Why did traditional Africa not develop technology ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Albert Speer


i have one of those history atlases that shows clearly the dramatic change in the african populations in ancient times, showing there must have been mass migrations and contact between all of africa... not on the scale of central asia but still significant... i'll try to find a map online but i'll briefly describe some population changes.

Africa south of the Kongo but also including east africa in 2000 BC was made up of Khoisan speaking peoples. the linguistic group in the Kongo is not known by historians but probably was not Niger-Kordofanian/Bantu. The Sudan, Chad, and Niger were of the Nilo-Saharan language group. The Bantu existed only along a region in west africa from roughly Nigeria to Liberia.

By 1000 AD, however, the Khoisan group was reduces to mainly the Nama and Ikung peoples in southwest africa while the Bantu filled up west africa, the kongo, and bantu peoples like the Xhosa and Shona were in south africa.

so the point is, there was plenty of migrations and contact between all of sub-saharan africa...

and yes, i now realize that the philly public school system was probably exaggerating the glories of sub-saharan africa. nevertheless, it was more advanced than i think people here are thinking


thanks

I know this Albert, but 1000 AD is very late in the game. Also, a many generations long advancement of metal working agriculturalists does not equal regular contact sufficient to transport products and ideas, anymore than one can say that the Irish had contact with the Indo-European group that settled in Western China along the Silk Road. Sure they belonged to the same linguistic group and shared some very archaic things in common culturally, but without a doubt they would not have recognized one another as long lost "cousins". It wasn't until fairly recently that even linguists would have made such a claim.

The Bantu explosion is a great story in its own right, and it deserves to be told as such. They did it on their own with extremely minimal contact with other civs, and they were extraordinarily successful. To compare them to others in a competitive sense isn't particularly fair or useful, as all groups are sensitive to their initial and ongoing conditions. The same thing can be said for the peoples of the Americas who were isolated (though not as severely) as well, but who managed to nonetheless to produce impressive accomplishments.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MrFun
I cannot recall any period when African civilizations were isolated from other parts of the world.

Start from now and compare phone connections, airline connections, internet access etc. ad nauseum in Africa to almost any other part of the planet and keep going back until even the archeologists throw up their hands and admit that they don't know what the hell was going on. During this entire period Sub-Saharran Africa was isolated compared to most parts of the planet.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
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.

Where did horses cattle and camels come from, and how did they get to Africa? How long did that take? There's the head start that people in Asia had in this one area. Add to that the other animals that they had, as well as the much larger numbers of quality crops and it adds up to an enormous advantage for the Eurasians.

[Ramo]

I'll have to go with Jared Diamond's explanations - lack of domesticatable plants and large animals, long North/South axis, and natural barriers preventing frequent exchanges of information.

[Plan Austral]

The Scythins discovered Iron working methinks.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I thought it was chinese? or were the just the first to smelt pig iron? yeah, come to htink of it, i think the hitites were the first, but it was very impure and not much to note. Greeks didnt do it till much later... they loved their bronze

Earliest evidence for iron smelting in Africa so far is a site in Agadez, Niger, dating to about 500 B.C.

There are also prehistoric iron mining sites in sub-Saharan Africa, and its interesting to note that when David Livingstone met smiths who worked iron in Mozambique, they were of the opinion that the mass produced British iron tools were of an inferior quality to their traditionally made ones.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Earliest evidence for iron smelting in Africa so far is a site in Agadez, Niger, dating to about 500 B.C.

There are also prehistoric iron mining sites in sub-Saharan Africa, and its interesting to note that when David Livingstone met smiths who worked iron in Mozambique, they were of the opinion that the mass produced British iron tools were of an inferior quality to their traditionally made ones.

"Inferior! There can only be one answer to such an insult. I, William Smith challenge you to a hammerdance!"

[Al B. Sure!]

Where did horses cattle and camels come from, and how did they get to Africa? How long did that take? There's the head start that people in Asia had in this one area. Add to that the other animals that they had, as well as the much larger numbers of quality crops and it adds up to an enormous advantage for the Eurasians.

Cattle was domesticated in africa... but as for horses and camels, even Egypt didn't have these until fairly late (horses introduced by the Hyksos at the intermediate period before the New Kingdom) and traditionally, the camel is said to not have been introduced until the arab conquests of the 7th century (though it seems impossible that camels weren't introduced earlier)... so egypt until the New Kingdom only domesticated cattle... no horses, camels, sheep, chickens, goats, etc. until well into egyptian history.

as for quality crops... that can't be it... native crops domesticated by west africans included sorghum, yams, and peas while east africans farmed millet and more sorghum... i dont know where these crops stand compared to the barley and wheat of the middle east and europe but africa possessed good enough numbers of crops apparently.

[Al B. Sure!]

and by the way, the people who discovered iron smelting is not known by historians or archaelogists for sure... the thing is, most of you are looking at it as a stand-alone advancement... in fact, iron was being used even in the bronze age but civilizations then lacked the resources, technical skill, and/or technology to utilize it effectively and in great abundance. the use of iron in great quantities took hundreds of years of slow advancement.

nevertheless, it is generally thought that iron smelting as we know it originated in a civilized context around 1400 BC in Anatolia with the Hittites. the barbarian invasions of the middle east and greece around 1200 BC were so successful because the barbarian groups (most of whom historians have no idea where the hell they came from but the caucasus and central asia seem likely for some of the invading peoples) had armies of infantry armed with iron weapons. it is not known for sure if they adopted these weapons from the urban Hittites or if these semi-nomadic peoples developed iron smelting on their own... (Anatolia and the caucasus are neighbours after all) in any event, their weapons clearly allowed them to destroy the Hittite empire (which makes you question if the Hittites really utilized iron that much as they were destroyed so easily) and most of the civilized middle east except for Egypt and Assyria (which quickly adopted barbarian infantry tactics).

so the point is, historians don't know for sure who 'invented' iron smelting but it took hundreds of years of slow development... it is worthwhile to note though that the people of the Caucasus, the Hittites of the anatolia, and the Assyrians of northern Iraq were mainly the first peoples to utilize iron and they all are of roughly the same area so iron smelting most likely was developed by a people in this region

[Kramerman]

that was a very articulate post, AS, not your typical 'ebonics'

[Al B. Sure!]

Sikander:

Inferior! There can only be one answer to such an insult. I, William Smith challenge you to a hammerdance!"

Will Smith?


Kramerman:

better be articulate, i spent about five minutes typing up those three paragraphs... my average post only takes about five to ten seconds so i type it how i talk. i'm sure when you just type up some quick responses, you also are loose with the grammer and all that jazz and type more colloquilly (hope i'm using that in the right context)... the only thing that sets my posts apart from yours or everybody else here is that my every day speech includes slang words, aint, yall (well slowwhand uses yall too), and the occasional curse...

[Ramo]

Cattle was domesticated in africa...

Domesticated cattle didn't turn up South of the Sahara until the 3rd century BC, and it took a couple millennia for them to get to the other end of the continent (they had to deal with tsetse flies killing them off). As Sikander pointed out, this was far later than what was achieved in Eurasia.

but as for horses and camels, even Egypt didn't have these until fairly late (horses introduced by the Hyksos at the intermediate period before the New Kingdom)

Subsaharan Africa didn't have domesticated horses until the first millennium AD, two millennia later than Egypt. Again, a huge advantage. And they never made it South of the tsetse fly zone.

so egypt until the New Kingdom only domesticated cattle... no horses, camels, sheep, chickens, goats, etc. until well into egyptian history.

I don't know about camels (or chicken, which is less important than the other animals as it is incapable of pulling a plow, but I doubt your assertion on that), but Egypt certainly had sheep and goats far, far before the New Kingdom. Hell, the Bantus domesticated/aquired them in Sahel at approximately the same time as they did cattle (around a millennium before the New Kingdom).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
as for quality crops... that can't be it... native crops domesticated by west africans included sorghum, yams, and peas while east africans farmed millet and more sorghum... i dont know where these crops stand compared to the barley and wheat of the middle east and europe but africa possessed good enough numbers of crops apparently.

The numbers of crops are not so important as WHEN the crops or domesticated. Jared Diamond lists the much later domestication of crops such as corn in Meso-American as one of the primary reasons the civilizations in that area were so far behind the European ones. Why I don't know the exact date, I suspect the crops you mentioned were domesticated much later than those in the Middle-East or China. It takes time for a civilization and society to develope and invent new technology, and areas that fall behind too much normally need a massive infusion of technology from elsewhere to catch up.

Note: There are specifc charactoristics that Jared Diamond lists for making it easy for man to domesticate crops, many middle eastern varieties were ideal since they naturally had a short growing season, but they also tended to be naturally nutritionally beneficial. Less suitable crops can undergoe effectively thousands of years of evolutionary pressure from man before they become trully suitable for cultivation. As an example, in their natural state almonds are laced with cyanide, and its a form of almond that posses a mutation which people cultivate as a crop.

I really do suggest that you get ahold of a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" and read it sometime. The link I just gave goes to the amazon site, and has reviews which summerize many of the book's major points.

[Ramo]

Domestication of sub-Saharan crops were domesticated several thousand years after those of the fertile crescent. The other major problem was that the varying climates withn sub-Saharan Africa prevented spread; for instance, crops like Sorghum and Millet, which came from Sahel couldn't be grown on the Cape.

[C0ckney]

crops native to africa are not nearly as good as those in the americas for example. in the second half of the 19th century crops from the americas (notably maize) were introduced from the americas to africa, it was partly because of this that the population in sub-sarahran africa rose so much during that period.