 |
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
I always thought that a large part of it was that the local environment was far more supportive of human life, so there was no pressure to develop new technology to survive local weather conditions or to grow more food.
Another reason, which could be completely wrong, is that there was enough Lebensraum (nasty word, does the trick), and as such there was not such a large pressure on an armsrace, whereas most of european history is punctuated by wars and military developments that were later used for more productive ends.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
Perhaps the Africans suffered because a lack of a naval tradition?
Africa has a relatively short coastline, despite being the second largest continent. Most of the African nations, if I remember correctly, were some distance inland, and they did most of their trade by camel over the Sahara.
Compare this with Europe/the Middle East, where we have many, many successful seafaring civilizations: The Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the Portuguese, the Spanish etc.
There's no benefit to having a technological edge when your trade is done across the Sahara. The only thing that matters is carrying enough water to stay alive. There's not much that can be done to upgrade a camel. Compare this with a ship, which can be improved constantly with technological innovation; better sails, better design, better carpentry, better metallurgy, better glassmaking, better pottery, and so on.
Improving naval technology also has a direct benefit in improving fish catches.
Ships also have a far wider range, even a modestly designed ship can range from the Arctic to the equator without serious trouble. Look at the wide ranging explorations of the Phoenicians, Vikings and Portuguese. Camels and other animals are slower, favour certain ecosystems, and have inherently less range than a ship, since the Earth is almost 3/4 ocean.
Ships have a lot more room than camels, so there are much greater opportunities for trade goods, gifts, trinkets, supplies and passengers. This allows much more technological transfer than crossing the Sahara, where every kilo counts.
Of course, there were other factors as well as this, but I think this could be quite important.
Last edited by Sandman on 28-07-2003 at 16:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
People "develop" if they have to. There is no innate drive towars better and better tech: yo do what you need to survive vs the elements and fellow human competitors, and of course you are hemmed in by the environment you live in.
I agree with lightblue and Osweld that human band sin Africa did not have to deal with (and thus made no sense to spend their energies on figuring new way to deal with) very harsh climates that are dangerous to human life, nor even that many human competitors. Africa is huge, allows for moevment, and more improtantly, nature has had much more time to figure out how to keep the human population in check. Think of people outside of Africa like rabbits in Australia: nature outside of Africa was simply not equiped to exploit man as it can in Africa, so man was able to go nuts, population exploding, and so forth. Plus, there were better resources to exploit outside of Africa, like animals easier to domesticate, and plants that are simpler to farm with.
IN a way, the same evironmanet that maks apes and men come into being in Africa also means they don;t have to develop intrecate tech to make a successful life there (which man has, if we go back to the race threads and remmebr human genetic diversity in Africa is greater than among other human pops.)
If then, many of the more advanced "civlized" principles came to Aricans from outside is that one of the first real rpessures to come to humans in Africa, thus making it worthwhile to innovate, was pressure from human bands outside of Africa trying to come back in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
Well, Ge, I fear your theory is contradictory:
- on the one hand, you explain nature is easier in Africa, and thus it is useless to develop new technologies to tame it.
- on the other hand, you explain that nature had more time to keep the human population (the human parasite ?) in check.
It seems the Africans had developed what they needed to win over nature : they were agricultural and semi-sedentary (i.e, they could move to another spot after a few generations) for the most part, which allowed a relatively stable food production, in comparison with hunting-gathering.
Many here think the Africans didn't battle for the land as much as the Europeans. While it is true competition for land was extremely high in Europe, one should not believe Africa was a peaceful continent.
The lineage political system divided Africa into countless small tribes which were often at war (to the point that war had a ritualistic value). Migrations were as bloody as in Europe, since the migrating population simply wanted to utterly replace the inhabitants of a fertile patch of land, etc. My point is, Africans did wage war to each other, bigtime.
In the Niger Delta, the Ghana empire spanned over two centuries before being overthrown by the Mali (a small tribe rising to power thanks to Ghana's decay), which was then replaced by the Songhai. The Songhai were then replaced by a bunch of short-lived kingdoms, including the recently migrated Peuls.
This is one of the few examples where we know precisely about intra-African warfare, thanks to the Arab scholars in contact with these Civs. This examples shows that African hisory is far from being peaceful. Yet these very rich empires hardly developed techs on their own, and depended to a huge extent of the Arab technology, weaponry, and ideas (Muslim empires).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
It depends how you define progress really.
Given the choice, I think more people would rather live with a sub-Saharan African climate than most others - if they didn't have to give up mod cons.
Given a sub-Saharan African climate - why go to the bother of making mod cons?
Lots of given factors already, but a biggy that definitely helped the Zulu was national unity. If you have a common language, and a large population, you'll start to encounter problems.
If, on the other hand, you are dealing with a small tribe where mortality rate is pretty close to birth rate, then problems of a large community don't need to be overcome.
Maybe it's a scale thing, combined with the climate and resources.
Sure, written language and mathematics are biggies too - but if the problems never crop up, what's the point of looking for solutions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WRangler Rhymer
|
|
Because in those day to advance in tech you need more of a Empire do anything, plus they would mostly merchants not soldiers. They probably didn't care as long as the trade kept moving though them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:29
|
|
Spiffor
Go pick up Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. He covers this very well. In short:
In Subsahara Africa, there was no domestication of local animals and crops. Though Cattle, horses, and goats were introduced in the middle ages by Arab traders, most of the continent never left hunter-gatherer status. As a result, the liesure class never formed.
Now, there are exceptions, of course. Zimbabwe has already been mentioned. But all of these great cities occured rather late in the game, later even than Mesoamerican cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, Ge, I fear your theory is contradictory:
- on the one hand, you explain nature is easier in Africa, and thus it is useless to develop new technologies to tame it.
- on the other hand, you explain that nature had more time to keep the human population (the human parasite ?) in check. |
It is simple biology. Man evolved in Africa. That cuts both ways. The climate of any area in which a being evolved is almost be definition hospitable to it (perhaps even most hospitable). BUt iron does nothing to keep bacteria in check. The biggest check to human populations, given man's status in the food chain, is disease, and no culture had the ability to fight disease until the last 200 years. And bacteria and viruses in Africa have had hundreads of thousands of years more to addapt to great apes, of which man is one.
Edit: also, not needed and useless are not the same. Why use energy making somehting you don't need, even if perhaps, by making your life much easier, you may want? That is not the way things work, speically in soceities without large amounts of craftmen and other people who do not have to participate in the daily activities necessary to food production or gathering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's
They are very primitive..intelligence maybe wasn't required for survival in Africa..if you get me.  |
Nor apparently, to go and live and study in Wales.
Tool.
African mathematics:
Gerdes, Paulus. On mathematics in the history of sub-Saharan Africa. Historia Math. 21 (1994), no. 3, 345--376. SC: 01A13, MR: 95f:01003.
This paper broadly surveys the recent research in sub-Saharan mathematics (and some related areas as well). Areas discussed include prehistoric mathematics (e.g., the Ishango and Border Cave bones), number systems and symbolism (including algorithms and education), games and puzzles (for example, a leopard-goat-cassava leaf river crossing problem and a "topological" puzzle), symmetry in African art, graphs or networks (e.g. Tschokwe sand drawings), architecture (one case involving magic squares; also a brief reference to fractals). Gerdes mentions string figures as a possibly productive future research area; he gives some starting points. He also discusses related areas, such as technology, and studies on language and mathematical concepts. A goal of the studies mentioned is apparently to better understand mathematics learning in Africa. Some studies focus on logic. Questions on interaction with ancient Egypt are still largely open. A better understanding of Islamic mathematics in sub-Saharan Africa is desirable as well. The author also touches on factors connected with the slave trade; e.g., the remarkable but not perhaps entirely atypical abilities of Thomas Fuller. Includes an extensive bibliography.
http://math.truman.edu/~thammond/history/Ghana.htm
Closely related topics: Sub-Saharan Africa, Games, Puzzles, Topology, Symmetry, Continuous Tracing Problems, Architecture, Magic Squares, Fractals in Art, String Figures, Ancient Egypt, The Reckoning of Time, Education, Mathematics in Language, Logic, The Islamic World, and Thomas Fuller (1710-1790).
There are a variety of reasons for technology not to have reached certain levels in various parts of Africa (sub-Saharan, that is).
The pernicious effects of outside influences- Arab slave traders and raiders, European colonial powers. Arab Islamic iconoclasm effected the cultural life of African peoples often adversely (although Islam did widen literacy, and cultural links).
The nature of the land- jungles and swamps and river deltas are reservoirs for disease and disease vectors- mosquitoes, river blindness, yellow fever, lassa fever, smallpox, monkey pox, cholera, a host of diseases that just love human beings. If you think the impact of these is overemphasized, consider this: the plague that devastated Justinian's Byzantine Empire seems on best evidence to have originated in Africa- transmitted along the trade routes that brought gold, ivory, incense and ostrich feathers to the empire. If it could devastate a settled, sophisticated culture, with access to proper hygiene, medicine and with a centralized power, imagine what it could do to cultures and peoples with fewer weapons to fight such an epidemic.
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/a...esepidemic.html
The nature of the climate- some foods will go off quickly, some foods cannot be stored, some animals (draught animals, especially horses) will not prosper, some crops cannot be grown- all things that contribute to saving time, providing leisure time, creating an excess of food.
Conversely, some food will always be there, meaning that hunter gathering will continue, and slash and burn remains an agricultural technique until modern times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Soul Survivor
|
|
UChicago
May 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
I think terrain is one of the most important factors
In sub-saharan Africa the two most common types of land are jungle and grassland. Also most nations (tribes) were isolated from large bodies of water. The first problem is lack of production, only the grassland shields provide production, and jungles will never provide any. This means it will be very difficult for any city to build a library, marketplace, granary or any other improvements necessary for growth and expansion. Often they would have to concentrate on building military forces to fight off barbs. Also trade was difficult to come by, since roads take so long to build through jungles (hundreds of years sometimes) it simply wasn't practical and trade was very slow to develop. Without any trade you didn't have many beakers or money available to combat the lack of production. The jungles make travel slow and exploration into strange huts quite dangerous. Without access to oceans they couldn't expand very far, nor seek out other civilizations to share knowledge with. Their best shot would have been to find some gems in a jungle, build on top, fortify the city and go straight for trade. But by then they had already fallen so far being in the wonder race, due to their lack of research and production, that there was little they could build to jump start their civilization. Eventually barbs become tougher, better equiped and more money is needed to keep the settlements, leaving less for research. By then each technological advancement became so expensive that they decided to basically stop and wait for marco polo to come by.
Had they been playing SP they would have been all the way to monarchy to make up for their poor starting position. But when there are barbs everywhere, your people are revolting and you're in debt - theres no time for oedo's revolution.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Perhaps the Africans suffered because a lack of a naval tradition?
Africa has a relatively short coastline, despite being the second largest continent. Most of the African nations, if I remember correctly, were some distance inland, and they did most of their trade by camel over the Sahara.
Compare this with Europe/the Middle East, where we have many, many successful seafaring civilizations: The Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, the Portuguese, the Spanish etc.
There's no benefit to having a technological edge when your trade is done across the Sahara The only thing that matters is carrying enough water to stay alive. There's not much that can be done to upgrade a camel. Compare this with a ship, which can be improved constantly with technological innovation; better sails, better design, better carpentry, better metallurgy, better glassmaking, better pottery, and so on.
Improving naval technology also has a direct benefit in improving fish catches.
Ships also have a far wider range, even a modestly designed ship can range from the Arctic to the equator without serious trouble. Look at the wide ranging explorations of the Phoenicians, Vikings and Portuguese. Camels and other animals are slower, favour certain ecosystems, and have inherently less range than a ship, since the Earth is almost 3/4 ocean.
Ships have a lot more room than camels, so there are much greater opportunities for trade goods, gifts, trinkets, supplies and passengers. This allows much more technological transfer than crossing the Sahara, where every kilo counts.
Of course, there were other factors as well as this, but I think this could be quite important. |
Yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
IMO it has mainly to do with location and topography. Subsaharan Africa has no easily navigable rivers, very few natural ports, very few mountains, and a lot of disease and climate zones and other natural boundaries (oceans, deserts, jungles). The outcome of these factors meant that contact with the rest of the world was extraordinarily difficult, while internal communication was likewise quite difficult.
For a very long time Egypt accounted for the majority of the population of the continent of Africa, and for some of that time it accounted for the vast (over 75%) majority. Egypt had a navigable river (denial) and easy contacts with neighbors in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean to trade both goods (very critical for Egypt as it had very little in the way of natural resources other than soil and water) and techs. Thus Egypt was poised to take any innovation and spread it easily along the length of the Nile, and even further to Mesopotamia and the rest of the Med.
Africa meanwhile may well have had intelligent people who invented things just as there were people in Egypt who undoubtedly did so. Unfortunately, these people were isolated from one another and not particularly numerous to begin with. While learning how to bring water from the Nile to your fields is a relatively easy thing (the Nile is very regular and deep), it is another thing to do so in Africa where rainfalls vary widely from year to year (no real mountains except those that produce the Nile). One year your channel is high and dry, and the next year it is washed out. Thus opportunities to build a critical mass of population were limited, as were opportunities for that mass to communicate and remain coherent. These communication difficulties occur at every scale, local regional and continental, making trade impracticible for all but the most valubable items. Thus ideas from other places as well as many scarce materials remained where they were.
Add to these difficulties some others like a North / South orientation and according to Diamond a lack of easily domesticatable animals and Africa's condition isn't much of a surprise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
Sikander and whoever else mentioned Diamond...
he is wrong in the case of domesticatable animals. The Bantu who went from a small area in west africa to suddenly settling nearly all of sub-saharan africa around the turn of AD were initially pastoral cattle herders who then settled in the rest of africa. the zulu, a bantu people, were known as farmers and cattle herders before Shaka.
as for muslim intervention in west africa... explain states like Ashanti, Dahomey, and especially Benin which remained pagan and developed with no contact with the muslim world.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2003 23:25
|