In most other parts of the world, there are many records of happenings during the BC era.

Chinese had happenings in the BC era,
The Greeks,Romans, maybe not northern Europe
The Indians etc

But there's something strange in AFRICA
It's like subsaharan Africa was empty during this period of the BC and early AD except in Egypt and Ethiopia area.

Even the earliest records of kingdoms in subsaharan Africa seemed to occur after 1000 AD.

The British have happenings going far back as 100AD.

Even early kingdoms such as ile-ife, NRI and Benin were formed after 1000AD .
The records of Oduduwa goes back only at 1200AD,when England was already a settled kingdom( William the conqueror, united England in 1000AD).

It therefore means that contrary to popular belief, African kingdoms especially ( Niger-Congo ) subsaharan are quite young and that subsaharan Africans maybe have just recently entered deep into Africa from the Egyptian/ Ethiopian region plus the once fertile Sahara ( the Sahara might hold a lot of secrets of ancient Africa).

Africans might just have been in the rebuilding or building stage in their new location when they encountered the entry of Europeans and Arabs,this might have been the reason for the disadvantaged Africans seem to have had as compared to others.

In all,its no excuse, African men especially of the major tribes, who are numerous for nothing, need to rise up to the occasion.

Other races are conquering space for goodness sake.

Not true.

Igodomigodo Kingdom (succeeded by Bini Kingdom)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igodomigodo

Nok (succeeded by Kwararafa)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture


Read wide bro

dinomalaiye:
Not true.

Igodomigodo Kingdom (succeeded by Bini Kingdom)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igodomigodo

Nok (succeeded by Kwararafa)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture


Read wide bro

As for nok,there are no records of personalities or events,the nok culture was probably destroyed by something, that's why I mentioned that Africans were probably at a rebuilding stage at the time other races were already done building and consolidating.

The nok is projected to have come from somewhere else,unlike other ancient kingdoms like chiña,greece,Persia etc African kingdoms seemed to constantly be on the move and were not stable in the BC era.

Stability only seemed to start emerging after 1000AD,just 400 years later,the whites were came into the scene.

It's all too clear Africans were not ready for the encounter and were already at a disadvantage

Even igodomido, there's no proper record of events of the era,unlike by the oba era

Maybe this offer some information to disprove your post


http://archive.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=378&Itemid=233.html

tommy589:
Maybe this offer some information to disprove your post


http://archive.understandingslavery.com/index.php-option=com_content&view=article&id=378&Itemid=233.html

What you did here is highly discouraged on online platforms. If that page you referenced is deleted, nobody will understand this comment. At least write a line or two or summary about it

givedemwotowoto:


What you did here is highly discouraged on online platforms. If that page you referenced is deleted, nobody will understand this comment. At least write a line or two or summary about it

"Until recently, many commentators on Africa claimed that African societies had no tradition of writing. With the rediscovery of ancient manuscript collections, some dating back to the 8th century AD, this perception is changing.

Approximately 250,000 old manuscripts still survive in modern Ethiopia. Thousands of documents from the medieval Sudanese empire of Makuria, written in eight different languages were unearthed at the southern Egyptian site of Qasr Ibrim. Thousands of old manuscripts have survived in the West African cities of Chinguetti, Walata, Oudane, Kano and Agadez"

babasolution:
In most other parts of the world, there are many records of happenings during the BC era.

Chinese had happenings in the BC era,
The Greeks,Romans, maybe not northern Europe
The Indians etc

But there's something strange in AFRICA
It's like subsaharan Africa was empty during this period of the BC and early AD except in Egypt and Ethiopia area.

Even the earliest records of kingdoms in subsaharan Africa seemed to occur after 1000 AD.

The British have happenings going far back as 100AD.

Even early kingdoms such as ile-ife, NRI and Benin were formed after 1000AD .
The records of Oduduwa goes back only at 1200AD,when England was already a settled kingdom( William the conqueror, united England in 1000AD).

It therefore means that contrary to popular belief, African kingdoms especially ( Niger-Congo ) subsaharan are quite young and that subsaharan Africans maybe have just recently entered deep into Africa from the Egyptian/ Ethiopian region plus the once fertile Sahara ( the Sahara might hold a lot of secrets of ancient Africa).

Africans might just have been in the rebuilding or building stage in their new location when they encountered the entry of Europeans and Arabs,this might have been the reason for the disadvantaged Africans seem to have had as compared to others.

In all,its no excuse, African men especially of the major tribes, who are numerous for nothing, need to rise up to the occasion.

Other races are conquering space for goodness sake.

Before making an assertion and starting a discussion using that assertion, endeavour to confirm if your assertion is right else you'll end on a wrong foundation.
Firstly, the Igbo Ukwu bronze castings were dated to around the 9th century which means 800CE. It means a flourishing society has been established at least few hundreds of years before that time. If you read about the Iron slag deposits in Lejja community-Nsukka, you'll see that it was dated to around 2000BC. This is probably the oldest iron smelting site in the whole world yet very few people in Nigeria know about it. It isn't taught in schools within Nigeria for obvious reasons. Nok was dated to around 4BC but is much more popular. This proves that communities had existed south of the Sahara since the B.C period.
Secondly, the Great Bantu migration was dated to have happened between 1500BC to 500CE and the place they originated was said to be around Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon. Does it ring a bell?
My findings about Africa is summarized below.
All parts of Africa seemed to have been occupied by people for over thousands of years. The people were all negroids but had different lifestyles and somewhat different stages of social development.
Back in the BCs, most present day West Africans were in North Africa. West Africa was occupied by a people that have been subsumed into those who fled North Africa and came down to it. Those West Africans were not of Bantu origin. I'm yet to get a good description of them but they were mostly very dark people because most West Africans are very dark. They are of the same stock as those who first travelled to the American continent. The Bantus were occupying Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon up to upper areas of Central Africa. With the coming of new people from Egypt and Sudan, many of them left to lower Central Africa. Central Africa by the BC was occupied by mostly pygmies which is why it retained its vast forests and vegetation. The Bantus subsumed the pygmies and it in turn reduced their average size which was initially same like those of other West Africans. Present day Bantus especially Central, Eastern and Southern are comparatively smaller in physique to West Africans except some few groups in the Congo. The pygmies couldn't leave Central Africa and were almost entirely subsumed by the Bantus who went on to move further into Southern Africa and encountered the Khoi and San people.
Southern Africa was entirely peopled by the Khoi and San people who were mostly hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic people with barely no knowledge of metal smelting. They were more light skin than the Bantus but were also smaller in physique with some shrubby hairs on their head. They weren't a hairy people. The Bantus who encountered them intermarried with them but couldn't subsume them. Those Bantus borrowed a good deal from them like the 'clicky' sounds when talking and parts of their genes too. The closer a bantu group is to the Khoi and San people, the more they looked like them.
East Africa at the BCs was occupied by the Nilotic and Cushitic people. The Bantus who went there mixed with some of them especially with the Nilotics. The Cushitic were more conservative and thus retained most of their original form.

The conclusion is that in all subsaharan Africa, you'll always find traces of societal existence back to the BC era. West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa. Only Central Africa is where I'm yet to find. Recall that the pygmies who occupied this part were limited by nature already.

Yujin:

Before making an assertion and starting a discussion using that assertion, endeavour to confirm if your assertion is right else you'll end on a wrong foundation.
Firstly, the Igbo Ukwu bronze castings were dated to around the 9th century which means 800CE. It means a flourishing society has been established at least few hundreds of years before that time. If you read about the Iron slag deposits in Lejja community-Nsukka, you'll see that it was dated to around 2000BC. This is probably the oldest iron smelting site in the whole world yet very few people in Nigeria know about it. It isn't taught in schools within Nigeria for obvious reasons. Nok was dated to around 4BC but is much more popular. This proves that communities had existed south of the Sahara since the B.C period.
Secondly, the Great Bantu migration was dated to have happened between 1500BC to 500CE and the place they originated was said to be around Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon. Does it ring a bell?
My findings about Africa is summarized below.
All parts of Africa seemed to have been occupied by people for over thousands of years. The people were all negroids but had different lifestyles and somewhat different stages of social development.
Back in the BCs, most present day West Africans were in North Africa. West Africa was occupied by a people that have been subsumed into those who fled North Africa and came down to it. Those West Africans were not of Bantu origin. I'm yet to get a good description of them but they were mostly very dark people because most West Africans are very dark. They are of the same stock as those who first travelled to the American continent. The Bantus were occupying Eastern Nigeria and Western Cameroon up to upper areas of Central Africa. With the coming of new people from Egypt and Sudan, many of them left to lower Central Africa. Central Africa by the BC was occupied by mostly pygmies which is why it retained its vast forests and vegetation. The Bantus subsumed the pygmies and it in turn reduced their average size which was initially same like those of other West Africans. Present day Bantus especially Central, Eastern and Southern are comparatively smaller in physique to West Africans except some few groups in the Congo. The pygmies couldn't leave Central Africa and were almost entirely subsumed by the Bantus who went on to move further into Southern Africa and encountered the Khoi and San people.
Southern Africa was entirely peopled by the Khoi and San people who were mostly hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic people with barely no knowledge of metal smelting. They were more light skin than the Bantus but were also smaller in physique with some shrubby hairs on their head. They weren't a hairy people. The Bantus who encountered them intermarried with them but couldn't subsume them. Those Bantus borrowed a good deal from them like the 'clicky' sounds when talking and parts of their genes too. The closer a bantu group is to the Khoi and San people, the more they looked like them.
East Africa at the BCs was occupied by the Nilotic and Cushitic people. The Bantus who went there mixed with some of them especially with the Nilotics. The Cushitic were more conservative and thus retained most of their original form.

The conclusion is that in all subsaharan Africa, you'll always find traces of societal existence back to the BC era. West Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa. Only Central Africa is where I'm yet to find. Recall that the pygmies who occupied this part were limited by nature already.

My point is not that Africa wasn't occupied by the bc era,but that known kingdoms which had happenings etc weren't there,this is because they are few records of events that happened in West Africa for example in the BC era,it seems those BC era kingdoms in West Africa like nok and Igbo okwu were destroyed by unknown reasons and new kingdoms had to be rebuilt late in the AD, because some of the earliest remembered Africans states,like Mali,ile-ife, Benin etc only trace their remembered history to after 1000AD.

Unlike Europe and Asia which have recorded history to the early BC era,only the Egyptian/ Ethiopian kingdoms have BC era history in Africa

babasolution:

My point is not that Africa wasn't occupied by the bc era,but that known kingdoms which had happenings etc weren't there,this is because they are few records of events that happened in West Africa for example in the BC era,it seems those BC era kingdoms in West Africa like nok and Igbo okwu were destroyed by unknown reasons and new kingdoms had to be rebuilt late in the AD, because some of the earliest remembered Africans states,like Mali,ile-ife, Benin etc only trace their remembered history to after 1000AD.

Unlike Europe and Asia which have recorded history to the early BC era,only the Egyptian/ Ethiopian kingdoms have BC era history in Africa

Somebody already told you up there that written language was a major factor in why documented history about West Africa or Africa is only popular after the 11/12th century AD.

You saw Igodomigodo history with link to a list of their Kings well into the BC era. Another poster has shown you what is probably the oldest iron smelting slag in the World right there in Igbo land, but these things are all still less than the "Mighty European Greek and Roman history to you!

You either believe written history is greater than oral history or you just have a low self esteem as an African. Or maybe there is a very strong effect of colonialism on your educational background or learning process.

dinomalaiye:

Somebody already told you up there that written language was a major factor in why documented history about West Africa or Africa is only popular after the 11/12th century AD.

You saw Igodomigodo history with link to a list of their Kings well into the BC era. Another poster has shown you what is probably the oldest iron smelting slag in the World right there in Igbo land, but these things are all still less than the "Mighty European Greek and Roman history to you!

You either believe written history is greater than oral history or you just have a low self esteem as an African. Or maybe there is a very strong effect of colonialism on your educational background or learning process.

Even oral history doesn't go far back,only igodomigodo has some narratives going back to the BC era,however the oral history of that time is not as clear as from the era of the obas in AD.

Ile-ife for example doesn't have BC era oral history, likewise the Hausa ,Nupe,jukun,IDAH,even Igbo okwu is not clear.