> Yes, the talking drums are attested in Africa from the 18th century
This highlights another important bias when viewing African history through the lens of Western culture. Talking drums are likely much much older, but oral history gets ignored, and the "official" history is really just the first time a European wrote it down.
This has the added complication that oral historians were/are a political institution in many parts of the continent (unlike, say, reproducers of folklore). So "official" history very clearly predates written history we have today—and certainly in European languages—but it's still the product of conscious maintenance of image. That said, written records (say, inscriptions on a victory stele) have this issue too.
It's also worth noting that there is strong indication that pre-colonial states in subsaharan africa well outside the horn of africa did keep written language for the purposes of managing bureaucracies. Hell, arabic was adopted in east africa many centuries before europeans ever set foot there. The technology was certainly not unknown. However, if indeed this was the case, it clearly did not spread far beyond the needs of centralized bureaucracy, nor was it likely used for what we would now call private commerce, and we have no surviving records showing the scripts.
The nice thing about written records is that the victory stela necessarily tells you the same story that it told the literate subset of Ramesses's subjects 3200 years ago. Oral history can be extremely well preserved, but it can also be tailored to the listener. And it can be hard to date reliably, though there are exceptions. For example, people in many places in the world have oral traditions of having lived there since the world began or for specific numbers of years that are much greater than the archaeological evidence supports.
> It's also worth noting that there is strong indication that pre-colonial states in subsaharan africa well outside the horn of africa did keep written language for the purposes of managing bureaucracies. (...) The technology was certainly not unknown. However, if indeed this was the case, it clearly did not spread far beyond the needs of centralized bureaucracy. However, if indeed this was the case, it clearly did not spread far beyond the needs of centralized bureaucracy, nor was it likely used for what we would now call private commerce, and we have no surviving records showing the scripts.
This is not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts explains:
> Timbuktu Manuscripts, or Tombouctou Manuscripts, is a blanket term for the large number of historically significant manuscripts that have been preserved for centuries in private households in Timbuktu, a city in northern Mali. The collections include manuscripts about art, medicine, philosophy, and science, as well as copies of the Quran.[6] Timbuktu manuscripts are the most well known set of West African manuscripts. (...) Some 350,000 manuscripts were transported to safety, and 300,000 of them were still in Bamako in 2022.
> The dates of the manuscripts range between the late 13th and the early 20th centuries (i.e., from the Islamisation of the Mali Empire until the decline of traditional education in French Sudan).[11] Their subject matter ranges from scholarly works to short letters. (...)
> Scribes in Timbuktu translated imported works of numerous well-known individuals (such as Plato, Hippocrates, and Avicenna) as well as reproducing a "twenty-eight volume Arabic language dictionary called The Mukham, written by an Andalusian scholar in the mid-eleventh century."[15]: 25 Original books were also written by local authors, covering subjects such as history, religion, law, philosophy and poetry. (...)
> Some manuscripts contain instructions on nutrition and therapeutic properties of desert plants, whilst others debate matters such as "polygamy, moneylending, and slavery."[15]: 27 The manuscripts include "catalogues of spells and incantations; astrology; fortune-telling; black magic; necromancy, or communication with the dead by summoning their spirits to discover hidden knowledge; geomancy, or divining markings on the ground made from tossed rocks, dirt, or sand; hydromancy, reading the future from the ripples made from a stone cast into a pool of water; and other occult subjects..."[15]: 27 A volume titled Advising Men on Sexual Engagement with Their Women acted as a guide on aphrodasiacs and infertility remedies, as well as offering advice on "winning back" their wives.
This is far beyond the needs of centralized bureaucracy, and substantial numbers of records do survive despite the best efforts of Boko Haram.
Ah yea, sorry, I mean in addition to what we already know for sure—Timbuktu is emphatically not what I was referring to (although—I had forgotten about Timbuktu libraries, and it makes my point better than I did, so I appreciate your bringing it up!). I'm referring to oral evidence of writing in Great Zimbabwe (among other places I'm sure). If they had developed script, we unfortunately lack evidence of it.
My point more broadly is that prevalence of an oral tradition doesn't imply the lack of capacity to develop a written one. As Timbuktu is perfect evidence of—their libraries coexisted (and still do today) with griots, and the two repositories of knowledge seem to serve distinct functions in society.
Yea, behold! Thou knowest many things; surely thou wilt not do wickedly, nor will thy scholarship lead thee astray.
I have many history books. There's no such thing as an official history. Historians write about what interests them, through the lens of their own opinions and experiences.
I interpret calibas to mean that oral history is not generally considered to really be history ("official" history), while written books sometimes are. I believe that this is correct, and that there are excellent reasons for it, related to verifiability of provenance and mutability. I do not think that calibas was referring to some kind of official imprimatur.
> oral history is not generally considered to really be history
Probably because it is not considered to be reliable. For example, "hearsay" is inadmissible as evidence in court.
I believe that hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in court even when it's written.
Yeah. Hearsay is an out of court statement provided to show the proof a matter. It has little to do with oral vs non oral. There are also exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions and so on.
Contemporaneous notes are used in courts a lot though, aren't they?
Yes, so is oral testimony. That doesn’t make them hearsay.
Not sure why this was downvoted. Written notes can be hearsay. Contrary to the GPs opinion, the medium of transmission is not what distinguishes a statement as hearsay.