African Arms

By the mid 19th century, close quarter weapons in much of Africa had taken a back seat in such a way that most were ceremonial and their carbon content as well as their distal and profile tapers did not need to be suitable for battle. Much like factory made stainless steel U.S. Marine sabers today. There are many who do not understand this fact and promote ceremonial examples as swords made for combat. This fuels the misconception that Africans had poor quality steel. However, it is now (more than ever) evident that Africans (in the old war sense) had major steel producing industries in key places throughout the continent. These industries produced outstanding high carbon steel which was distributed via trade routes throughout Africa. By the mid to late nineteenth century African steel industries found themselves challenged by readily available large quantities of steel from Europe. Many historians have speculated and concluded that Africans sought European steel because their own native steel was of poorer quality. However, it was not quality that compelled so many Africans to buy European steel. Africans generally found that European steel was cheaper than their native steel. Thus, we see a situation similar to today where the U.S. steel industry is suffering loss now that American steel companies are purchasing more and more cheap steel from China. Now let me ask you, is the Chinese steel industry gaining in popularity because their steel is of better quality than U.S. steel or simply of equal quality at a more affordable price?

What is the largest cause for the misconception of poor native African steel? Peter Schmidt tells us in The Culture and Technology of African Iron Production, "Too often, iron production is presented either as a set of beliefs without consideration of the interwoven technological steps or as a strictly technological process." The African process of iron smelting is immersed in metaphoric ritual. Too ritualistic to be scientific for the many historians who, to this day, still believe that Africans did not have an orthodox process for making high carbon steel and therefore could not ensure the quality of the end result. For those historians the ritualistic practices of the smelters seemed to be the exercises of superstitious men trying to recreate actions that have only periodically succeeded in producing high quality steel. This could not be more far from the truth. The involvement of metaphoric ritual is actually a testimony to the great understanding of the entire process. The truth of the matter is that Africans, like people of most other cultures, used both lower and higher carbon steel. Lower carbon steels were utilized mainly for axe heads, spears, javelins, etc. The higher carbon steels were put to use most often for knives, more lengthy knives, swords, etc.

Also, there are historians that have helped to fog the view of what is truly an indigenous African weapon. Often when a weapon has a particularly sober look to it some historians wrongly attribute these styles and shapes of weapons to outside influence simply because a particular outside culture or religion, such as Islam, has made contact with the area. However, these are most often universal styles and shapes that are more attributed to use and function rather than a particular religion or culture. A fact that would probably become more apparent to someone who specifically studies the design and functionality of weapons rather than someone who only studies general history and culture. The styles and shapes of these weapons are based on function and too often have I seen indigenous African weapons labeled Islamic or Christian influenced when nine times out of ten these styles and shapes have been around for hundreds of years before Islamic or Christian contact. In actuality, most functional African weapons have a quite sober look to them. And often, once you remove the ceremonial coating of a particular weapon, what is revealed underneath is a style and shape similar to Eurasian weapons. Take, for instance, the descriptions given by some of the earliest commentators on medieval African civilization. Pieter de Marees, William Towerson, and others write often about this sober look by describing the weapons they encountered using such plain words as: daggers, cutlass, double edged swords, saber, scimitar, and make little if any remarks of an awkwardness. Instead, these writers relate to the weapons they’ve seen by further describing them as having been well made and clever. This is because, regardless of culture, geographic environment determines the true style and functionality of all weapons on Earth.

When it comes to the "weapons analysis" given by some historians, none have felt the blow of ignorance more than the continent of Africa. Next on the list to feel the blow of ignorance dealt by some historians are medieval European arms. Certain historians have written in the past that Medieval European swords and armor were cumbersome, heavy, and crudely made, and that if a knight wearing this heavy armor were to fall on his back, he would have to wobble like a turtle to get back up; conclusions that spawn from the evaluation of jousting armor and not armor made for combat (in the same vein as evaluating African ceremonial swords in the place of combat-worthy versions). Yet today more and more are beginning to understand that European medieval armor was made to be light and their swords were skillful, elegant, and among the deadliest weapons of the time. To me, being a historian is more than a profession, it is a position with great power and authority. The historian holds the responsibility of uncovering and preserving factual truth. I only wish for historians and scholars alike to come full-circle, delve deep into the rabbit hole when involved in any particular study; for one could greatly damage and bury a part of the world rather than uncover and preserve it.