city disappeared because of a permanent disruption of the
way life had been.
It was for these reasons that resistance and dissent were
serious matters in ancient cultures. Dissenters who rebelled
for only their own desire for power tended to be resented by
most people, unless they actually won political or religious
power, in which case they would style themselves saviors or
as divinely favored. Sometimes by example, dissenters could
change society. Dissenters could inspire new religions or po-
litical movements, as did the Buddha and Confucius. People
who bore persecution with dignity could attract sympathy
and converts to their point of view. Occasionally, society was
changed for the better. On the other hand, many dissenters
won by killing those who opposed their point of view, and the
history of resistance and dissent has many cases in which the
dissenters became the rulers and were themselves opposed by
dissenters.
AFRICA
BY MICHAEL J. O’NEAL
It is diffi cult for modern historians to re-create patterns of
resistance and dissent in ancient Africa, primarily because
of the absence of written records and the nomadic nature
of many early African communities. Th e social organiza-
tion of most ancient African societies was based on the tribe,
with the clan and the family being other vital components
of the community. Th is social structure was combined with
an ethic that bound people to the community, including its
community of ancestor spirits. Th is ethic, which was instilled
from an early age through legends, fables, and social training,
discouraged the kind of power struggles, factionalism, and
dissent characteristic of more complex, but less integrated so-
cieties. In general, ancient African communities found ways
to quell dissent and achieve social harmony.
One way in which this goal was achieved was through
orature. Orature means roughly the same thing as oratory,
or “making speeches,” but orature generally refers more
specifi cally to the rhetoric employed by indigenous Afri-
can peoples in sermons and, particularly, for social protest.
Again, no instances of orature from ancient Africa were
recorded, so there were none to survive. However, the tra-
dition of orature has been passed down through many gen-
erations, and historians are confi dent in their belief that the
roots of more modern traditions of orature extend deep into
the African past.
Th e purpose of orature was to bind people to the com-
munity. It was a way for prominent people in the community,
usually those with the best speaking skills, to raise issues that
were of concern to the community, protest matters that were
causing dissent and divisions in the community, and fi nd a
way to quell dissent and reforge the bonds that held the com-
munity together. Th e basic structure of orature consisted,
fi rst, of a “caller,” the person who invoked the ancestral and
creator spirits and raised the issue of concern for the com-
munity. Th e caller had to be a person of high moral char-
acter who could stir the spiritual forces of the community.
Because there was very little distinction between the spiri-
tual realm and the secular (or nonspiritual) realm, the caller
drew on the spiritual beliefs of the people to create a sense
of harmony and inclusiveness. In response, the community
functioned as a “chorus,” commenting on and validating the
caller’s words. In the traditions of orature the community did
not sit and listen politely and quietly; rather, the community
interjected its own commentary, thus forming a community
with the speaker. In some cases these responders were people
specifi cally assigned to that role. In many cases, though, the
responders included the larger community.
Rebellion and dissent may have been a marked feature
of life in the ancient Nubian kingdom of Kush. (Nubia was
the name of the region, roughly modern-day Sudan; Kush
was the name of the civilization.) Again, the historical re-
cord is sparse, and historians have had to piece it together
from fragments of evidence, including surviving records
from the Egyptian Empire to the north. Further, historians
are not always in agreement about the meaning of the avail-
able evidence.
Egypt had long had its eye on Kush territory. As the
Egyptian Empire spread, it expanded southward into the re-
gion occupied by the Kush people. In about 1500 b.c.e. Egypt
began a major push southward, but it encountered stiff re-
sistance from the Kush, though whether from their own
organized kingdom or from a confederation of city-states
is unclear. Th e reason that Kush opposition can be consid-
ered a form of rebellion rather than simply war between two
states is that for over three millennia the ever-changing and
constantly shift ing relationship between Egypt and Kush had
been close. During some periods Kush was an Egyptian col-
ony. During others Kush was powerful in its own right, and
Kush rulers actually ruled Egypt as that nation’s Twenty-fi ft h
Dynasty in the eighth century b.c.e. Th e shift ing power rela-
tionship between Kush and Egypt continued, and the Kushite
state survived into the Common Era. But about 350 c.e. Kush
collapsed. In large part the state disappeared because it was
taken over by the kingdom of Axum. However, the Kush state
had been weakened by internal politics and skirmishes with
tribal factions on its borders. Few details are known about
these events.
Th e empire of Carthage, on Africa’s northern coast, also
faced rebellion and dissent. Th roughout its history, Carthage
and Rome were major rivals in the Mediterranean Sea. Car-
thage had a large navy, which it used to protect its merchant
fl eet. Because of its trading prowess, Carthage was a threat
to Rome’s interests on the African continent. Th eir rivalry
erupted into three wars, called the Punic Wars, which ex-
tended from 264 to 146 b.c.e. It was during the interlude be-
tween the First and Second Punic Wars that Carthage faced
dissent from its army. Th e outcome of the First Punic War,870 resistance and dissent: Africa