1. If you had read the wikipedia article carefully , you would see that the Timbuktu manuscripts are written, not only in Arabic, but also in West African languages like Songhay and Tamasheq.
As for story buildings, have you heard of the Lalibela Churches? [1] Granted they are hewn out of rock, but this is a quote form the linked article:
> The churches were not constructed in a traditional way but rather were hewn from the living rock of monolithic blocks. These blocks were further chiselled out, forming doors, windows, columns, various floors, roofs etc. This gigantic work was further completed with an extensive system of drainage ditches, trenches and ceremonial passages, some with openings to hermit caves and catacombs.
Unless you don't consider Ethiopia to be a sub-saharan country (which to me is even an absurd distinction)
I agree that making a distinction like "Sub-Saharan" is often unhelpful (like it would be to divide European history entirely by the Alps, say). I think some of this may be quibbling over terms, but my impression is that the Timbuktu manuscripts are all written with Arabic orthography, but in several languages (much like we're happily using the Roman alphabet here!) There are clearly multiple other indigenous scripts native to Africa[1]. Axum and Lalibela are remarkable architecturally, and Timbuktu itself certainly has multi-storied buildings[2].
> sub-saharan country (which to me is even an absurd distinction)
Why? Sahara was for bigger natural barrier than Mediterranean Sea, so for populations/civilizations it makes more sense than continental distinction (Africa/Asia/Europe). It is true that Ethiopia is kind of exception here due to Nile and Red Sea.
Songhay is from the 15th century and was developed after contact with other civilizations.
Tamasheq is not sub-Saharan as it was developed in North Africa.
I commented about Ge’ez and how it’s fairly modern (1k years old). So I agree that it’s sub-Saharan, but just not that old and unlikely to be used in the area that is presently Zimbabwe.
There may be other written languages in sub-Saharan Africa that we don’t know about that were used in ancient times where we would be impressed with these engineering structures.
Your first link describes the Malian documents that were written in Arabic and a language developed in the 15th century.
I think GP meant that written languages weren’t developed at times similar to other ancient civilizations (ie, Sumerian was 4K years ago).
Your second link describes an Ethiopian written language that came about in the 10th-14th century.
So I think the point is that written languages developed (or at least there’s not evidence of) much later in civilizations like where Great Zimbabwe was created.
This is different than other parts of the world. And if the Great Zimbabwe had been made in Siam or Persia or Japan or England, the cultures there had written languages at that time.
So I think the conflict is in the interpretation of time periods. I think GP’s point is valid as when I think of ancient civilizations having languages (or even the civilization that built this cool structure) I don’t think they had written languages.
Although there are many great civilizations that didn’t have written languages (eg, Inca had their knot system) and built lasting structures. So I don’t think the presence of written language is some sort of agenda.
