future excavations in that region will uncover? Another idea is that pyrotechnologies like
pottery could have led to iron working south of the desert. Perhaps the Nok culture
of Nigeria holds the key to this proposal? The people of the Nok culture lived in what is now
central and northern Nigeria between 1500 bce
16:00 - 16:30 and the first century ce. At their earliest
levels they're stone age farmers, you know, an equivalent technological level to Europe's
neolithic. From between 900 and 400 bc though, iron working starts to make an appearance at Nok
sites with no intermediate copper working stage. Quite a lot of iron too. In 2016 excavations
revealed 26 furnaces split across nine sites.
16:30 - 17:00 So there is absolutely no doubt that the Nok
were producing iron in quite a large scale. At the same time that this iron is being produced,
incredible terracotta figurines start to make an appearance in the archaeological record. Some
of the requirements for producing terracotta are similar to producing iron, such as the
construction of clay structures, and the burning of fuel at high temperatures. However, as
i said at the start, iron workers would also need to control the amount of carbon in the furnace,
process the ore, hammer the bloom. For some
17:00 - 17:30 this is too much of a technological leap. In the
opinion of Paul Craddock from the British museum. "To postulate the invention of iron smelting
without the knowledge of copper smelting is akin to claiming the invention of the movie
camera but with no knowledge of photography". Once again, the site just falls
into that stupid radio carbon black hole. If the Nok culture were making iron
in around the year 900 then of course influence
17:30 - 18:00 from Carthage or Meroe can't be responsible. If
it started around the year 400, then it's it's much more reasonable, there's still a long way for
it to uh travel but uh it's much more reasonable. This brings us to our final
site. Ba ba ba baaaahhhh! The site which may be the oldest
ironworking site in the entire world. At Oboui in the Central African Republic, a
furnace, a couple of storage pits, refuse pits,
18:00 - 18:30 and other features like a hammer stone, and a
pot presumably used for quenching iron, were excavated. Six charcoal samples taken from across
the site were radiocarbon dated and they all came back within the range of 2340 and 1900 bce.
Making it potentially the oldest ironworking site in the entire world. Not surprisingly this
has caused a lot of debate back and forth.
18:30 - 19:00 However, the radiocarbon dates shouldn't
be dismissed just because they're old. They are all within the same 400 year period. If
the site was disturbed, you might expect a much wider date range. Plus the layers above the forge
were younger than the layer containing the forge which is as it should be of course and maybe not
how it would be if the site had been disturbed. It's hard to imagine a scenario where
a furnace and all the surrounding pits are left intact yet their charcoal is entirely
replaced. Perhaps this is a problem of old wood?
19:00 - 19:30 It's possible, however the region is believed
to have been adequately wooded at the time, so that is unlikely. The final criticism levelled
against the site is that the iron artifacts recovered are too well preserved for such an age.
This is for sure a legitimate criticism. Holl, the archaeologist behind the excavation, has stated
that the iron artifacts pictured for the paper were simply the best preserved out of 174 iron
pieces recovered. You know i can't come to any
19:30 - 20:00 conclusion about the site in this video. I can't
say either way. People far more knowledgeable than me argue about it to this day. It just depends on
how much of a problem, or how likely it is that you think they were using old wood. There's no way
around that problem at the moment. Still, Oboui is not unique for this region. There's another site
Gbatoro which allegedly dates to the same period and another site, Gbabiri, which dates to between
sort of 900 and 750. I mean, that's outside of
20:00 - 20:30 the range of that radiocarbon black hole so
should we not presume the dates are accurate? It really just depends on how pervasive
you think the problem of old wood is. Got to interrupt that absolute scruffpot,
who should take a mirror everywhere he goes, uh because i messed up the conclusion have to
redo it. And i also prepared possibly the stalest, oldest meme joke ever. I mean, I know this is
an archaeology channel but the memes should be
20:30 - 21:00 fresh. Would have been a nice idea three years ago
though. Clearly both diffusion and invention are lacking crucial evidence that would make a cast
iron case. Diffusion, honestly just has no hard evidence of contact between these civilizations
and invention is overly reliant on radiocarbon dating charcoal and all the flaws that come with
that. More excavations could prove either one correct but i think [loud motorbike in background
] f-in harley riders. More excavations could prove
21:00 - 21:30 either one correct but i think the majority of
archaeologists are leaning towards invention for the following reasons. Metalworking exists
across a really wide area of west Africa by the first millennium bce, maybe it's possible for iron
working to diffuse through the Sahara and spread quickly, but we don't have evidence of that
contact, we don't have evidence of that trade. Several sites in the Adamawa region of central
Africa have really early iron working dates. Maybe all these sites are flawed, maybe they're all
compromised by old wood, but surely the more sites
21:30 - 22:00 we find in those date ranges the less likely that
would be? Even outside of Africa, the history of metallurgy is, is becoming a lot more complicated.
The bronze age proper kicked off in mesopotamia, in anatolia, in the near east, but the earliest
bronze working we've found so far archaeologically dates from the neolithic Vinca culture in
what is now Serbia. Now I know that's not
22:00 - 22:30 iron working and iron working is harder, it
comes with those extra technological steps, those extra leaps of imagination you would have
to take, but it is a good illustration that history is complicated and the more we excavate
the more we learn and who knows what is uh missing in our understanding of west Africa. I'm no
metal working expert so i can't possibly say whether copper working knowledge is a 100%
necessary prerequisite of ironworking, but let's say that it is. Africa had copper working
cultures. Maybe those can be pushed further
22:30 - 23:00 back in time, maybe we can understand better the
contacts between copper workers and iron workers. Who knows, who knows what could be unearthed. It
could go either way. I can't come to a definitive conclusion i'm afraid but uh who knows maybe
both are right in their way? I mean, Africa is a huge place some people could have invented
ironworking themselves others could have been in a contact with the mediterranean world, with north
Africa in ways that we don't quite understand yet.
23:00 - 23:30 I don't know, i don't know. Thank
you to my patrons for voting on this topic. This is the end of the video, i'm
gonna leave you with that stale meme. Goodbye. [Stefan] I don't know man i think this is
a pretty stale meme. I think it's a pretty bad idea. [Miserable Intern] I, I think
people will get it. [Stefan] i don't know, i don't think people still watch Samuel
Chowder, not the kids these days aren't watching him. [Miserable Intern] kids aren't
into samuel chowder? [Stefan] no, oh well.