> Whatever calamity struck medieval sub-Saharan Africa, its impact was lasting. Akrokrowa was abandoned by about 1365, and Kirikongo was never the same. The settlement stayed small, the ceramics got much simpler, and the culture changed to more closely resemble that of the nearby Mali Empire. "It does seem to be a break," Dueppen says.

I like to bring up black death in discussions when people complain that our current time is "difficult". In southern Europe in the middle of the 14th century, it is likely that around 80% of the population died over a few years. In Milan, town officials closed buildings with bricks as soon as they learned that anyone in that house was infected (with the people still inside, of course). Also, the social impact of this disease is often forgotten: I read somewhere that any interpersonal relationship between 2 or more people was effectively destroyed, because the other may already have been infected. Parents refused to take care of their own children, and people saw no reason to do long-term planning anymore (including farming). An epidemic like that basically decomposes the fabric of society, and therefore culture, very quickly, in a way only few other catastrophes are able to, and it may take centuries to recover from that. Or the society will never recover at all:

> Historians have found previously unknown mentions of epidemics in Ethiopian texts from the 13th to the 15th centuries, including one that killed "such a large number of people that no one was left to bury the dead."