Man made the African savannas (ancient climate change)

[Al B. Sure!]

Scientists had previously thought that a climate shift from warm and humid to seasonally cooler and drier had helped create those savannas, which covered even more of Central Africa in the past. But the 40,000-year-old record preserved in the sediment cores tells a different story. Roughly 3,500 years ago the Congo River suddenly began dumping a lot more muck without any appreciable increase in rainfall to explain such weathering. One plausible explanation is the simultaneous arrival of the so-called Bantu people, who brought farming into the region.

They cultivated oil palm, pearl millet and yams, crops that need plenty of sunlight, which, of course, necessitated clearing forests. They also cut down trees for charcoal and as fuel for the fires of iron-smelting, which enabled them to make tools and weapons. Coupled with climate change, the result was savannas and mutually reinforcing climate change.

At the same time, the presence of crops such as millet and yams suggests that climate had already changed given that they require alternating seasons of wet and dry. So it remains unclear whether changing climate conditions created the savannas that made Bantu-style farming possible or if Bantu-style farming created the conditions for savannas and changed the climate. What is clear is that “the environmental impact of human population in the central African rainforest was already significant about 2,500 years ago,” as the researchers write in the paper presenting their findings published online in Science on February 9.

Anthropomorphic climate change occurring in ancient times is nothing new but it is interesting that such a famous topological feature as the African savannas was partially created by human agricultural methods and cutting down trees for iron-smelting.

[Dinner]

More likely even before any humans started practicing agriculture or animal husbandry hunter-gatherers started using fire to shape their surroundings. Both Native Americans and Australian Aboriginese used fire to clear out under brush, promote the growth of grass instead, and thus increase the number of herbavores the land could support (and thus the number of animals they could hunt) so why wouldn't Africans do the same?

[Al B. Sure!]

More likely even before any humans started practicing agriculture or animal husbandry hunter-gatherers started using fire to shape their surroundings. Both Native Americans and Australian Aboriginese used fire to clear out under brush, promote the growth of grass instead, and thus increase the number of herbavores the land could support (and thus the number of animals they could hunt) so why wouldn't Africans do the same?

That's not what the historical record is saying if you read the article. The changes occurred with the Bantu migrations, long after the development of agriculture and iron-working in Africa. It was Bantu agriculture and clearing of forests for iron-smelting that motivated significant changes in climate.

Oh yes, I do remember that discussion we had before about the technological sophistication of Africa. You seemed to think sub-Saharan Africans were living like Australian Aborigines when in fact all but isolated populations (Bushmen) had agriculture, animal husbandry, metal-working, etc.

[giblets]

That's not what the historical record is saying if you read the article. The changes occurred with the Bantu migrations, long after the development of agriculture and iron-working in Africa. It was Bantu agriculture and clearing of forests for iron-smelting that motivated significant changes in climate.

Climates don't have motives. That might be correct usage but I have my doubts.

[Al B. Sure!]

Climates don't have motives. That might be correct usage but I have my doubts.

What the hell are you on about? Stop trying to dissect every thing I say and ignore the entire point. Even IF motivated is not correct usage there, any native speaker knows what the hell I'm saying. You look like a jackass by trying to play grammar nazi.

[Dinner]

That's not what the historical record is saying if you read the article. The changes occurred with the Bantu migrations, long after the development of agriculture and iron-working in Africa. It was Bantu agriculture and clearing of forests for iron-smelting that motivated significant changes in climate.

Oh yes, I do remember that discussion we had before about the technological sophistication of Africa. You seemed to think sub-Saharan Africans were living like Australian Aborigines when in fact all but isolated populations (Bushmen) had agriculture, animal husbandry, metal-working, etc.

Bantu groups had agriculture (and later metal working) but Bushmen (pigmies) traditionally didn't and neither did Khoisan. That's why Bantu groups were able to expand and take territory from them. It's the same story the world over when people with agriculture meet hunter-gatherers.

BTW, ****, no one said all Africans were hunter-gatherers (that's an invention from your own imagination) only that two groups (pigmies & Khoisan) were hunter gatherers without metal working. Native agriculture using local plants arose in the Magreb, tropical west Africa, and in Ethiopia while animal husbandry spread from Asia and North Africa to the rest of Africa (minus pigmy and Khoisan areas).

[Al B. Sure!]

Bantu groups had agriculture (and later metal working) but Bushmen (pigmies) traditionally didn't and neither did Khoisan. That's why Bantu groups were able to expand and take territory from them. It's the same story the world over when people with agriculture meet hunter-gatherers.

BTW, ****, no one said all Africans were hunter-gatherers (that's an invention from your own imagination) only that two groups (pigmies & Khoisan) were hunter gatherers without metal working. Native agriculture using local plants arose in the Magreb, tropical west Africa, and in Ethiopia while animal husbandry spread from Asia and North Africa to the rest of Africa (minus pigmy and Khoisan areas).

Pygmies are not bushmen!

These are pygmy areas:



The Khoisan, however, ARE one of the bushmen groups along with the San. They live in SOUTHERN Africa.

[Dinner]

Now they live in only Southwest Africa in areas unsuitable to agriculture but before, just like the pigmies, they used to be found over most of the areas which are now ethnically bantu. There are even relic population much further north. Read Jeriod Diamond.

[Al B. Sure!]

Bantu groups had agriculture (and later metal working) but Bushmen (pigmies) traditionally didn't and neither did Khoisan. That's why Bantu groups were able to expand and take territory from them. It's the same story the world over when people with agriculture meet hunter-gatherers.

BTW, ****, no one said all Africans were hunter-gatherers (that's an invention from your own imagination) only that two groups (pigmies & Khoisan) were hunter gatherers without metal working. Native agriculture using local plants arose in the Magreb, tropical west Africa, and in Ethiopia while animal husbandry spread from Asia and North Africa to the rest of Africa (minus pigmy and Khoisan areas).

Fine, I went back and checked that other thread. You're correct. You didn't say anything to that effect, although you did misrepresent your evidence concerning the weapons used by the Mali. I apologize.

[Al B. Sure!]

Now they live in only Southwest Africa in areas unsuitable to agriculture but before, just like the pigmies, they used to be found over most of the areas which are now ethnically bantu. There are even relic population much further north. Read Jeriod Diamond.

What exactly is your point? Not sure why you keep bringing this stuff up.

And Jared Diamond? (that's an interesting mis-spelling of the name, by the way) I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel like the rest of us. Frankly, as intriguing as his theory is, it is so simplistic that you can't expect it to be borne out to close examination, outside of the broad, sweeping general look he takes. For one, take his theory about the difficulty of North-South crop diffusion... umm, what gives with maize, then, which was grown in Peru all the way into North America?

[Barnabas]

Oerdin's point is that Pygmies and Bushmen were much more widespread before the Bantu expansion. If the west had managed to colonize sub saharan africa before the year 1000 after Christ they would have found much more of it populated by hunter gatherers than they did after the first portuguese expeditions.

If I recall correctly, the dutch settled in the southern tip of Africa before the first Bantus had reached that region, they only found Bushmen

[Al B. Sure!]

Oerdin's point is that Pygmies and Bushmen were much more widespread before the Bantu expansion. If the west had managed to colonize sub saharan africa before the year 1000 after Christ they would have found much more of it populated by hunter gatherers than they did after the first portuguese expeditions.

If I recall correctly, the dutch settled in the southern tip of Africa before the first Bantus had reached that region, they only found Bushmen

But what is this point?

The point of the article is that the Bantu migrations caused dramatic climate change in Africa and created the savannas.

What do bushmen have to do with anything?

[giblets]

He was looking for an excuse to misspell Jared Diamond. I think his command of the English language almost rivals Al's.

[Berzerker]

At the same time, the presence of crops such as millet and yams suggests that climate had already changed given that they require alternating seasons of wet and dry. So it remains unclear whether changing climate conditions created the savannas that made Bantu-style farming possible or if Bantu-style farming created the conditions for savannas and changed the climate.

misleading title

[Dinner]

Oerdin's point is that Pygmies and Bushmen were much more widespread before the Bantu expansion. If the west had managed to colonize sub saharan africa before the year 1000 after Christ they would have found much more of it populated by hunter gatherers than they did after the first portuguese expeditions.

If I recall correctly, the dutch settled in the southern tip of Africa before the first Bantus had reached that region, they only found Bushmen

Indeed. This is because the bantu agricultural package originated in tropical west Africa and tropical crops grow best in the tropics. South Africa is mediterrean in climate so the tropical crops simply didn't grow there. Bantu herdsmen (herding goats but mostly cattle) did successfully bring food production as far south as the fish river but that was it before Europeans arrived. Notice how this is not a reflection on the people themselves but a limitation of the resources they had at their disposal (meaning the limits of where the agricultural plants they had at their disposal would grow). Never the less the Bantu, who started in a small portion of tropical west Africa did successfully expand to cover most of Africa from the sub-tropics down. As I recall farmers got there first and farm animals only much, much later due to cattle and goats having problems with tropical diseases so in order to expand south natural immunities had to evolve among the cattle as well as the people and this delayed the spread of livestock for several thousand years. They eventually were able to over come the climate limitations of their environment though and today cattle and goat breeds from tropical africa make up a big part of livestock kept in the tropical parts of the world simply because the animal breeds from Africa really are better adapted then if they imported live stock from Europe.

I know Brazil came up with some breeds in the 60's by crossing African cattle with Indian and Bali cattle resulting in some pretty hardly cross breeds of cattle when it comes to living in the tropics.