Well keep in mind that there are written histories in the various kingdoms,
using the Arabic script. This is nothing unusual. All the right wing idiots
you see online talking bout "Africa failed to develop writing" are not only
wrong, but are too dumb to realize that Europe itself "failed" to develop
indigenous writing, and Europe itself had to import "outside" scripts via
the people of the Middle East. Therefore the question arises: So what if some
areas of Africa used Arabic script? Hell Europe itself is no better and had to
import outside script and a bunch of other things.
Heck even the main "European" religion these days- Christianity- did not originate
in Europe. It too was imported from "outsiders" of the sub-tropical "Middle East."
Furthermore, Africans did pioneer writing earlier than Mesopotamia or Europe- as credible
scholars show in ancient Kemet in the Nile Valley. On top of that, it was in Africa
that writing first advanced to alphabetic scripts as Egyptian scripts were adapted to
Semitic language by Semitic speaking Egyptian scribes and Semitic speakers in Egypt.
Africa thus shares part of the credit for the development of alphabets- the same
alphabets used today by Europeans. So Europe itself had to import "outside" alphabets
originally derived from Africa.
However any and every time there are any references to the history of Africa (including the previously mentioned states) it seems to always reference North African, Arabic, or European sources.This is not strictly accurate. The manuscripts of Timbuktu themselves are not
from North Africa, Europe or Arabia. They are from Timbuktu, produced in
Timbuktu, by the local people. So the "history" recorded is local African
history. And if they used Arabic script so what? European history is itself
recorded using imported "outside" script deriving ultimately from Africa.
The right wing idiots you see online are using imported script originally
developed in Africa.
So you have local written history already done by the local African peoples in place.
Now oftentimes local histories are not preserved or accessible over centuries. Europeans get
exposure to it by records kept by outsiders like Arabs etc. This again is nothing
unusual. For example we have very few written records of the Nordic peoples. They "failed"
to develop detailed indigenous writing systems prior to the death of Christ. Some of
the first records we have of said Nordics are from "outside" sources, including
Arab sources. They had to wait for "outsiders" to bring them alphabets like the rest of Europe.
Again, today's alphabets used in Europe derive in part originally from the work of the Africans
of Kemet. And what we know today about numerous European areas including those inhabited by would be
Nordic "role models" we only know because of "outside" sources, before writing was finally adopted locally.
Were the S.S. nations simply not using their script for recording history? Was it used specifically for math, science, and religion? Timbuktu has over 700,000 manuscripts dating from the 1200s yet all references I see about the empire come from Egypt, Morocco, and griots. It will take much more excavation in the region to recover lost material- a task made
much more difficult by Al Queda group terrorist camps and operations in the area killing locals.
You mention the griots- and they kept extensive histories transmitted orally for generations.
This is part of the historical record, supplemented by Arabic script writings when those
came into the picture. There were also precursors to Timbuktu- such as Jenne-Jeno (maybe
someone has data on that).
Again, keep in mind, that Europe itself had to import "outside" script systems to use
for math, science and religion. In SS Africa, Africans using Arabic script did all that
when they adopted the Arabic script, which in turn, ultimately derives from scripts
developed in Africa as Yale scholars like Darnell 2005 show. And writings in Arabic in
Africa go back long before 1200 AD.
As far as indigenous scripts like Nsibidi, their use was concentrated in very specialized
functions and personnel such as priests, secret societies or special castes like blacksmiths.
This is nothing "unusual". In Egypt and elsewhere it was specialized personnel that first monopolized
writing. The mass of people had to wait a long time. Eventually though writing began to filter down to
lower levels. Again nothing unusual.
Writing came into wider use when there was a need for it- this means expanded trade and
administration. Those areas blessed with easy trade routes and resources such as the
broad transmission belt of the Mediterranean saw quicker, more intensive use of writing
than more isolated areas. Thus in Europe countries near the Medit coast used writing more
than in those countries away from the belts of mass trade and admin. Same in Africa. Those areas
near the transport and communication belts- like the Saharan caravan trade belt, saw intense
use of writing compared to isolated forest or savannah zones. Hence Timbuktu or other similar
kingdoms on the caravan routes would naturally see more use of writing. The importance of these
belts for the development of civilizations debunk the childish claims of simplistic "HBD" types.
See the works of CONSERVATIVE scholars like Sowell 2015, 1993 for data on such debunking these
simplistic claims.
As for Nsibidi it developed according to the pattern above. As isolated areas came into more
contact with one another, and transacted across a wider exchange zone, and was adapted to practical
applications, Nsibidi, which was in place long before Arabs showed up, likewise expanded and adapted,
being used to record things ranging from court cases, to romantic messages.
Why not refer to the 700,000 scripts in Mali?But the empire of Mali produced its own writing using Arabic script. And just the practical
administration of empires in West Africa, like Mansa Musa's great caravan to the North
would have needed written records. Keeping track of a huge caravan with hundreds of tons of
gold, and hundreds if not thousands of animals and men would need a written accounting
system. The Arabic language would have been used for such. The fact that these writings
did not survive is nothing "unusual." How many written records survive of the cargo
loadouts carried in Viking ships as they raided England and Ireland, or as they carried
settlers to Greenland?
The Swahili coast were very advanced with stone buildings, sewage systems, sail ships and used Arabic writing systems. Where are all of their books? Were they not used for recording history? This is somewhat contradictory. You ask where is the recorded history, but then acknowledge that
the peoples of the Swahili coast used Arabic writing. Recheck your facts. If they used Arabic
writing they produced some record of some sort. In fact there is an extensive body of
Swahili literature and history, produced in Arabic. It is not "missing" or "lost"..
The Gedi Ruins are lost to history due to lack of written records. Why? Again contradictory. The Gedi ruins are not "lost" to history. Their presence was
well known in that part of the Swahili coast. The people there had trade links touching
on India, China and even Spain. Their houses had bathrooms with drains and overhead gutters
and overhead basins to flush toilets. Streets were well laid out with drainage gutters.
They had a mosque for worship. Sure surviving books are not found but this is nothing special.
It is almost certain that the people there used writing. Just to operate their Islamic religion
properly they would have been using some writing. Lack of written records in a local area is nothing
unusual. Most of Nordic Europe, until the era after Christ lacked written records as well.
You may need to recheck your facts. The people of Gedi DID leave behind written records.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_of_Gedi^As you can see, they are not "lost" to history..