Talk:Architecture of Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of January 29, 2006.
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.


To-do list for Architecture of Africa: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Do research and add references.
  • Greatly expand on the scope of the current article, which only touches on a handful of countries, most very briefly.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Ideas for inclusion:

  • Different styles throughout the continent
  • History of architecture, including the different influences

-- Joolz 00:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a picture of the Pyramids of Giza. Revolución 19:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I added a picture of the Fasil Ghebbi castle in Ethiopia. Revolución 21:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] N Africa vs. Sub-Saharan Africa

Should the article be split between these two regions? Youngamerican 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I propose a split. YousefSalah 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


For what reason?--Ezeu 09:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Differing culture regions, architecture styles, etc. Just a thought. Youngamerican 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Within an article titled “Architecture of Africa”, there is no justifiable reason or need to separate “North” Africa from “Sub-Saharan” Africa. This is primarily due to the fact that architecture created within the continent of Africa, no matter how different the structures and cultures may appear, is "African Architecture". Why would someone looking to make an honest and non-biased assessment of African architecture need to differentiate the work created from the north of the continent from the work created below the Sahara desert? Especially considering the fact that there are known ancient trading routes throughout the region in addition to the fact that the Sahara has not always been the vast desert that it is today. Wab 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


this is what was posted a long time ago which explains but was mysteriously removed: "It should be split into North Africa and Sub-saharan Africa, mainly because the two regions have nothing in common, and their architetcture has nothing in common. This article enmeshes the two in an attempt to appropriate North African culture and attribute it to"Sub-saharan Africa" which is nonsensical. It would be like attributing Indian architecture to Russia because the two are in "Asia". further, there is no such thing as "African" architecture, as North African culture has nothing to do with Sub-saharan African culture." YousefSalah 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No it should not be split into "sub-Saharan" and North, since the Sahara desert is a desert and not a literal geographic divider. There are deserts on every continent almost. It is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and is pov-pushing. The Sahara, in antiquity, didn't even exist and is noted as finalizing its desertification by 2500 BC. The Nile Valley was never a barrier either and actually did connect North Africa with so-called "sub-Sahara". Please see: Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction , Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-47.. What separates these two regions today is mainly Arab culture and Islam, which is fairly recent. You have no business in trying to arbitrary separate a techtonically connected continent and there is no break. It is hypocritical to suggest that there is no "African Architecture", yet there somehow is "sub-Saharan" and "North African" architecture, since both so-called regions are extremely diverse and were different than the geo-political states they encompass today. What is "sub-Saharan culture"? Bantu alone has over 400 different ethnic groups, many of who speak different languages. The Afro-asiatic language group is spoken in North, Central, and East Africa. Ancient Egypt had more in common with Nubia than any other external civilization and in turn, Nubia had more in common with regions further south. Your false dichotomy is what's nonsensical and is probably racially motivated, and unjustifiably so since there was no "racial" dichotomy in antiquity either, by any indication. You contradict your self immensely YousefSalah and have no sources to help your case...Taharqa 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

this is your opinion, which happens to be unsourced. What separates the world's second largest continent is everything: Race, Culture, History, civilization, architecture, literature, economy, politics etc. It sounds to me like you are trying to push your POV-militantt Black panther beliefs on wikipedia. The Afro asiatic languages are also spoken in Asia. If you study linguistics, however, you will learn that this means very little.Ancient Egypt did not have more in common with Nubia than any other civilization, this is wishful thinking. It is also not right for you to play the race card in your attempt to impose your opinions, lies and wishful, militant thinking on wikipedia users. YousefSalah 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What you fell to realize is that your opinion doesn't over weigh anyone else's and unlike you I actually did provide a source. Read it, check your tone, and get back at me.Taharqa 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

what source? one of your loony afrocentric sources? maybe the one about how black people could fly and that is how they built the Pyramids? with their special aviation powers? No, you did not provide a source for my tags, nor would I accept it, as I have enough sources- the WORLD, HISTORY AND REALITY. YousefSalah 07:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. The sources available treat the architecture of Africa as a whole, and then discuss regional traditions. This is the only valid basis for us to follow. This, of course, allows an additional article on North African architecture (or any similar title covering the same material). But there is no serious argument for not including that topic area in this article. Warofdreams talk 14:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


^Thank you WarofdreamsTaharqa 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Wrong. North Africa is a region in the way the Middle East or Arab Gulf is a region. You are unaware of this because you are, like warofdreams, an American, and Americans are the last to lecture others about the world and its history. The geopolitical designations are the original newer conceptions that were designed for the sole purpose of statistical data, and not to be applied in matters of culture, identity, architecture etc. This is not original research, but rather, the norm. Your afrocentrist take is original and furthermore, not taken seriously by scholars. YousefSalah 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your obvious ignorance of geography, ranting is usually frowned upon on wikipedia.. Your original research and political hang-ups are unwelcome here..Taharqa 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The division North Africa vs Sub-Saharan Africa cannot be applied to ancient Egypt. Geographically and culturally, Egypt is African, Nilotic. That is why many books on Egypt refer also to Nubia. Jean-François Champollion, Lettres écrites d'Egypte et de Nubie, 1833, Maurizio Damiano-Appia, Egitto e Nubia, 1995. The Egyptians orientated themselves following the Nile river, not the desert. Plutarch is clear about this issue. The Nile flows from south to north, the Egyptians place themselves in the southern world (Iside e Osiride, §§32-33). For the same reason of the orientation south-north, the Egyptians compared Egypt to the heart in the human body. The south is left and the north is right. The heart is on the left side of the human body. Asians who now people North Africa are culturally stranger to ancient Egypt. Apart from what they borrowed to indigenous Africans, everything oppose them to ancient Egyptians. There is a unity in African Architecture of ancient time, from Egypt to Zimbabwe, from Egypt to West Africa. Considerations made by Taharqa are fully justified.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] houses

here are some houses that are from Africa and they are big and beaulitful and here are some houses

[edit] What I removed

I removed a couple of unusual claims which attributed Egyptian architecture to southwest asia (says who? that is contrary to mainstream Egyptology and above all, ridiculous) and a comment which emphatically attributes Swahili architecture to Arabs when that has been disputed over and over again. It was simply brainless original research and racist, in trying to attribute anything worthwhile on the african continent to outside influences, and without evidence or citations.. There are actually sources cited which disputes some of those claims directly in this very article.Taharqa 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


If anyone checks history of article, you appear to be controlling this article as though you owned it. Please desist from playing the race card online in order for you to push your POV militant wishful thinking and accept history and reality. Spurious sources from militant sources will not suffice in the real world! please reason and try to cooperate. YousefSalah 06:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to engage you in civil discourse until you check your tone. You're obviously emotional and are being irrational.Taharqa 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


You do not know the meaning of civilty. YousefSalah 09:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I propose that this article be spilt into two categories: The Architecture of North Africa and The Architecture of Sub-saharan Africa. Enmeshing the architectures of these two different regions makes no sense, as the two styles developed in isolation and have no bearing upon each other. It is misleading to speak of an architecture of "Africa." It is akin to grouping Russian architecture with Vietnamese architecture under the label "Asian architecture." I propose a split. YousefSalah 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. The sources available treat the architecture of Africa as a whole, and then discuss regional traditions. This is the only valid basis for us to follow. This, of course, allows an additional article on North African architecture (or any similar title covering the same material). But there is no serious argument for not including that topic area in this article." Warofdreams talk 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From the looks of it on your talkpage, I can see how you might object to this, as you have been awarded numerous "africa awards." Maybe you are worried that without North African architecture, there wouldn't be much to work with? But that is something that must be faced and improved, and the solution is not in stealing another region's history, culture and architecture. YousefSalah 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Regional? North Africa and Sub-saharan africa are not just regions of a continent but continents apart. Historically, they have been written about and thought of as such. The term Africa did not apply to Black African originally. As for the architecture, it is almost absurd to treat this as one subject. In fact, it amounts to architectural and cultural theft. YousefSalah 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Original research? In fact, no authoritative source offwiki speaks of the architecture of "Africa." The originality arises from this new grouping. I can find you plenty of sources. This opinion has been voiced by someone long ago, so far the consensus is for the split. YousefSalah 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In a discussion such as this, it is important to assume good faith. Please do so. We need to look at the sources which are available. Rhetoric such as "it amounts to architectural and cultural theft" is neither here nor there; clearly, "North Africa and Sub-saharan africa are not just regions of a continent but continents apart" is factually incorrect. For sources discussing the architecture of Africa under a single heading, I have Britannica and Banister Fletcher for a start. This is the most common and most logical way to group the variety of architectural traditions found in Africa in a single article. As I've said before, a additional article with more detail on North African architecture would make perfect sense. There is no consensus for the split. You have argued for it, three editors (of which I am one) have opposed such a split; the editor you mention from "long ago" asked whether a split would make sense, without expressing an opinion either way. So, please supply some of these sources to provide some evidence for your contentions. Warofdreams talk 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Britannica does not enmesh the two. Here is "Architecture of Africa" from Britannica- "the architecture of native Africa, particularly of sub-Saharan Africa. In areas where Islam and Christianity linked Africa to the rest of the world in precolonial times, architecture predominates among the visual arts." This would be the correct way to discuss African, that is, sub-saharan african architecture. North African architecture, with its Roman, Andalusian, MEditerranean, Arab etc aspects, simply does not fit. PErhaps the confusion arises from the fact that Egypt is often though to represent the whole of North Africa. This is not the case in the southern Mediterranean. YousefSalah 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. He pointed out his dismay, in the face of such an absurd article. The only editors who have sided with you are the usual Afrocentrist editors, always ready to spew out afrocentrist myths that nobody takes seriously apparently off wikipedia. Now, I do not mean to be rude, but I dont expect an American from the midwest to lecture me about the Mediterranean basin, its identity and its architecture. You would do well to consult sources offline. Fyi, North Africa has always been distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa in the terms above stated. In fact, historians have often deemed the Saharan a divide like that of an ocean or one even surpassing an ocean or a sea. Secondly, North Africans have always distinguished themselves, including their architecture from Sub-saharan Africa. As for Taharaqa, I'm sorry to say, I am surprised his "opinion" still matters. No wonder wikipedia is no longer taken seriously by anyone but the remaining contributors here. YousefSalah 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As Warofdreams has pointed out to you, your original research in non-applicable. Such themes are generally noted in the mainstream, as is indicated by simply typing "African architecture" into google books or amazon.com search bar..
  • Your personal attacks express your underlying motivation in my opinion, by making such snide comments as this:

Maybe you are worried that without North African architecture, there wouldn't be much to work with?

Which is a curious statement seeing as how your supposed "north africa" takes up the least amount of space in the article..

^^Firstly, "North Africa" isn't a region; it is a modern geo-political term, references parts of africa above the Sahara that is currently dominated by Islam. By the time the pyramids were built for example, the Sahara hadn't fully completed desertification, not to mention that the Nile valley had always connected Northeast Africa with tropical Africa..

See: Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction, Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-47

The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations, The American Society Of Human Genetics (2004)

  • Your contempt towards "Black Africans" has nothing at all to do with what we're discussing here. Similar articles, like History of Africa, groups by actual territory (Ancient Egypt, East Africa, West Africa, South Africa, Ethiopia, Nubia, etc.). In addition, by all indication of the data, including what I've presented above, "blacks" have been present and indigenous to North Africa since the mesolithic until present.[1]

So all of your rhetorical gymnastics and political fringe views does nothing by way of substantiating your position, especially one that lacks consensus..Taharqa 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


You are wrong. Your problem is your inability to embrace your negritude and whatever remnants of its "culture" exist. clearly, you yourself cannot find sufficient comfort in your own identity and have embarked on this crazy,mythological mission to rob other cultures-North African, Greek, Roman, European. YousefSalah 18:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The article should be split into the proposed categories. I added a tag to alert about the discussion. 203.109.33.35 19:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Laughable.. Quick reality check..

  • Embracing the cultures and civilizations of africa is not a problem with me.[2].. Your infantile education and lack of basic comprehension is what seems to be the problem.
  • The only "crazy, mythological" implications I'm aware of is this pseudo-historical/geographical context in which you try and fit in the same frame work as Europe. An indication of what Eurocentrism has reduced you to.
  • You've still provided no citations to support your bogus political contentions, yet I have, so therefore your incoherent rants can be easily disregarded until you decide to start making sense..Taharqa 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone needs to avoid personal attacks.
Yousef: Rhetoric denigrating the culture of most of Africa is not at all helpful. You keep restating your position. We are well aware what your position is. You now need to come up with some supporting evidence; otherwise, this discussion will go nowhere. Warofdreams talk 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual errors and more

In all the raving, it is astonishing how weak this page actually is. I corrected at least one factual error about Lalibela. There are more mistakes that I will work on in the coming weeks. The page also reads quite incoherently, as an arbitrary assemblage of facts. The word 'style' is used freely without any indication of what generates a style. And one more thing: The discussion of the pyramids notes that if limited in practical scope and originating from a purely funerary context. That is a strange thing to say. Is not most religious architecture (even today) 'limited in practical scope.' And does not the 'funerary context' have of course a social-cultural purpose? Brosi 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] precolonial drawing question

Sorry to have changed the caption if it is really a precolonial drawing. Do you have a citation or source? I am still curious what a "pre-colonial drawing" means. That must mean - I presume before 1852, or before 1897?? You see the problem. So is there an actual date for the drawing. Is there an author for the drawing? The style of the drawing does not look nineteenth century, but very typically 1950s. Any way. I think to avoid the problem where fantasy becomes fact, I would prefer more in the fact departmentBrosi 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

It's actually a 1891 sketch of the view of Benin City in its contemporary state, just preceding British conquest. Please see: H. Ling Roth, Great Benin, Barnes and Noble reprint. 1968., for reference.Taharqa 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I bought the book and made the proper correction. I hope that is OK. It is technically not pre-colonial since it was made just after the conquest of Benin, and by an English officer who was, in fact, part of the conquest. A 'pre-colonial' might imply that it was not made by th English or something to that effect. I also think the date is important since pre-colonial could mean anything from a temporal perspective.Brosi 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divide Into North African Architecture and Sub-saharan Architecture

The two architectures are as distinct as Russian architecture and Sri Lanakn architecture despite both countries sometimes falling under the same category- Asian, although many disagree with the cluster mentality of such labels. Grouping Southern Mediterranean architecture with Sub-saharan architecture is by all means absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.1.21.33 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Or keep them both in the same article to highlight the uniqueness that is the diversity of African architecture. How about that. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 04:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your suggestion. --Ezeu (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. The first poster cannot justify putting North African and Sub Saharan architecture together, but he or she can justify lumping all Sub Saharan architecture together (or all North African architecture together). If you are going to separate northern and sub saharan architecture because they are different style-wise, then you should separate Sahelian and east african architecture because they are just as different. Scott Free (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Each African Region Deserves Special Attention

I have broken down African architecture in the individual regions. Each region deserves special attention. Their is no such thing as sub-saharan architecture. Each sub-saharan region has its own architecture. I have replace Ethiopia/Eritrea with the term Axum. There is nothing on Berber architecture. Omniposcent (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nubia & Axum

I have removed excess historical data under Nubia to reflect architecture. Axum section needs to be shortened. A separate article needs to be dedicated to the included info on Axum. Omniposcent (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shorten early Aksum

I have shorten early Aksum just a little. The entire information is under Aksumite Architecture. Omniposcent (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have placed Aksum Gondarine under modern architecture.Omniposcent (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scope

Nothing in this article establishes that "Architecture of Africa" is a meaningful topic any more than Architecture of Eurasia or Architecture of the Americas. There is simply no relation between the Architecture of South Africa and the Architecture of Egypt. Hence the split tempate. The individual topics will be much more profitably addressed in dedicated article. dab (𒁳) 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The study of the geographical area of Africa has been as a whole. There is the history of Africa, the culture of Africa, African Phillosophy, Africa etc. etc. The process then would be to divide her into the different regions, North Africa, East Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa. Sir there are cultural themes that you find throughout Africa and unique to Africa. If you had read all the article and its links you would have known this. The use of Fractal mathematics. It is a shared technology. It is shared but implemented differently in different regions. There is a reason why we can call Ancient Egypt an African culture. The notion of Eurasia is a fairly new concept, the notion of viewing Europe and Asia as one in the strict geographic sense. It will be meaningless because most people will treat Europe separately from Asian. If one studies Europe one separates her into the different regions and same with Asia. As far as the Americas go, it is divided into North and South America, where the caribbean and central America are lump together with South America. Omniposcent (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)