I Don't Buy it: Sub-Saharan African Iron Age

Can't you search this for yourself?

It seems to me, after a brief search, that..

1) It is clear that there was Iron Smelting in sub-Saharan Africa before 850 BC. There is linguistic evidence that the technology may have existed in Sub-Saharan Africa much earlier.

2) There is some question about whether the technology was imported from the Mediterranean rather than developed independently.

3) Several prestigious state that there is good evidence that the technology was developed independently in Sub-Saharan cultures. No one seems to be saying this is a closed case.

I don't know if you have anything else. But it seems likely that this did in fact happen.

I believe that the pre 1000BC Ferrous smeltig was an independent vent, why, because the available ores ar quite ubiquitous. Ores come in all kinds and Sub Saharan Africa is full of all of them'. Iron iisnt the big techno advnce. It could be made by accident just like bronze and iron's properties arent any better than bronze. NOW STEEL!!! , thats your real toolmaker.
Iron was easily made by:

Laterite clays are FE /Al clays that have been serving as iron ore into our on colonial times (Nasawingo furnaces near S Eastern Shore of Md had used "red clay" smelted with charcoal . These laterites are all over in Africa within the cratonic sediments

Magnetite and HEmatite sands are along the streams in bed of dense black masses of sands at ,2mm diameters. . These are quite pure ores

The main question isnt that it happened but under what circumstances??
Iron BLOOMERY is where clays or other minerals were incorporated into things like ovens or fire pits and in many cases the iron rich clays or sands were "softened " (not smelted), into masses of dense material called "FAYALITE" ,an iron silicate mix. These were brittle masses of purified (almost a "wrought stage" iron silicate). This was what was called an IRON BLOOM. Not good for much until
different archeologists have dated the carbon wastes in their bloomery samples an came to conclude that several bloomeries were established almost independently of each other.
It then took actual smelting of the fayalite and carbon masses to generate metallic iron called STEEL whixh is one of the hardest metals and is therefore usable in tools and especially points for short spears.

Carbon 14 has had a dubious series of results in African bloomery (mostly due to the corrections required for nuclear Decay within already radionuclide rich forelands. (Africa is still the worlds leader in massive Uraninite(Pitchblende) and other specific uranium ores). C14 is tough in any of these neighborhoods, we still use Luminescence techniques.

Bloomeries could have been established as just good luck when someone was really trying to bake a loaf of bread or make pottery in a kiln made of laterite.

Making iron or steel actually took some thought a to adding clinker rocks or even "spar" to float off the "gangue" (crap). Then someone had to learn how to employ the kinds of blowers like used in Tin and copper smelting to actually melt the steel

It happened, only a racist would deny it.

Nonsense Izzy. The experts, professional archeologists who have actually looked at the evidence, claim that it is inconclusive.

You don't get to make up facts just to suit your political ideology any more than anyone else.

Bullshit. I’ve seen it.

There were lots of civilisations in Africa that are deliberately erased from history and the reasons were racist.

You know **** all about History and what constitutes evidence.

you guys really hate each other???

Im gonna move outta here (It could have been a neat interesting site but you two clowns should have your dust ups at a bar )

Se ya boys, play nice

That's funny Izzy. I assume that you don't mean to claim that you "have seen" the iron processing in Africa 3000 years ago.

This is a specific question.... did cultures in Sub-Saharan Africa independently develop the technology to process Iron?

The way that the archeological experts would answer this question is to study the archeological evidence. The Archeologists have done this and are saying that the evidence is "inconclusive".

You are absolutely correct that there were "lots of civilizations in Africa". That doesn't have anything to do with this specific question. Your constant stream of personal attacks don't replace facts.

The facts don't always fit your ideological narrative.

Izzy follows me around from thread to thread. I don't have anything against him.

Sometimes he is a convenient foil.

Hell, even here in the last few hundred years, entire chapters of anything which happened that wasn't in some way a nod to white folk has been quietly squashed. The current administration wants to keep that going.

I’d rather not talk to him. I’ve been trying to avoid him but he keeps pestering me like some happy little dog.

The BBC have a really good documentary series presented by Henry Louis Gates jr, ( with a name like that you know he has to be American,) called Africa’s Great Civilisations. I can’t recommend it highly enough, although I did feel guilty for not knowing as much about it as I should.

This is silly.

1. The right wing extremists say that Africa couldn't have created iron work. This is because the right wing ideological ideological says that technological advancements came from Western Civilization.

2. The left wing extremists say that Africa must of created iron work independently. This is because the left wing ideological narrative says that advanced cultures in Africa were suppressed by Western Civilization.

3. The actual experts who have studied the issue academically say that although there was iron smelting in Africa, it is inconclusive if it was developed independently or was part of an exchange of ideas with other cultures.

You will notice that both the right wing extremists, and the left-wing extremists are attacking the experts. This is an academic question about something that happened thousands of years ago. Izzy and Sturgizzy ranting about Trump supporters is a little silly in this context.

And there ya go folks, the great maximillius has written his...
...um....

Well, whatever it is, he done did just write it.

No, max, this is not some left/right thing. You are not even attempting to look deeper and admit the shameful reality of how certain people have been and still are being held back, held down and denied their places in history.

I’ve come to the conclusion it’s probably best to ignore him. All he has s a load of attention seeking nonsense.

Yappy little dog, yappy, not happy, bloody spellcheck.

Nonsense Sturgis.

It is an archeological question about something that happened thousands of years ago. This academic question is answered by experts looking at actual evidence. They have said the evidence "inconclusive".

This question is about something that either did, or didn't, happen thousands of years before the colonization of Africa. I probably agree with you about the horrors of colonization, slavery and oppression.

Academic questions should be answered based on the evidence. The political narrative is important... but it doesn't change the factually correct answer.

Izzy... you have been threatening this for years. If you are going to ignore me... then just do it. As it is, you respond to me far more than anyone else. You literally follow me around from thread to thread.

Just admit it, you can't quit me.

I was discussing this subject with a friend, and his opinion was that the Africans were lying. I don’t think they are lying; at least not most of them. I think these people are mostly deluded wanting to see something so badly they see what they want to see where it doesn’t exist. It is a natural human trait; there are men whose wives are cheating on them but they can’t see it because they don’t want to see it. The opposite is true as well. But a scientist is someone who is dedicated to the truth and will overcome his bias to see what is really there. It is unacceptable for a scientist to allow his bias to interfere in his observations. A few years ago a claim came out of Africa that the African cow was indigenous to Africa that is it evolved from local wild bovine. A DNA study proved that claim was false, all cattle originate in Eurasia. The African cow is an immigrant from the north just like iron. I believe that cattle and the knowledge of iron both came into sub-Saharan Africa the same way up the Nile valley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

Europeans are native Africans.

This post from Pamela Rosa made me laugh.

Most Archeologists agree that human beings evolved in Africa, and then spread to other parts of the world. It is not a very controversial theory these days; all of humanity has roots in Africa.

And yet somehow hearing it from Pamela makes it sound like racist bullshit. My point is that no matter who says it, it is still true.