This is a professor-type comment, but I am struck in this essay by something that is a part of your other essays, it's just more notable here, which is that you don't actually do much historiographical discussion in your narration. e.g., you are often focusing on states or periods where there are some substantial questions about how much we know and how we know it--and when I look at your footnotes, you do a really interesting mixture of very old sources, of the major "first generation" of mainstream academic Africanists, and then a smattering of more recent archaeological and linguistic work often. But you don't talk about how you approach that mix of expertise, all of which presents at least a few issues. I really like the confidence and clarity of these essays, the straightforward narration of a knowable history, but I am a bit curious about how you see your approach to assembling the expert knowledge that informs these essays.
mixing old and new sources is more about my ability to access each work, although i do prefer recent research over old research wherever i can get it
although as a non-specialist, older research whose findings get "vindicated" by new research becomes more appealing to me as it shows that the researcher had a firm grasp of his field at an early stage, which is why i'm comfortable citing the work of a few historians like Wilks, Hunwick, Vansina, Pouwels, Torok, etc, no matter when it was written, knowing that its much less likely to be contradicted by new research
This helps alot to compensate for my inability to access some of the new research.
Well, you are doing some great deep digs into the historiography. I suppose I raise the point just because on some of these precolonial polities, most of the scholarship is a bit more tentative or notes where it's being speculative--you can see that some in Gomez' African Dominion or in Ogundiran's The Yoruba: A New History. But I also know that makes that material harder to read, it's a classic problem with academic prose that it is so full of qualifiers--this might be true, one way to see this is X, it is reasonable to suppose, etc.
Thanks for your contribution. As a native of Gonja person and researcher of my Gonja story as the history of Gonja as people claimed. I am sorry but most of your informations here about the history of Gonjas are not acurate and you need to go more deep your research.
Mr. Researcher, thanks for your attempt to narrate the Gonja history. But truth be told, your work is largely unrepresentative of true Gonja history. The Arabic materials, so-called Gonja Chronicles, you have mentioned are only misinterpretations of a Guinea Fulbe jihadist caliphate's annals and those of an ancient Mossi kingdom.
With all due respect, your work is almost entirely misleading, and I wish to suggest that you withdraw it for further research before you can republish it. Go and read the original Arabic versions of the so-called "Gonja Chronicles" and see if it's talking about modern Ghana.
The story you have linked to Gonja medieval expedition is completely alien to Gonja affairs. It's about a warfare between King jighi Jara of Kangaba and his vassal chief of Segu (but never Begho) over gold tribute. Since when has Segu become Begho? Did any malian king have a territory in modern Ghana at time indicated, for which reason he could demand bullion royalties therefrom? Enough of the misinformations and disinformations!
For detailed explanation to why your article is misleading, please, I refer you to my own book titled "Kitab Nuur - Highlights on Distortions in West African History", published in 2020 in which I evaluated the said Arabic texts 'residue by residue'.
This is a professor-type comment, but I am struck in this essay by something that is a part of your other essays, it's just more notable here, which is that you don't actually do much historiographical discussion in your narration. e.g., you are often focusing on states or periods where there are some substantial questions about how much we know and how we know it--and when I look at your footnotes, you do a really interesting mixture of very old sources, of the major "first generation" of mainstream academic Africanists, and then a smattering of more recent archaeological and linguistic work often. But you don't talk about how you approach that mix of expertise, all of which presents at least a few issues. I really like the confidence and clarity of these essays, the straightforward narration of a knowable history, but I am a bit curious about how you see your approach to assembling the expert knowledge that informs these essays.
mixing old and new sources is more about my ability to access each work, although i do prefer recent research over old research wherever i can get it
although as a non-specialist, older research whose findings get "vindicated" by new research becomes more appealing to me as it shows that the researcher had a firm grasp of his field at an early stage, which is why i'm comfortable citing the work of a few historians like Wilks, Hunwick, Vansina, Pouwels, Torok, etc, no matter when it was written, knowing that its much less likely to be contradicted by new research
This helps alot to compensate for my inability to access some of the new research.
Well, you are doing some great deep digs into the historiography. I suppose I raise the point just because on some of these precolonial polities, most of the scholarship is a bit more tentative or notes where it's being speculative--you can see that some in Gomez' African Dominion or in Ogundiran's The Yoruba: A New History. But I also know that makes that material harder to read, it's a classic problem with academic prose that it is so full of qualifiers--this might be true, one way to see this is X, it is reasonable to suppose, etc.
Thank you, really interesting to learn a more about that region of Africa.
grateful
Wow. History class has never never given me an in depth account like this. Brilliant work. Can’t wait to learn more.
thank you.
Thanks for your contribution. As a native of Gonja person and researcher of my Gonja story as the history of Gonja as people claimed. I am sorry but most of your informations here about the history of Gonjas are not acurate and you need to go more deep your research.
We can help you if you want to do so.
Thanks
I also find out a lot errors in it
Hi Rashid, It would be great if you can expand the research work some of your findings to expand the knowledgebase.
Mr. Researcher, thanks for your attempt to narrate the Gonja history. But truth be told, your work is largely unrepresentative of true Gonja history. The Arabic materials, so-called Gonja Chronicles, you have mentioned are only misinterpretations of a Guinea Fulbe jihadist caliphate's annals and those of an ancient Mossi kingdom.
With all due respect, your work is almost entirely misleading, and I wish to suggest that you withdraw it for further research before you can republish it. Go and read the original Arabic versions of the so-called "Gonja Chronicles" and see if it's talking about modern Ghana.
The story you have linked to Gonja medieval expedition is completely alien to Gonja affairs. It's about a warfare between King jighi Jara of Kangaba and his vassal chief of Segu (but never Begho) over gold tribute. Since when has Segu become Begho? Did any malian king have a territory in modern Ghana at time indicated, for which reason he could demand bullion royalties therefrom? Enough of the misinformations and disinformations!
For detailed explanation to why your article is misleading, please, I refer you to my own book titled "Kitab Nuur - Highlights on Distortions in West African History", published in 2020 in which I evaluated the said Arabic texts 'residue by residue'.
Alhassan Kodua,
A Prince of Gonja.
kodua87alhassan@gmail.com
0246004264