In much of Africa marriage never made a wife her husband's dependent

Women prospered as independent traders in large parts of Africa for a structural reason. Marriage there did not, as far back as the evidence reaches, convert a wife into an economic dependent of her husband. She kept her own property, her own trade and her own earnings. Once that is established, a run of questions opens up which historians have mostly declined to ask. Where women have held authority, what were the customs and institutions through which they held it? Where major changes in material culture occurred, which of them did women drive? Ehret's earlier chapters give examples, crediting women with the invention of ceramics and with the creation of agricultural ways of life. I keep this on a Haitian timeline because of what crossed the Atlantic. The women who ran the markets of Saint-Domingue, and the madan sara who still move most of the food in Haiti, work inside an arrangement their great grandmothers would have recognised, one that was in place long before any ship.

Around 1000 BCE Ortoiroid communities completed a long movement up the Lesser Antilles and reached Puerto Rico. Their arrival brought them within reach of a different world. Hispaniola, immediately west across the Mona Passage, was held by Casimiroid peoples who had entered the islands from another direction entirely and had been there for thousands of years. The two now shared a frontier. Rouse reads the archaeology of the following centuries as a flow of technique running northwest to southeast, from the Casimiroid side into the Ortoiroid one, carrying ways of flaking and grinding stone. That direction is the interesting part. The newcomers coming up the chain were the ones learning. Whatever the older population of Hispaniola had worked out about local stone over several millennia of residence was worth adopting, and it moved across the passage into Puerto Rico. The Mona Passage has been a channel of exchange for three thousand years, and Haiti sits on the western side of it.

Two sites carry the earliest known evidence of iron smelting on earth. One is Ôboui, in the west of the Central African Republic. The second, Gbatoro, lies about a hundred kilometres away over the border in Cameroon. Radiocarbon puts both at 1800 BCE or earlier. The excavation reports describe careful work on undisturbed ground, with clean layers sealing the deposits above and below. At Ôboui the whole sequence of the craft is present in one workshop: furnace structures, the clay tuyeres that fed air to the fire, pieces of worked iron, slag, stone anvils for hammering, and charcoal in quantity for dating. Four thousand years ago, in the middle of Africa, people were smelting and forging iron. These are not stray dates from a thin dig. They are two sites, both inside the zone the linguistic evidence had already predicted, both fully excavated and both dated. African iron is older than Anatolian iron by at least three centuries.

Metallurgy is usually taught as a ladder. People start with copper, which melts at a low temperature and sometimes shows up as visible metal in rock, and only later work out that fiercer heat will pull iron out of ore. Across large parts of Africa the ladder has its rungs in a different order. In the earliest ironworking areas, in the Central African Republic and across most of the continent below the Sahara, iron was known and used before copper was. Prior copper smelting cannot be the explanation for the African discovery, because there was no prior copper smelting. Something else supplied the knowledge, and the likeliest candidate is ceramics. Women had been firing clay in high heat for thousands of years by then, and the control of temperature and airflow that pottery demands is most of what a smelting furnace needs. The African road to iron went through the kiln. The Bronze Age that world history courses treat as a universal stage never happened here.