This exploratory essay was written to evaluate the use of sources in another historian’s work. The assignment was to consider a position and prove that argument by providing evidence from the text.

Source Evaluation of African Rice in the Columbian Exchange

Many studies of African and European history do not appreciate the roles of African rice domestication and cultivation in the Americas. Judith A. Carney’s article, “African Rice in the Columbian Exchange” aims to revise the original hypothesis of European literature and establish importance for the Africans that built a staple food source. Despite providing well-based articulated evidence, Carney’s use of sources failed to demonstrate reliability towards her themes of African plant diffusion, domestication of rice, and rice cultivation methods.

African plant diffusion during the Atlantic Slave Trade was Africa’s second era of crop exchanges. Crops from Africa were brought over to the Americas during the European voyages, which included plantation slavery. To support her statement of crop exchanges, Carney referenced Orlando Ribeiro, “Aspectos e problemas da expansão portuguésa” (Lisbon, 1962). The source served as evidence for the timeline of the sixteenth century when the Portuguese discovered rice in the Cape Verde Islands. During the expedition back, rice had also appeared on cargo lists from 1513 to 1515. Ribeiro’s work is a primary source, which aimed to discuss the themes of African plant diffusion and African domestication of rice in Carney’s article. Furthermore, the source used in Carney’s work was an English translated piece, which is then considered a secondary source. Carney mainly uses Ribeiro’s work as a scholarship that discredited the African contribution to rice, it was essentially used to argue against Orthodox literature. However, the Spanish language work as a translated English piece was not effective because the Spanish language questions the efficiency of the translations in English. The Spanish language can be difficult to translate because different languages have different grammars and connotations. The translations may be inaccurate in translating the interpretation of the original work. Furthermore, Carney mainly used Ribeiro’s source to support the argument of discrediting the African involvement of the disperse and domestication of rice. It showed her bias as she quoted from Ribeiro for saying that Africans had no contribution in the establishment of rice culture. Ribeiro was the only historian that Carney specified his words for discrediting the Africans in the section of “African Domestication of Rice”. Carney’s purpose was meant to contradict the European literature; however, her use of Ribeiro’s work was the main target and foundation for her beginning argument. Carney could have included more historians or European literature to justify her claims. Carney was blinded by one piece of work that was used to mainly support her themes of African plant diffusion and domestication of rice.

African cultivation of rice emerged in the Cape Verde islands, which were occupied with slaves who had rice cultivation skills. With its rice seed, African glaberrima, it was transported to Brazil. Carney uses a secondary source, P. Collinson, “Of the introduction of rice and tar in our colonies,” Gentleman’s Magazine (June 1766), to support her speculation of African cultivation of rice. Collinson’s work is a secondary source because it evaluated the initial deliveries of rice in the 1690s. The original cargo list would be the primary source. Carney cites this source with a quote from the magazine referencing that the ships had brought over slaves and an abundance of rice during the 1690s. The Gentleman’s Magazine was recognized as a reliable journal and periodical for publications in the 1700s. However, Carney’s use of Collinson’s work was possibly one of the available and accessible sources during that time period. Nonetheless, the use of the Collinson’s work was not effective because it was only cited once with no further evidence that can back up the indication of the cargo lists. Further evidence that is required would includethe primary source or additional sources that reference a cargo list in the 1690s. Due to the time period, there are limited accessible sources to justify the theme of African cultivation of rice. Also, Collinson’s publication of the magazine was dated in 1766, but the initial delivery was in the 1690s. With a seven-decade gap, it is possible that the source does not contain enough accurate information of the cargo list. For Carney to use this source, the time range of this particular source limited her credibility. The evidence itself is not strong enough to prove that the cargo list existed during the 1690s. The gap between the years is an indication of unreliability as it did not contribute to Carney’s theme of African cultivation of rice.

African methods in rice cultivation were established to recognize the techniques and environments used by the Africans in South Carolina. Carney cites her work to back up her argument of African roles in rice cultivation. Using a secondary source, Judith A. Carney, “Landscapes of technology transfer: Rice cultivation and African continuities”, Technology and Culture, (1996), aimed to explain the techniques of water drainage and the use of the Carolina river to cultivate rice by the Africans. These techniques are explained by Carney’s work in an extension of a whole section, “African Methods in Rice Cultivation”. Carney is essentially basing her theory off prior research that she had done. She utilizes self-citation because there are no excessive amounts of research done to support her claim of African methods. To a certain extent, her research could only cover a limited amount of evidence that the Africans did domesticate rice through the methods seen in South Carolina. The source becomes ineffective because Carney would need multiple sources that also evaluated the techniques. Her source makes the theme of African methods unnecessary to the hypothesis revision because Carney had already established strong evidence of African contribution. However, her intention to provide more evidence is questioning her bias towards her work. Carney is confident enough that her prior research would be able to establish a firm theory, nevertheless, herself-citation counteracted her intentions.

In attempts to revise the original European literature of Africans domesticating rice in South Carolina, Carney establishes a hypothesis with an extensive list of sources. However, specific sources in her themes of African domestication, cultivation, and methods downplayed the section. By utilizing a source multiple times, not evaluating the dates, self-citation, and not validating the stated goal downplayed Carney’s major parts of the article. It ultimately showed that the sources were not effective enough to support her major argument.