Why did traditional Africa not develop technology ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
say what?

you apparently didn't read enough if you came up with this stupid, horribly wrong conclusion that sub-saharan africa was primitive

Not primitive.
I know it was mostly agricultural and sedentary, and hunting-gathering was nearly inexistent except in underpopulated jungles. I know the Africans had no trouble remaining at the top of the food chain. I know there was such a thing as politics in Africa, with the complexity of lineage societies (which btw were opposed to the possibility of a centralised power). I know Africa had its own religions and rites. Subsaharian Africans definitely knew how to trade as well: they traded slaves easily, and the Niger Delta empires took their wealth from trading gold with North Africa.

However, it seems subsaharian Africa didn't develop technology on its own past this neolithic stage. The few elaborate weapons (starting with iron swords) used by subsaharian empires were bought to the Arabs. Ethiopia's centralized power was directly inspired by the Arabs, and founding myths of the Ghana empires talk about Jews fleeing to southern Sahara and creating an empire.

Subsaharian Africans have always supplied slaves to foreign powers, starting with the Nubians and their yearly supply to Egypt.


I've read here about the "spear principle" (I think that's the name) : intelligent species may develop enough tech to move to the top of the food chain, but no further, because nobody's challenging them. This theory implies that the intelligent species is peaceful, and not oriented towards killing itself (this is obviously not the case for the human being).
Africa was everything but peaceful, so the 'spear principle' doesn't apply there. So, I reamin clueless to why the technology tree seemed to stop about before bronze age for subsaharian Africa, and why the empires spanning there didn't seem to be able to develop techs by themselves.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
say what?

you apparently didn't read enough if you came up with this stupid, horribly wrong conclusion that sub-saharan africa was primitive

Enlighten us, O font of wisdom.

[Al B. Sure!]

no, Cockney, i suggest you read some history...

if you take Spiffor's first post as legitimate, then so is my alteration about europe... all european civilization is is a rehashing of ancient mesoptamia and ancient greece... even the mighty Romans couldn't even beat off the Huns... stupid europeans... why they remained so backward?

[General Ludd]

Humans evolved in Africa, and where a part of the ecosystem. They are perfectly adapted to the climate (well, maybe not all of africa) and do not really need anything more then what they're born with to survive. That said, they did develope some amount of technology - tools, fire, wells, ect... they just didn't get carried away with it because they didn't need to.

Well, maybe not. That's just my theory of why it might happened. But I suspect that really it just comes down to a roll of the dice. (so to speak)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Spiffor - one big difference was the availability of surface deposits of useful metals.

[C0ckney]

yes but albert while we took a lot of ideas from others, we developed them and had our own as well, how else do you think we took over most of the world? africa didn't, that's the difference.

[C0ckney]

actually small correction spiffor, africas did find and use iron, tools and weapons etc. on their own. 'great zimbabwe' springs to mind. although they never used bronze or copper, they jumped straight from the stone age to the iron age

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boddington's
They are very primitive..intelligence maybe wasn't required for survival in Africa..if you get me.

Looking for some time off?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
no, Cockney, i suggest you read some history...

if you take Spiffor's first post as legitimate, then so is my alteration about europe... all european civilization is is a rehashing of ancient mesoptamia and ancient greece... even the mighty Romans couldn't even beat off the Huns... stupid europeans... why they remained so backward?

Many European civilizations sure were late in comparison to what has come from the mediterrannean. However, even 'backwards' Civ did develop technology on their own and continued to do so : the Celts had the best distribution system of iron for the time, and taught quite a few things to Roman weaponmakers. The Vikings did develop their own writing, but it was too scholastic and mysterious to be convenient in any mundane use (such as finance).
In other parts of the world, such as eastern Asia, advanced Civilizations developed without any influence from Mesopotamia and Mediterranean, even in the jungle-ridden Cambodia. Same thing for central and south America.

I don't think Africans are stupid. I'm sure that Africa will one day be a full-fledged actor on the international scene, and its scientists will bring as much knowledge as scientists from any other continent. I don't think it is in the genes of Africans that they didn't develop technology past neolithic ones ; but I think there was something in Africa that made it so. I wonder what it is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Albert has these wonderful blinders on .

The problem with saying Europe is backward is that they TOOK OVER THE WORLD! For a backward civilization that is quite a feat.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
actually small correction spiffor, africas did find and use iron, tools and weapons etc. on their own. 'great zimbabwe' springs to mind. although they never used bronze or copper, they jumped straight from the stone age to the iron age

I stand corrected. I found very little information about the Civs southern of the equatorial jungle, so I did only know about great Zimbabwe's size, and not technology...

MtG : it's a factor indeed

[Az]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
During my vacation, I've taken a little bit of interest for the precolonial European empires such as the English/French/Germans, the Romans and the Swedes. (Mind you, I didn't put enough energy into it to actually buy books )
I am not talking about Alexander's Greece here, but about European Civs.


Argguably save for the Swedes, these empires took most of their 'civilised' traits (technology, weaponry, political structure) from the Greeks or other influential mediterranean powers. Even Rome owes its success to its Greek-influenced political structure.
Besides, they almost systematically got their butt spanked by non-European countries or tribes. Heck, even Rome the golden Capitol was unable to defend itself from nomadic raiders.



Europeans developed their way to the top of the food chain, and had dropped nomadism for a very long time, without any influence from the outside. Ethnic wars were many, yet the Europeans barely developped tech / efficient political structures by themselves.

This is completely incorrect:
You can't take greece out of europe. classical greece has a very important influcence of europe, and IS a part of europe.

Europe is probably the greatest force in the history of mankind, Either Europe or China.

Europe has dominated the ME for a thousand years, from Alexander to the rise of the muslims.

Sub-Saharan Africa was never a force to be reckoned with in the global arena. it still isn't.

The only countries in africa that were on par with the classical world, ME, the subcontinent or the orient were Egypt, Nubia and Ethiopia, ( and Carthago, but that's our boys. ). And they were deeply connected with Europe and the ME.

[Saint Marcus]

and what technology are we talking about? Ancient Africans developed/used technology that Ancient Americans never did. Like the wheel, or various weaponry.

[Ecthy]

Carthage was Phoenician. Them boys related to hebrews?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Albert has these wonderful blinders on .

The problem with saying Europe is backward is that they TOOK OVER THE WORLD! For a backward civilization that is quite a feat.

They're blood thirsty savages, what's the surprise?