Aksum: A Great African Empire

Figure 1: Map of the Aksum Empire (Source: The British Museum)

When one thinks of empire a great number of groups may come to mind, such as the empire of Egypt, Rome, China, South America, or others.  What most likely will not come to mind for many is the great African empire of Aksum, one of Africa’s earliest empires and state level societies.  Today’s blog post will correct this oversight by providing information pertaining to this empire, covering its full and rich cultural history.

Aksum (aka Axum) was an empire that began in the 4^th or 3^rd centuries B.C. and existed until about the 7^th century (A.D.).  It spanned across much of northeastern Africa, covering what is now called the horn of Africa (Figure 1).  The heart of this empire was in the Hatsebo plain (in modern day Ethiopia).  The Aksum state (and later empire) was controlled by a paramount king and potentially lesser kings who maintained the boundaries of the empire.  There were levels of hierarchy within the empire, which included the nobility and upper and lower classes of the citizenry, which was made up of traders, farmers, craftspeople, religious officials, and more.  Each played a crucial role in the society.  Traders were pivotal as Aksum is best known for its trading networks where ivory, gold, salt, and iron were traded to civilizations across northern Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.  It was through these trading networks that Christianity was introduced to the Aksum king, and when he converted in the mid-300s it is believed that his entire state and empire may have, too.  There is evidence, however, that there was a segment of the population who practiced Judaism, which demonstrates a cosmopolitan empire. 

Figure 2: Aksum ruins

Aksum is also known for a variety of other achievements.  One of those is the production of the earliest written African script, Ge’ez.  The Aksumites were also known as prolific builders (Figure 2).  Many of their megalithic sandstone structures still stand today, which is a testament to their craftsmanship and ingenuity as these monuments never used a drop of mortar.  Aksum also was one of the earliest empires to mint their own coins (Figure 3).  It is also known that Aksum maintained large scale agricultural exploits, growing wheat and barley and raising cattle, sheep, and camels, which most likely were used to feed their large populations.

Unfortunately, the Aksum empire fell in the 7^th century.  It is imprecisely known why this occurred, but it may have been any number of factors.  It is known that the Aksumites were at war with neighboring groups, which ended their vast trading networks and may have also introduced disease to the population.  Extended period of drought also affected the populations as they were unable to sustain the food resources necessary to feed their growing populations.  Although the empire did fall it is still hailed both in the past and today as one of the greatest earliest empires of that period, being heralded as one of the top four according to early Alexandrian historians.  Today, it is still not forgotten and remains considered one of the most unique empires of the period.

Figure 3: Askum currency

Works Cited

Department of the Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. “Foundations of Aksumite Civilization and Its Christian Legacy (1st–8th Century).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aksu_1/hd_aksu_1.htm (October 2000)

Sullivan, Kelly. The Kingdom of Axum: Facts and Legends of a First Millennium Powerhouse. 13 April 2019. Electronic. 23 December 2019.

The British Museum, "The kingdom of Aksum," in Smarthistory, September 23, 2016, accessed December 23, 2019, https://smarthistory.org/the-kingdom-of-aksum/.

Nonhuman Primates’ Stone Age Revolution

Figure 1: South American Capuchin monkey using stone to crack open a nut (Credit: Dave Watts)

Humans (aka, Homo sapiens) are considered very unique in several ways.  We are the only species that has developed complex cultures, we are the only species that uses language, and we are generally considered the paramount species.  For all of our uniqueness researchers are beginning to realize that the traits that set us apart are actually not that different from several other animal species.  Today’s blog post will highlight this point by exploring the recent contemporary and archaeological evidence that covers the Stone Age innovations and accomplishments by nonhuman primate species.  This will be explored further by addressing what the term “Stone Age” means, followed by discussions on the contemporary and archaeological evidence that demonstrates how specifically nonhuman primates are meeting these criteria.

First, it is important to understand exactly what a “Stone Age” entails.  From a human perspective it is associated with the first definitive use of stone tools and the various other cultural innovations that go with it.   Stone tools were first definitively used by our hominid ancestors over 2 million years ago, starting with Homo habilis and their Olduwan stone tool traditions.  Subsequent species of hominids that evolved after Homo habilis built on this foundational knowledge and technology to create more complex stone tools, and with these innovations were various other cultural innovations, such as the control and manipulation of fire, the creation of jewelry and art, and purposeful hunting and fishing activities. 

When the term “Stone Age” is discussed in conjunction with nonhuman primates, however, it takes on a different meaning.  It simply refers to the use of stones (aka rocks or lithics) by nonhuman primates.  Typically, the use of stones among these species are to collect and obtain food, specifically as stones have been used to dig out or smash open food stuffs.  At the present time there have been no further cultural developments related to the “Stone Age” innovations observed among nonhuman primates.

Figure 2: Long tailed macaque in Thailand using a rock to open shellfish (Credit: Mark MacEwen)

 

Second, various nonhuman primate species have been observed creatively utilizing their natural resources to meet their intended goals.  Various ape species (e.g. gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and chimpanzees) have been observed using leaves and sticks to fish out ants and termites, build nests, create weapons to kill and eat smaller primate species, and even draw attention to themselves for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.  None of this is new information.  What is new, however, is the use of stones to acquire food (Figures 1 & 2).  Various nonhuman primate species, including but not limited to ape species, have been observed using stones to crack open nuts and shell fish to gain access to the food within the shells.  These species have also been seen using stones to dig out tubers and roots for nourishment.  This is unprecedented behavior, particularly among monkey species such as macaques and capuchins, who while intelligent are not necessarily seen as sophisticated as ape species. 

These are, however, not the only evidence that has shocked the anthropological community.  Beginning in 2007 there have been a series of published findings that have opened up a new avenue of research referred to as primate archaeology, wherein archaeological methods and theory are used to investigate primate material culture evidence of the distant past.  Studies in Western Africa and Northeastern Brazil have demonstrated definitive evidence that both chimpanzees and capuchins utilized stone tools for thousands of years, solely for the purposes of acquiring food resources.  This sets the timeline back for the nonhuman primate “Stone Age” Revolution thousands of years, but it also places the more recent evidence in context.  Nonhuman primates have had the ability to utilize stone tools, although their use has been dependent on need.

What does this mean in the great scheme of things?  Should humans be worried about a literal nonhuman primate take over as illustrated in the series, “Planet of the Apes”?  The simple answer at this time has and remains no.  Part of the reason why nonhuman primates have not been observed utilizing stone tools regularly is that many species are arboreal, meaning they live in trees.  Stone is not readily available in the forest canopies, meaning they just have not had a need to use stones as much as humans have had that need.  Second, the use of stone tools creates noise, which for most nonhuman primates is a noisy beacon that attracts predators, and nonhuman primate species do not want that.  Only when there is a need and little risk do nonhuman primate species utilize stone tools. 

This does not mean that these innovations are not without merit.  They provide researchers opportunities to gain better understandings of the circumstances that may have driven our hominid ancestors to develop stone tools.  As our hominid ancestors no longer exist today and therefore cannot be observed in their natural settings performing their typical tasks nonhuman primates provide a suitable analogy to allow for the study of human behavioral (and in this case, cultural) development.  This is what makes this discovery so special, and as more attention is paid to these areas of research more information about what modern nonhuman primates and premodern humans are and were capable of will come to light, providing us greater insights into what it means to be a primate.

References

Barras, C. (2015, August 18). Chimpanzees and monkeys have entered the Stone Age. Retrieved from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150818-chimps-living-in-the-stone-age

Bower, B. (2019, June 24). Capuchin monkeys’ stone-tool use has evolved over 3,000 years. Retrieved from Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/capuchin-monkey-stone-tool-use-evolution-3000-years

Kaplan, S. (2018, July 6). These tiny monkeys have entered their Stone Age with a bang. Retrieved from Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/07/06/these-tiny-monkeys-have-entered-their-stone-age-with-a-bang/

Mercader, J., Barton, H., Gillespie, J., Harris, J., Kuhn, S., Tyler, R., & Boesch, C. (2007). 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. PNAS, 3043-3048.

Who Says It Best? The Pop vs. Soda Debate

Generic Names for Soft Drinks Distribution Map (Source: Pop Vs. Soda.com)

As an anthropologist I have had the privilege and luck to travel to various places throughout the United States and world.  In these travels I have experienced a great variety of cultures and languages, and one of the most daunting experiences is learning how to speak in a new environment, particularly if and when you already speak the native language.  Language is one of the quickest ways to identify if someone is "not from around here" or an outsider, and I have learned very quickly to be a chameleon of sorts when it comes to language, adopting not only the local accents but the local nomenclature, as well.  This is what inspired today's blog post topic: the pop vs. soda (vs. coke) debate.  This is a hot topic among my students and even between me and my friends.  While this blog post will not settle the debate about which term should reign supreme (despite what the title may suggest) it will cover the reason why such diverse terms for the same types of beverages exist.

But before we get into that it is important to identify what exactly is being discussed.  The terms "pop", "soda", and "coke" are used throughout the United States (and Canada) to refer to carbonated beverages that are popularly consumed throughout both countries.  As noted in the above map there are regional preferences to these terms.  The term "pop" is used among much of the Midwest, Northern United States, and Canadian (not pictured but speaking from personal experience) populations.  The term "soda" is preferred by Northeaster and Western American populations, while "coke" (not to be confused with Coca Cola) refers to all carbonated beverages regardless of flavor or manufacturer (including the dreaded Pepsi).  These regional distinctions help locate individuals origins when speaking within mixed groups, as well as can lead to some confusion among them (particularly in the service industry when people ask for a "Coke" but really wanted a different carbonated beverage, e.g. a Sprite or Pepsi).

The regional terminology also demonstrates the unique histories of the regions of the US to where these terms originate (despite their wide geographical linguistic use).  The term "soda" actually started in the Northeaster United States where the first soda fountain was invented in Connecticut in 1863.  The term "coke" is associated with the Coca-Cola company and the American south because the company began in the region and had a regional stronghold for several generations before the introduction of rival companies.  The term "pop" has problematic origins, with some claiming it is used from the sound carbonated beverages make to others stating that the term comes from ginger pop, the original name of ginger carbonated beverages.

But if these terms originated in very specific areas of the United States why are they said throughout various parts of the country, particularly in high frequency?  That is actually due to migration patterns throughout history.  California and much of the Western United States was populated more recently than the remainder of the country, and based on the linguistic map presented above it appears that the majority of California migrants were from the Northeast, which could also account for the rivalry between the East and West Coast.  Note, these are personal observations, not based on researched evidence, so these claims may be incorrect.  They do, however, demonstrate how language can be used to trace human migration patterns.

So there you have it: the origins of "pop" vs. "soda" vs. "coke".  Again, this post is not meant to settle the debate as to which is best.  It does demonstrate how language can be regionally specific and how language can provide insights into someone's geographic origins, or at least where they spent a lot of time most recently since despite living in the Midwest I still say "pop" after almost a decade of enculturation in Canadian language and culture.  ;)

Bibliography

Gilbert-Lurie, Mikaela. Why Do Some People Say "Soda" and Others Say "Pop?" Let's Get To The Bottom Of This Age-Old Mystery. 3 July 2015. Electronic. 18 December 2019.

Sherman, Elisabeth. Where People Say 'Soda' vs. 'Pop' and Other Regionalisms. 20 July 2017. Electronic. 18 December 2019.

Smith, Ben T. Pop Vs. Soda (Dialect Blog). 23 December 2011. Electronic. 19 December 2019.

Unknown. Soda vs Pop vs. Coke: Who Says What, And Where? 6 December 2017. Electronic. 18 December 2019.