Talk:Nok culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Nigeria (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nigeria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nigeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa / Niger (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Niger (marked as High-importance).


The informations about Nok are not precise in many ways. -- 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the germans who started an archaeological project on Nok in 2005! I added some references.

I added more information about the Nok that I got through the French Wikipedia article. Hopefully I can finish translating some more later today, but if anybody would like to pick up where I left off and check to make sure I got everything right. Also, before I editted the article, it claimed the Nok civilization dated back to 3000 BC. The French article states 1000 BC. I did some research and I can't seem to find anything putting the date at 3000 BC - in fact, going as far as 1000 BC seemed a little liberal from what all I found.--Edaru 14:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[1] - this edit was a copyright violation from [2] which I didn't note in the edit summary reverting it. --Cherry blossom tree 16:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Italian-language Wikipedia it:Nok gives the tenth century BC. I think we should go with what the French & Italian articles say (1000 BC) rather than 3000 BC, in the absence of any reliable sources. I will make that change. --Mathew5000 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I have reverted Nok Culture to it earlier status. This version contains a more accurate map by Locutus Borg and an inclusion into the series on Northern Nigeria. please do not undo without giving appropriate reasons --Alaminalpha (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


I think it's pretty clear that the previous figure of "3000 BC" was a typo for "3000 years ago" - this would square with all the other figures of 1000 BC. The article, unfortunately, still needs sources. --Storkk 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I remember there was an article about the Nok culture in Scientific American a couple of years ago (in the 80s?). Who still has a copy. Please cite. Nannus 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

bad phrase[edit]

Nok culture terracottas are heralded as the prime evidence of pre-colonial civilization in sub-Saharan Africa the above sentence is a problem, it is one of those apologiese for a racist opinion and in the apology is the assumption of racism. pre-colonial African civilizations are not in dispute to state it like this assumes that they could be any dispute to this fact and thus introduce reasonable doubt.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Looks fine to me, it must be your inherent favouring of unsourced statements in favour of "Nok" that is causing the problem here. 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasle words and condescending tone[edit]

I just realized that this artcile needs a weasle word,tag there is a lot of double speak and strange language which is almost assumping it is a mystery that Blacks could have an Iron age. Until the article can be clean this warning is needed.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't notice any condescending tone, they must of changed the edit? I'll see if I can dig up some reliable information on Nok civilization in order to contribute..Mahmud II 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There actually seems to be no sources to claim that they were in the "Iron Age" listed here so unfortunatly that could be a problem, and in all fairness this is the only article I know claiming that Africa did have an Iron age without outside interferance. Also the article didnt seemt to be condescending in the slightest, in fact it seemed to look favourably on something with almost no sources to back up it's claims 10:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed original research[edit]

I know understand the other users frustrations:

Saharan Commerce

The sub-Saharan region of Africa at that time was divided into two large zones: the savannah, where small communities of farmers lived in northern fertile regions with favorable agriculture, and the tropical forest which covered the majority of the southern zone where hunter-gatherers lived along the coastal areas.

About 2,500 years ago, the populations of Northern Africa were forced south by drought (with women, children, cattle, weapons, and luggage) to the Gulf of Guinea and the south of the continent.[citation needed] They introduced a new way of life because these tribes grew grain and vegetables and raised cows, sheep, and goats.[citation needed] The men knew metallurgy (iron); each group had its own ceramic style.[citation needed] It was the beginning of the Iron Age in Africa and the Nok culture was the first known iron-working community in Western Africa. Merchants probably began to cross the Sahara in the course of the first millennium BC with horse-drawn chariots.[citation needed] The West Africans exchanged gold, slaves, ivory, salted animal products, cloth, ceramic, glass, fruits, and horses.[citation needed] Impressed by this last animal, Nok artists modeled statuettes of riders, dignitaries on horseback, pieces today that are very rare and of great value on the art market.

there is absolutly nothing that excuses this from being called OR. It cannot stay in the article until it becomes an encyclopedic section, not original opinion. "they introduced a new way of life because these tribe grew grain" who said this, where is the ref, it is an editors opinion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is far to OR to be used, also the fact that some of it isnt even slightly referencable against anything else that must exclude it from the main article. 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Why does it say that they started in 500 BC and then say that carbon dating has dated the terracotta sculptures to 2500 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

...¿because 500 BC ~= 2500 years ago?.--Seba5618 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Figurine of the Nok rider[edit]

The caption reads "Nok rider and horse". Were there horses in Africa in the 500BC?? (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC) It's me again... The caption of the female statue reads: "Age: 900 to 1,500 years", which means 500 - 1100 AD, much later after the vanishing of the Nok civilization as stated in the intro (200AD). So is it or isn't it a Nok a figurine? (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This was not a civilization[edit]

This was not a civilization, this was a culture. I changed "civilization" with "culture" throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotherboer (talkcontribs) 20:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

you did a good job on that. its difinatly a culture and not a civilization becasue if it was a civilization then the true name of the nation state would be known. as of now we still do not know what the nok people would have been calling them selfs as a people .in europe we find people like this that were cultures as well before the advent of civilization and also we would never learn the names of there nationalities either such as early indo european cuiltures. they were named after the sites they were discovered or a major industry like Urn field culture or La tene culture. so your correct that nok was not a civilization but a culture. it is true they were advanced to such a point that they would have been concidered civilized by other sub-saharn africans but Nok culture vanished and eventually bantu culture apears. centuries later still we have modern groups like yoruba ,Benin and igbo. (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not a civilization becasue if it was a civilization then the true name of the nation state would be known" That has nothing to do with anything. Look at the Indus Valley Civilzation, the Norte Chico Civilization, and the Erlitou Sites... Collectively considered three of the first six civilizations and we don't know their historical name because they either lacked writing or we can't decipher their writing. Anyway, there is no universally accepted criteria for what defines a civilization and it varies greatly between archeologists/scientists. Some may very well consider the Nok a Civilization; it is a similar level of advancement to Norte Chico which is considered a civilization despite not having writing, ceramics, metal working, or advanced agriculture. It usually ultimately depends on levels of social organization and government and it may simply be that we don't have enough data to form an acceptable theory surrounding Nok government to properly classify them. (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


I removed this; "This controversial theory can be regarded as racist." from the end of this "Proto Yorubas were the creators of Nok civilization, and the mystery of the disappearance of the Nok civilization is attributed to the disappearance of Yorubas from northern Nigeria due to racial assimilation. This controversial theory can be regarded as racist." as it was uncited and unexplained in the article. Came out of left field. Who's it even meant to be racist against? The Nok? Why would anyone being racist against some people who disappeared about 1511 years ago, so I assume not. (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree with you the conection between Nok and modern yoruba was never identified. if there was a proto-yoruban it would have to have been a missing link between the bantu in 1000 AD and the apearance of modern yoruba in 1600 AD if there was a proto-yoruban it would have been in nigeria around 1300 AD. and once again your also right becasue yoruba probably has nothing to do with nok culture. it would be like trying to compare modern italiens in the year 1860 AD with the italic tribes of the roman empire and try claim there the exact same ethnic group which is false becasue of centuries of inter-marrige with other cultures. (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

my information about Bantu in nigeria is out of date. it was based on the old theory of Bantu disfusion in africa that i was tought in school in my history text book . acording to the new theory Bantu culture came first in nigeria then eventualy nok apeared. not the other way around. but my orginal point still stands that from 500 AD to 1600 AD theres missing information as to what cultures or peoples would have been living in nigeria. (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoruba claims[edit]

An editor went through this article (and others) adding claims by A.O. Olubunmi that the Nok were an early form of the Yoruba. I'm not familiar at all with this topic but it appeared that a lot of undue weight was being given to a fringe theory. Olubunmi is said to be physiologist and engineer which makes me question whether he is a reliable source. Anyway, I toned down the prose and condensed it while retaining the basic claim. If anyone is familiar enough with the subject maybe you can look it over and see if it belongs or perhaps can even be expanded again. SQGibbon (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad Picture:

The Terracotta sculpture is not still in the Louvre  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)