Vladimir Branisteanu

ANTH-302
11/9/15
African Metallurgy Debate

The debate over the origins of African metallurgy, specifically ironmaking, is

more heated than ever thanks to new discoveries. The traditional viewpoint was that

ironmaking reached Africa from the Middle East through diffusion sometime during the

first millennium B.C. However, there has recently been new evidence uncovered by

archaeologists Etienne Zangato and Augustin F. C. Holl in the northern part of Central

Africa, most notably Oboui, which suggests that ironmaking developed independently in

Africa. Several iron artifacts were found, including two needles, along with evidence of

local ironsmithing. Radiocarbon dating placed these objects as early as the third

millennium B.C.

Certainly, Zangato and Holl have strong evidence to support their theory. The

radiocarbon dates are reliable and consistent, ranging from 2343 to 1900 B.C., with

excellent clustering. Iron artifacts were found at multiple sites, not just Oboui, including

Gbobiri, Gbatoro, Nsukka, and Lejja. The slag pit technology they uncovered was not

found anywhere in the Mediterranean or Middle East, further enhancing their argument

for independent invention. Additionally, Zangato and Holl point out that the external

origins hypothesis is a direct result of a general prejudice against Africa by Anglophone

researchers, who have always viewed its inhabitants as incapable of inventing something

as complex as ironmaking. As Paul Craddock points out, the elaborate bronze sculptures

uncovered at Igbu Ukwu and the life-size brass Olokun head were initially similarly

discredited for many years as being made with technology imported from outside Africa.

Finally, it should be remembered that the long-running Clovis/pre-Clovis debate took

almost 80 years to be resolved due to the fact that the evidence did not fit with what was

known about human occupation and chronology in the New World. The case for

independent invention of metallurgy in Africa could follow a similar path, and it might be

that until more conclusive evidence is uncovered, it is destined to be discredited by many.

That is not to say that the diffusion theory does not have its strengths. Many have

pointed out that the preservation of the iron artifacts found at Oboui is far too good for

their supposed age, especially when considering they were found in moist, acidic, tropical

soil. Critics also claim that the radiocarbon dating method used is unreliable. They point

out that carbon in the atmosphere was variable through time and, moreover, the wood

used in the ironmaking process could have been very old itself, thereby creating false

early dates. Until other dating methods, such as thermoluminescence, are tried on the

artifacts, their dates cannot be conclusive. Finally, the artifacts were found at a very

shallow depth, between about 20 and 30 cm., which made them susceptible to being

disturbed through time, especially since the excavation pits were closely surrounded by

structures that were built centuries later.

In addition to these issues directly regarding the site and artifacts, proponents of

diffusion also claim that ironmaking could not simply occur independently due to "trial

and error", as Zangato and Holl claim. The process is far too complex and requires much

knowledge and expertise about metalworking. It must have bronze or copper smelting as

a precedent, and no evidence of any sort of high-temperature metalworking has yet been

found. Furthermore, ironmaking should have left a lasting impact on society, such as

social stratification and rise of state systems, as it did virtually everywhere else. There is
no sign of anything like that having occurred in Africa. Clearly, the diffusionists have lots

of solid arguments to back up their theory.

In my opinion, ironmaking was indeed independently invented in Africa, but,

besides the general prejudice against Africa and its people, researchers need the complete

"story" in order to accept it. The diffusion theory fits better with their version of the

human narrative while the independent invention theory does not fit well at all. Also,

there is very little context surrounding it; the current evidence suggests that ironmaking

was invented in Africa without any precedent or lasting consequences. Therefore, until

more conclusive evidence is found that removes all doubt, many will continue to cling to

the diffusionist theory.