Beyond the Mapmakers: Unveiling the Endogenous Roots of Africa's Colonial Borders

Africa's colonial borders have long been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate.

The prevailing narrative suggests these borders were drawn arbitrarily, with scant regard for the continent's diverse ethnic, linguistic, and political landscapes.

This view posits that during the 1884-85 Berlin Conference, European powers carved up the continent from afar, imposing borders that ignored existing realities on the ground.

In this article, the author (Atomic Academic) explores how pre-colonial states and geographical features influenced the formation of Africa's colonial borders, challenging the notion that these borders were drawn arbitrarily. They argue that European colonisers incorporated these endogenous factors, such as historical political frontiers and major water bodies, into the colonial border-drawing process, resulting in a more complex and nuanced understanding of this historical event.

The dominant narrative of Africa's colonial borders paints a picture of European powers drawing lines on the map with little knowledge or care for local conditions.

This perspective sees the Berlin Conference as a pivotal moment where Africa was divided in European capitals, devoid of African participation.

This view has been critiqued for oversimplifying the complex dynamics at play, suggesting instead that borders, especially straight-line borders, were not placed as haphazardly as previously thought.

Contrary to the belief in arbitrary border delineation, evidence suggests that Europeans employed a more methodical approach, using "focal points" such as precolonial states and major water bodies to guide the demarcation process. These features served not only as natural demarcations but also as vital considerations in territorial negotiations and disputes. Historical political frontiers, reflecting the boundaries of precolonial entities, and major water bodies like rivers and lakes were central to determining the borders' placements. This approach indicates a recognition and, to some extent, an incorporation of pre-existing political and geographic realities into the colonial border-drawing process.

Africa circa 1887

The first map (Figure 1a) shows the colonial borders in 1887. As of this date, the colonial map was still very much in its early stages. European powers had claimed a majority of the coastal territory (56% of the territory within 300 km of the coast) but had not yet ventured far inland. Only 22% of the territory further inland was claimed, and just 14% excluding the Congo Free State.

Africa circa 1895

The second map (Figure 1b) depicts the colonial borders in 1895. Border formation began to pick up pace around this time. Between 1889 and 1894, numerous bilateral treaties were signed by the major powers. These agreements resulted in the allocation of territory across most of the African interior and the establishment of preliminary borders throughout parts of the interior. By 1895, Europeans had claimed 83% of Africa's coastal territory and 58% of the interior.

Africa circa 1902

The third map (Figure 1c) shows the colonial borders in 1902. By this time, Europeans had claimed nearly the entire continent (90% of the interior territory). The political map of Africa was beginning to take shape, resembling its postcolonial form. However, the process of finalising the specific borders was still ongoing.

Arica circa 1960

The fourth map (Figure 1d) depicts the colonial borders in 1960. The borders in place in 1960 had been through many revisions throughout the 20th century. Some of these revisions included changing straight lines to local features, adding new segments, or clarifying local features for previously ambiguous borders.

---

Figure 1a-d: The Evolution of the European Political Map of Africa adapted from Paine et al., 2024

To substantiate these claims, the study employs a rigorous empirical methodology, analysing two original datasets. The first dataset utilises a statistical analysis of square grid cells to assess the prevalence of border segments in areas with significant precolonial states, rivers, and lakes. The second involves case studies of all 107 bilateral borders in Africa, documenting the primary and secondary physical features of each border, the years of major revisions, and the direct influence of historical political frontiers. This comprehensive analysis offers empirical support for the theory that European powers, while determining broader spheres of influence, engaged with local African rulers and negotiated borders that frequently aligned with precolonial boundaries and significant geographic features.

This research finds that 62% of all bilateral borders were directly influenced by historical political frontiers, challenging the notion of their arbitrary placement. Instead, it reveals a legacy of deliberate consideration and interaction with Africa's precolonial states and natural geography in the partition of the continent. This perspective not only corrects historical inaccuracies but also highlights the importance of indigenous political structures and natural landscapes in shaping Africa's political map.

The evidence suggests that Africa's colonial borders were not as arbitrarily drawn as previously thought. This reevaluation emphasises the significance of precolonial states and geographic features in the colonial border-drawing process, offering a more complex and nuanced understanding of the historical events that shaped the continent's political landscape. By acknowledging the deliberate strategies employed by European powers and the influence of Africa's own precolonial history, this research provides a fresh lens through which to view the legacy of colonialism in Africa.