The Origin of the Name "Africa"

Clarifying a broad misconception about the origin of a word.

It would be of great benefit to the reader if we briefly explored the origin of the name “Africa.”

Some who qualify themselves as credible historians have said that the etymological root for the name “Africa” comes from the name Scipio Africanus, the Roman general who defeated Hannibal the Great of Carthage at the end of the second Punic War. This is emphatically INCORRECT.

This error is easily identified by the fact that “Scipio Africanus” was born as Publius Cornelius Scipio. You can confirm this for yourself by consulting Richard A Gabriel’s book Scipio Africanus: Rome’s Greatest General, among other works.                          

National identity has importance. Before any group of people can have a national identity that is clear, strong, and vibrant, they must share the same core ideas and values. A large group of people, whether they are a secret society, a street gang, or a nation, are bound together by common core values. The medium in which these values are primarily preserved is through language which serves as a bedrock for culture.

The people of France are called “French” based on the language that they speak. The people of China are identified as “Chinese” based on the fact that they speak a mother tongue that reinforces their collective psychology for the preservation of common values. For them, this language is called “Chinese.”

Scipio was only given the nickname “Africanus” after he defeated Hannibal Barca. The name “Africa” is actually based on the the Romanization of the Numidian “Afri” people. They were just one of the clans that the ancient Romans encountered during their sojourns into ancient Numidia, which is not to be confused with ancient Nubia.

The Afri lived in, and around, ancient Carthage. The Romans were so in awe of Hannibal’s military prowess that they named their own general Scipio “Africanus.” For the Romans, the name had become synonymous with the fierce Afri warriors that they took great pride in defeating by the skin of their teeth. In European literature Scipio is referred to as “The Roman Hannibal.” This strongly suggests that his only historical relevance arises out of the fact that he defeated Hannibal the Great to end the second Punic War.

Scipio is only important to the extent that his legacy is linked to Hannibal’s. The ancient Romans were telling the world that their general was so brave and so calculating that he might as well be an Africanus, or what we would now call an “African.” The word “African” is the Anglicized version of the Latinized word “Africanus” which was originally derived from the Afri people who lived in and around Carthage.

Africa was NOT named after a Roman general. It was named after a relatively small native clan who lived in the region of Carthage who called themselves Afri. The decision to identify the entire continent based on the name for these local people was made by European colonizers. No doubt. But that’s different from saying that the name originated with Europeans.

If Chinese colonizers decided to rename the entire African continent “GHANAlù” tomorrow it doesn’t mean that the name “GHANA” came from them. It means that they merely added their suffix to the indigenous name of a historically localized people and applied that name to an entire continent.

Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that Carthage (now a part of Tunisia) is just one small region within the vast continent that the world now calls “Africa.” The Zulus of 3000 B.C.E. did not refer to themselves as “Afri” while living at least 4,000 miles South of North Africa where the Afri resided.

The Sumerians, who were Black, did not call themselves Afri either. Furthermore, if we look at Iraq on a map, an argument can be made that it is just as much a part of East Africa as it is Western Asia as far as geography goes. Sumer was located in what is today known as Iraq. As I’ve asked before, how far did East Africa extend in ancient times?

Please understand that when I make reference to the “African origin” of ancient Sumer I am only using a contemporary term (that term being “African”) that is commonly understood and recognized by even the most casual readers of this article.

I wholly acknowledge the land now designated as “Africa” to be the ethno-cultural starting point for ancient Sumerian civilization, which thrived thousands of years before Black men and women identified themselves as “African” through any continental consensus.

As far as I am aware, there is no ancient written record or text that proves that Black men and women throughout the continent decided to uniformly identify themselves as “Africans” before the continent was carved up and divided among its European invaders. This is because they all had national identities rooted in culture and reinforced by language.

Only these preserved written records—provided that they even exist—will  serve as verifiable sources of reference in any assertions to the contrary. Then again, would these records even be written in a mother language that is understood, authenticated, and venerated by all of the nations it pertains to? At the moment, I do not have a definitive answer to this question.

Communication is most effective when we use words and terms that can be easily identified and codified by those who receive our message. We should share information with our audience that will expand its scope of understanding. Still we can only do that after we’ve gotten our audience’s attention by using words and concepts that they are already familiar with.