Studies of firearms in Africa undertaken at the University of London, 1967–1970, tentatively suggest that their initial impact was less than had been expected, and that their success in war rapidly declined thereafter. Local manufacture of firearms was very limited, perhaps through lack of necessity, though gunpowder was widely produced. Identifying types of firearms is a problem, though general conclusions may be drawn from contemporary references to certain types of weapons.

Effective use of firearms by Africans in war often depended on muskets being used primarily for hunting and crop protection. Availability of firearms may well have made agriculture possible in areas otherwise overrun with game. For these purposes, military arms would be less suitable than the African muskets cheaply manufactured at Birmingham, all parts being handmade and thus capable of being hand-repaired in the field. Twenty million are said to have been shipped from Birmingham, and another three million from Liège; millions of surplus military weapons must also have found their way to Africa.

Yet the subject can be properly studied only in Africa, where old firearms may still be found, often with their owners still available to describe their use.

According to Egharevba, firearms arrived in the Benin Kingdom in the latter part of the fifteenth century, and they were first employed in Benin campaigns during the reign of Oba Esigie. Another writer states that ‘the Ekiti had encountered firearms as early as the sixteenth century, when Benin soldiers, armed with guns, supported the Ikerre in a war against the Ado’. The view that Benin military prowess in the sixteenth century derived from a monopoly in the use of firearms is current in several publications; however, the role of guns in sixteenth century Benin military history has been overestimated, for although some Portuguese arquebusiers accompanied Benin armies on expeditions and assisted the Benin rulers in their military affairs, the Benin troops did not possess the new weapons.

The earliest mention of firearms in the central Sudan appears to be from the time of Idris Alooma, ruler of Bornu in the latter part of the sixteenth century. Ibn Fartuwa says of Alooma:

Among the benefits which God (Most High) of His bounty, beneficence, generosity, and constancy conferred upon the Sultan was the acquisition of Turkish musketeers and numerous household slaves who became skilled in firing muskets.

Military organization and technology have been important factors in the history of Upper Volta. The innovation of the horse in the fifteenth century as an instrument of war played an important part in the establishment of the Mossi states, formed as they were by conquering cavalry from Mamprusi. In the late nineteenth century, the new innovation of firearms threatened to contribute to equally significant political change in the region.

The Qāḍli ‘Iyāḍ in his biography of ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn confirms many details in al-Bakri's record of the rise of the Almoravids. His account differs in a few important respects, and furnishes new information which is valuable in reassessing the life of ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn. Since no insular ribāṭ is mentioned, its historicity is increasingly suspect, and in the light of Maghribī cosmological ideas it is better regarded as a myth, and not as a historical fact. This text is the earliest surviving one to mention the Dār al-Murābiṭīn of Wajjāj b. Zalwī al-Lamṭī.

The Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ states that Jawhar, a character who appears to have been confused with Yaḥyā b. Ibrāhīm al-Gudālī, the Ṣānhaja chief who reputedly brought ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn to the Sahara, is none other than al-Jawhar b. Sakkum, the Gudāla jurist who was later executed by ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn. The cause of the execution appears to have been a combination of religious differences and a struggle for power, probably after the death of Yaḥyā b. Ibrāhīm al-Gudālī. This event may prove to have been a turning point in the Almoravid movement, the main reason for the dominance of the Lamtūna and the eventual withdrawal of the Gudāla from the Almoravid cause, possibly for their militant opposition to it. The confusion in the accounts over the early phase of the stay of ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn among the Ṣanhāja casts grave doubts as to how much reliance can be placed on them as historical evidence. The myth may be a good deal more than the ‘island story’.

It has been observed for a long time that the states of the Eastern Niger Delta responded in recognizable ways to the introduction of European overseas trade in slaves and palm-oil from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century. It is suggested here that by the time of European advent these states were already in the process of profound changes in response to other internal situations.

First, migration from the fresh water Central Delta to the salt-water Eastern Delta (possibly before A.D. 1000) dictated changes. A change from a farming to a fishing economy led to changes in the social and political system.

Second, the inability of the fishing economy to satisfy all the basic needs of these communities led to the growth of long distance trade to the hinterland and to other parts of the Niger Delta. This trade set in motion other structural changes which were accelerated by the European overseas trade.

Thus were the institutions of the farming village, based largely on age and the simple lineage, developed into the kingship (before about 1400) and House system (before about 1600) of the states of the Eastern Niger Delta, described variously as city-states and trading states.

There has been some controversy as to the origins of the Asafo, the patrilineal military bands of the coastal Akan, and especially of the Fante, in Ghana. One view holds that the asafo system is indigenous to Fante society, the other that its development is in some way connected with the presence of Europeans on the coast from the end of the fifteenth century onwards. After an examination of the nature of the asafo system and of its patrilinealism, historical evidence relating to the asafo, the manceroes (young men), and town wards in Fante society is set out in some detail. It is concluded that the asafo system is probably indigenous in its origins, but that its development, particularly on the coast and among the Fante especially, has been much influenced by situations resulting from contact with Europeans.

In December 1896, barely a year after annexation by the Cape Colony, rebellion erupted in the former Crown Colony of British Bechuanaland. Joining forces in the Langeberg Mountains, Tlhaping and Tlharo resisted a large government force for nearly eight months. This paper examines the origins of the rebellion. Its first section provides a brief sketch of the rebellion. Then, much greater detail, the long-standing grievances of the Tlhaping and Tlharo are discussed. These seem to have arisen mainly out of competiton for land and the concomitants of white administration. While for the people the latter meant taxes, police and new laws, for the chiefs, the imposition of a new legal system together with the arrival of Christianity, meant a diminution of authority.

In the third section, the white man's own mounting frustration and the activities of one farmer in particular are examined. The high price of land had precluded many former filibusters from purchasing land; annexation of the territory by the Cape seems to have stimulated them to encourage rebellion so that new lands might become available.

The following section returns to the Tlhaping and Tlharo, and deals with new grievances and pressures which became acute immediately before the rebellion. These included acute distrust of the Cape Colonial goverment, further fears of loss of land, and anxiety concerning threats to their growing involvement in a market economy. Finally the consequences of a rinderpest epidemic coupled with dynastic politics appear to have tipped the scales in favour of rebellion.

One of the more stimulating aspects of working in the field of African studies is the co-operation between scholars of related disciplines such as is not always found among those working in other parts of the world. Historians have been outstanding in promoting this co-operation and it was therefore gratifying to read Michael Mason's paper in the Journal, in which he uses and comments upon the work of geographers in developing his thesis that the Middle Belt of Nigeria may have been an area of sparse population before slave raiding during the nineteenth century. His paper is well documented, closely argued and apparently authoritative. However, there are several points on which we would take issue with Mason, some of which are so fundamental that it would be unfortunate in our view if they were absorbed into the historical literature unchallenged. It is not our purpose in raising these matters to spark off a fruitless ‘intertribal’ war; it is rather to offer constructive criticism to the advantage of historians, geographers and others.

I rejoice with Messrs Gleave and Prothero in the opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion of a problem which is of interest to both historians and geographers. Before replying to their lengthy ‘Comment’ I feel that an explanatory note regarding the genesis of my article might remove any misapprehensions that it was done as a simple exercise in cavil.