Biafra was/is a kingdom to the then Western Ethiopia or
North Congo, whose according to the history books the then original capital
city of the same name was sited about six miles up Wouri River in what is now
Cameroon-a position which coincides with Douala. There are fairly detailed
accounts of Biafra both in O.Dappers "Description de l'Afrique"
published in Amsterdam in 1686, and in John Barbot's "A description of the
coats of North and South Guinea (in the 5th vol of "A collection of
voyages and travels" published by A&J Churchill in London in 1732). It
was in the days of the late 1950's foreign opponents of Cameroon reunification
debunked Biafra as a myth to put off Cameroon nationalists. (See Bouchauld
"La Cote du Cameroun dans l'histoire et cartographie"). But how can
one explain the maps of the 17th century which speak of a "Regnum Biafrae"
which extended over a great part of central and coastal Cameroon, and that in
1732 Barbot spoke of Biafra in the same breath as Benin, Ashanti, Gabun and the
Ambozes (from which comes Ambas Bay, on which stands Victoria, West Cameroon)?
As these names are indigenous there is no reason why "Biafra" should
not have been the indigenous name, but should have been coined by the
Portuguese. Archaelogical evidence came to light on the ancient existence of
Biafra and/or Agysimba in 1966 in Cameroon.
The picture I have
included here is the French chart of West Africa 1780, titled River Senegal to
Biafra.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156736449717436&set=a.10150653864112436&type=3&theater
ReplyDelete