"Sub-Saharan Africa is a geographical term used to describe the area of the African continent which lies south of the Sahara, or those African countries which are fully or partially located south of the Sahara.[1][2] It contrasts with North Africa, which is part of the Arab World [3]
The Sahel is the transitional zone between the Sahara and the tropical savanna (the Sudan region) and forest-savanna mosaic to the south."
Egypt is not sub-saharan africa, so that wheel is out.
Sudan/Kush is not sub-saharan africa, so that plough is out.
Axum is not sub-saharan africa so that irrigation is out.
Nubia is not sub-saharan africa so that written language is out.
It’s true that Timbuktu had an early center of learning "During the early 15th century, a number of Islamic institutions were erected. The most famous of these is the Sankore mosque, also known as the University of Sankore" Note, however, that this was in the *early 15th century *and it was an Islamic institution.
It’s also true that the Dogon had iron smelting- but “6th-19th century AD”. Iron smelting likely started either in India or the Levant/Ferttile Cresent, around 1000 years earlier than that.
Standard responses to to “Thoutmosis III was black!” would include “Who?”, “What?”, and “So?” Cleopatra is one of the most famous rulers in Africa’s history, and certainly its most famous female ruler. (Nefertiti has some name recognition, but it’s unclear if she ever wielded power in her own name.) Cleopatra is also considered (popularly, if not in fact) a great beauty AND she stood up to the great European power of the age.
ah, ah, it is a geological term used to denote a western contrived racial group. While it’s clear that you wish the term wasn’t used a synonym for “black Africa” that does not mean that it is not one.
Your assertions do not fit reality. Sure Egypt can be safely said to be not in sub-saharan africa, but Kush/Nubia/Axumall fit into what is modern day Sudan/Eritrea/Ethiopia. I honestly would love to hear the reasonings behind these assertions.
If you choose these above states as “not sub-saharan africa” I would like to know why you then agreed with me that the various Sahelian Kingdoms in west africa to be a part of sub-saharan africa. Kingdoms like: the Ghana Empire, Songhai Empire, or Mali Empire. I need you to explain your logic so that I can follow.
If you find Nubia/Axum/Kush not sub-sahara Africa and 6th century AD too recent then take a west african example (for some reason you seem to easily consider them as part of sub-sahara Africa)
With such resounding success Egypt was not independent again for centuries. And I don’t know if she was quite exactly “standing up” during those dealings, y’know…
When you are dealing with great powers, you can stand up and get fucked, or lie down and get fucked. Usually metaphorically, but it seems that Cleopatra did it literally.
To comment further, at no point did Cleopatra stand up to anybody. She sided with one Roman faction against another, and chose… poorly. And this was after “entertaining” Julius Ceasar himself.
Half-watched the BBC drama-documentary when it was transmitted earlier this evening. What was striking, given the press coverage they’d whipped up in advance, was how their expert phrased the crucial assessment of the skull. Looking at the computer reconstruction of it in the final minutes of the programme, her words were along the lines of “we can see that the skull is long in proportion to its height. That’s unusual in Greece, but there are populations where that’s normal. Like Egyptians. Or sub-Saharan Africa.”
Glossing over the major uncertainties about whether the tomb is that of her half-sister, the fact that the skull has been lost and what can be said from craniometrics in individual cases, one possible explanation seems to have been quickly lost.
But I don’t suppose a Cleopatra was Egyptian! headline would have set many pulses racing.[sup]*[/sup]
[sub]* Yes, I do realise this would actually be an interesting conclusion. But that’s not true of the average journalist, sub-editor or newspaper reader, hence the observation.[/sub]
I never said she was successful, but it’s unlikely you or I could have done better. Rome was on the rise and Egypt on the decline before Cleopatra took the throne. Julius Caesar planned to annex Egypt but did not, allowing it some additional years of at least nominal independence.
This is somewhat self-contradictory. If she stood with one faction, she stood against the other - and the other happened to be the one that was still in Rome.
Her “entertainment” of Caesar is not in dispute. Without it, her reign and her life may well have been shorter.
The BBC documentary was pretty awful. Neil Oliver, the presenter, is not my favourite but the real problem was the lack of a coherent argument (let’s face it there was very little real evidence that the bones were Arsinoe’s and the skull reconstruction was based on the records from 60/70 years ago, the following racial identification was not exactly certain, etc) but the real problem was the ridiculous dramatic reconstructions (incidently, neither of the actresses playing Cleo and Arsinoe were what I’d call “black”. More generic Eastern Meediterranean.) Why do the makers of programmes like this believe an audience can’t follow their story without dressing up a load of modern actors in wigs and togas?
Just to add to the idiocy, the Roman history telling the story of Arsinoe’s death was presented as the author dramatically orating his tale to a Roman banquet. Bad enough, but the Roman author was played by Ian McNeicewho played the Newsreader in HBO’s Rome - complete to the same dramatic flourishes :smack:
Generally bad history and worse television. Returning to the OP: this documentary, and the archeology it was based on, told us next to nothing about whether Cleopatra was “black/white”. Nor did it bring out the truth that black/white or african/european meant next to nothing in the 1st century BC. To the Egyptian population and priests (outside Alexandria) you were nothing if not Egyptian, to the ruling Ptolemies you were a barbarian if not of Greek descent, and to the Roman you were beyond the pale if not a Roman.
Not really. Her supprot of Marc Antony was rather limited, since her resources were pretty limited. She was ingratiating herself with the side she thought would win (and particualrly since Octavian did not like her).
(incidently, neither of the actresses playing Cleo and Arsinoe were what I’d call “black”. More generic Eastern Meediterranean.) Why do the makers of programmes like this believe an audience can’t follow their story without dressing up a load of modern actors in wigs and togas?