Sub-sharan africa failed to achieve much??

[KARTLOS]

I wanted to start a debate on sub-saharan africa.

Firstly - I am of the opinon that sub-sahara africa achieved relatively little in the way of civilisation prior european colonisation. that is open to debate and I welcome any opinions on this.

Secondly- asuming the first statement is correct -what can explain this?
For example in the case of australian aborigines I have always understood that the one of the reasons for their relative lack of a settled civilistaion was the aridity of the region and the lack of suitable crops to domesticate( iam possibly wrong here and again welcome comments) - this does not seem to be the case for africa so why did it achieve so little?

[Randarkmaan]

Well, if you ask me I'd say that it boils down to a sort of necesessity is the mother of all invention. Some of the first places where civilisation began were places where the earth is fertile but it is hard to work it because of a dry climate or something other, for an example Egypt. In Egypt one needed to divert the waters of the Nile to irrigate the farms in order to be able to produce crops, later this led to further improvements and inventions and more concentrated population which led to cities, the first being in Mesopotamia were irrigation also was developed in order to be able to harvest the crops of the fertile earth there. Civilisation in places where this was not as necessary developed because of influence of and learning from those who had already developed it. This is a very easy way to say it, but it is one way.

[KARTLOS]

Well, if you ask me I'd say that it boils down to a sort of necesessity is the mother of all invention. Some of the first places where civilisation began were places where the earth is fertile but it is hard to work it because of a dry climate or something other, for an example Egypt. In Egypt one needed to divert the waters of the Nile to irrigate the farms in order to be able to produce crops, later this led to further improvements and inventions and more concentrated population which led to cities, the first being in Mesopotamia were irrigation also was developed in order to be able to harvest the crops of the fertile earth there. Civilisation in places where this was not as necessary developed because of influence of and learning from those who had already developed it. This is a very easy way to say it, but it is one way.

i dont really think that explains it. There must be many areas in africa where therer are marginal conditions - that would provide an impetus to develop and refine agricultural techniques.

[Kagemusha]

One example of larger old culture in Sub Saharan Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

I dont think we should say that Sub Saharan Africa was poor culturally.Its same as saying the Eurasian steppe people didnt have any culture. Some Cultures just leave lot less behind to judge them. Usually becouse of the special climates they are situated.

[KrooK]

Hmm how about Numidia or Cartage. Or Maybe Morocco, Tunisia a bit later?

[KARTLOS]

Hmm how about Numidia or Cartage. Or Maybe Morocco, Tunisia a bit later?

none of that is sub-saharan

[KARTLOS]

One example of larger old culture in Sub Saharan Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

I dont think we should say that Sub Saharan Africa was poor culturally.Its same as saying the Eurasian steppe people didnt have any culture. Some Cultures just leave lot less behind to judge them. Usually becouse of the special climates they are situated.

greater zimbabwe is only impressive in the context of sub-sharan africa. compare it to anywhere else and it is pathetic. as many as 18,000 inhabitants in the 11th tp 15th century AD, oh wow!

in regards to steppe cultures, note i am not saying that the africans had no culture, and you need to diferentiate between culture and civilisation. steppe culures also never reached I high level of civilistaion - something which requires permenant settlement.

as regards to lack of evidence due to climate - surely any advanced civilistaions would have left some clues with those that followed them. when the europeans conqured africa they mostly fought people fighting naked carrying wooden spears.

[Kagemusha]

greater zimbabwe is only impressive in the context of sub-sharan africa. compare it to anywhere else and it is pathetic. as many as 18,000 inhabitants in the 11th tp 15th century AD, oh wow!

in regards to steppe cultures, note i am not saying that the africans had no culture, and you need to diferentiate between culture and civilisation. steppe culures also never reached I high level of civilistaion - something which requires permenant settlement.

as regards to lack of evidence due to climate - surely any advanced civilistaions would have left some clues with those that followed them. when the europeans conqured africa they mostly fought people fighting naked carrying wooden spears.

Define "Civilization"? Nomads just dont build large installations,like farmers do. If you think that makes their cultures inferior,thats your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[InsaneApache]

The library at Timbuktoo.

[Marshal Murat]

Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't developed as much because of many reasons.

1.They weren't on the main trade routes. The best that 'Sub-Sahara' Africa could do was Ghana gold mines, and those were more in Sahara than below it. The Europeans wanted spices and gold, and China/India/Middle East had spices and gold. The Europeans traded with them. Africa isn't involved, save for Saharan Africa.

2.They didn't foster innovation. Europe managed to advance technologically because there were fifty nations, all with swords and arrows. They kept bashing each other, improving their armies, and improving their life. Cutting away the weak,the nations of Europe were forced to improve, adapt, invent, and thrive. Africa, while culturally diverse and split along tribes, they were unable to take in any innovations of the Saharan Africa, and thus had more lower-tech warfare, and that takes you only so far.

3.Lack of pack/supply animals. There were bulls to do some hard labor, but the rest of the animal kingdom south of Sahara isn't able to perform as well as camels or horses. Those two animals revolutionized warfare, and technology. More could be carried in wagons, pulled by horses, then by human means.

1 really kept the Africans away from main-stream technological flow. While there were trading posts established by Muslims, it wasn't like the bustling cities of Venice, Constantinople, London, Amsterdam, or Kiev. The geological position hampered them from the start.

[KARTLOS]

Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't developed as much because of many reasons.

1.They weren't on the main trade routes. The best that 'Sub-Sahara' Africa could do was Ghana gold mines, and those were more in Sahara than below it. The Europeans wanted spices and gold, and China/India/Middle East had spices and gold. The Europeans traded with them. Africa isn't involved, save for Saharan Africa.

1 really kept the Africans away from main-stream technological flow. While there were trading posts established by Muslims, it wasn't like the bustling cities of Venice, Constantinople, London, Amsterdam, or Kiev. The geological position hampered them from the start.

this just supports the view that the africans were unable to develop without outside help.

the civilisations of mes-america nd peru didnt develop because of trade links with the rest of the world.

[Samurai Waki]

I think for the most part why Sub Saharan Africa didn't emerge as a great center of civilization is probably because there is a lack of connectivity. All of these cultures were relatively separated by Natural Barriers of Land for thousands of Years, so contact from one tribe to another was probably limited at best. Africa's wilderness tends to be an unforgiving place, where food and supplies were rare, and it only fosters a "Strongest Survives" Mentality. So One Tribe would not be too keen on sharing with another, whether this involved Nomadism, or semi-permanent Villages. The whole idea of Civilization and right by conquest is to absorb your neighbors, and culturally convert them. But in Africa this would have been tricky at best, Great Zimbabwe gave it a go, and failed.
Since Africa didn't share much contact from one tribe to another, Technology progress would be at a Stand Still. The Difference from Pre-Colonial America and Pre-Colonial Africa is that Communication was quite expediant and there weren't many land barriers. But this wasn't always the case, The American Midwest didn't become readily habitable until the introduction of the Horse. But it is evident that Mercantilism was quite healthy before Europeans entered the scene, as Viking Handaxes have been found as far West as Alberta.

The Messai Tribes in Kenya could possibly be the thorn in your theory, as Herding has been a part of their existence far before any European or Arabian entered the Area. I think the biggest difference is that there has never been a necessity to compete, and with a lack of Communication, Technology can't progress. Why should things have changed if they already worked? As far as I'm concerned, Civilization has been a bane on human kind.

[KARTLOS]

The Messai Tribes in Kenya could possibly be the thorn in your theory, as Herding has been a part of their existence far before any European or Arabian entered the Area. .

a thorn how? do you equate herding with developed civilization?

[Randarkmaan]

Nubia, Ethiopia and Mali had some advanced civilisation.

[The_Doctor]

What about the Almoravids, they conquered the southern half of Spain.

[Watchman]

Did that as a bunch of desert nomads, AFAIK. Nomads have always tended to be very good at warfare but not so good at things usually rated as "civilization", until of course they settle down somewhere.

Anyway, I suspect African "stagnation" had something to do with having enough "elbow room" that they didn't need to fight their neighbours tooth and nail over territory and resources all the time, as was the case in Eurasia for example. The first "high cultures" developed in a rather small geographical areas - around rivers mainly - after all and were constantly bickering among themselves, which duly led to the need to create all kinds of adminstrative structures to pay for it all and run the show which in peacetime then also allowed for the accumulation of major surplus that could be invested in various "prestige projects" - pyramids, temples, a large class of priests and other educati who could spare the time to peer at the night sky and ponder the substance of the world and so on.

[KARTLOS]

What about the Almoravids, they conquered the southern half of Spain.

they were more saharan than sub-saharan!

[The_Doctor]

they were more saharan than sub-saharan!

I suppose so.

But in a way aren't we all sub-saharan.

[Reenk Roink]

I wanted to start a debate on sub-saharan africa.

Firstly - I am of the opinon that sub-sahara africa achieved relatively little in the way of civilisation prior european colonisation. that is open to debate and I welcome any opinions on this.

You hold a view of "civilization" that others don't, and I strongly doubt that you (or anyone else) can actually put forth a coherent case as to why "refined agricultural techniques" indicate higher "civilization".

If you want to say that Sub-Saharan Africa achieved less in the way of "refined agricultural techniques" than Europe, then I would be inclined to agree, but I would also be inclined to not care at all, as "refined agricultural techniques" are nothing to cream your jeans about in my book...

Secondly- asuming the first statement is correct -what can explain this?

Incommensurability.

a thorn how? do you equate herding with developed civilization?

You should first answer the question as to how you equate "refined agricultural techniques" with developed civilization. Once you see how futile it is to do that, you will drop your question.

[KARTLOS]

You hold a view of "civilization" that others don't, and I strongly doubt that you (or anyone else) can actually put forth a coherent case as to why "refined agricultural techniques" indicate higher "civilization".

If you want to say that Sub-Saharan Africa achieved less in the way of "refined agricultural techniques" than Europe, then I would be inclined to agree, but I would also be inclined to not care at all, as "refined agricultural techniques" are nothing to cream your jeans about in my book...



Incommensurability.



You should first answer the question as to how you equate "refined agricultural techniques" with developed civilization. Once you see how futile it is to do that, you will drop your question.

for the sake of convenience here is the definition of civilization given by wikipedia

"civilisation has a variety of meanings related to human society. Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities."

i fear you may be falling intothe trap of equating civilization with culture. i dont believe them to be the m same thing.

[Reenk Roink]

for the sake of convenience here is the definition of civilization given by wikipedia

"civilisation has a variety of meanings related to human society. Most often it is used to refer to "complex" societies: those that practice intensive agriculture; have a significant division of labour; and have population densities sufficient to form cities."

i fear you may be falling intothe trap of equating civilization with culture. i dont believe them to be the m same thing.

OK, so that's where the definition comes from.

Well, then I continue to support my original view. You see, that definition itself is already slanted towards agrarian societies. Sub-Saharan Africa is not an agrarian society.

It's true that Sub-Saharan Africa for the most part didn't practice intensive agriculture. They didn't have to. The style of life is simply incommensurable...

[KARTLOS]

OK, so that's where the definition comes from.

Well, then I continue to support my original view. You see, that definition itself is already slanted towards agrarian societies. Sub-Saharan Africa is not an agrarian society.

It's true that Sub-Saharan Africa for the most part didn't practice intensive agriculture. They didn't have to. The style of life is simply incommensurable...

incommensurable. just learned a new word reenk!

it is easy to say they didnt need to, but really that is fanciful and romantic and doesnt bear any relation to reality. in terms of life expectancy black africans have never had a great quality of life.

an agrarian society is necesary to develop civilization. it gives people time to think about things other than where their next meal comes from.

the question is why did the africans fail to achieve this?

[Reenk Roink]

incommensurable. just learned a new word reenk!

it is easy to say they didnt need to, but really that is fanciful and romantic and doesnt bear any relation to reality. in terms of life expectancy black africans have never had a great quality of life.

Actually, my view conforms to geographical and anthropological evidence. They simply didn't need to settle and make complex agricultural systems given their habitat and way of life (and that's why they didn't).

Also, life expectancy in agrarian "civilizations" was not any higher than African civilizations until around 200 years ago. Do you know the average life expectancy in ancient Greece or Rome (paragons of 'civilization', meeting all criteria in the Wikipedia defintion)?

In the 30's...

an agrarian society is necesary to develop civilization.

Given your definition of 'civilization', this is a meaningless tautology.

You are essentially saying: "an agrarian society is necessary to develop those societies that practice intensive agriculture"...

it gives people time to think about things other than where their next meal comes from.

I'm pretty sure that most people throughout the of the history of agrarian societies like Greece and Rome, and Europe until maybe 200-300 years ago thought about this as much as Sub-Saharan Africans.

the question is why did the africans fail to achieve this?

Other people in this thread have given quite good answers to that question based on geography and anthropology, that could cut it for me.

However, I go further and ask: Why did they even have to achieve it?

[KARTLOS]

tautology eh!

[econ21]

I am not convinced Africa failed to achieve an agrarian society prior to colonisation. Colonisation came rather late - it only really got going in the last third of the nineteenth century with the scramble for Africa. At that time, some Africa communites were oriented around small holder agriculture, others around herding (a few were hunter-gatherers, e.g. the bushmen, but this was relatively uncommon). Often the two co-existed and had something of a symbiotic relationship, as with the settled Kikuyu and the pastoralist Masai of Kenya.

Unlike the aborigines or the native Americans, the Africans had a fair amount of contact with the outside world through trade etc prior to European colonisation. For example, perhaps the main staple food crop of Africa today is maize, which IIRC originated in the New World.

[KARTLOS]

I am not convinced Africa failed to achieve an agrarian society prior to colonisation. Colonisation came rather late - it only really got going in the last third of the nineteenth century with the scramble for Africa. At that time, some Africa communites were oriented around small holder agriculture, others around herding (a few were hunter-gatherers, e.g. the bushmen, but this was relatively uncommon). Often the two co-existed and had something of a symbiotic relationship, as with the settled Kikuyu and the pastoralist Masai of Kenya.

Unlike the aborigines or the native Americans, the Africans had a fair amount of contact with the outside world through trade etc prior to European colonisation. For example, perhaps the main staple food crop of Africa today is maize, which IIRC originated in the New World.

i agree, but why didnt they move on from that base level of agricultural existence and achieve anything of note?

[IrishArmenian]

this just supports the view that the africans were unable to develop without outside help.

the civilisations of mes-america nd peru didnt develop because of trade links with the rest of the world.

Don't you think they traded amongst each other?
How else would sea shells find there way inland?

[TinCow]

Well, I'm inclined to believe the theory laid out by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He states that Africa's inability to develop Eurasian style societies and technologies was due to an agricultural stagnation which was in turn the result of geographic considerations. He mainly focuses on two specific factors; first that Africa had fewer plants and animals that were suitable to domestication, and second that Africa's geography created extremely varied environmental zones that prevented the spead of domesticated plants and animals across the continent. Essentially, deserts, jungles, savanahs, and mountains were all too hostile to each others' indiginous life, which prevented locals from spreading the few domesticated crops and animals they did have beyond their areas of origin. This in turn kept the various African communities isolated and independent, limiting their cultural and economic exchange.

By comparison, Eurasia has a great deal of land from Iberia all the way to Japan which has a climate that is similar enough to allow species from one place to live in nearly all of them. Thus a standardized system of agriculture was arrived at relatively early, which prompted greater population growth and prosperity, which in turn spurred development in social structures and technologies at a greater pace.

It's the best theory I've heard so far, so until something better comes along, I'm inclined to believe it.

[Marshal Murat]

That is mostly where I based my theory...


Africans didn't develop a highly advanced civilization (Greece, Rome) because they couldn't move past a basic argicultural society.

Nubia and Ghana (Mali, whatever) had gold, something they could trade, and thus were able to trade and prosper.

[KARTLOS]

Well, I'm inclined to believe the theory laid out by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel. He states that Africa's inability to develop Eurasian style societies and technologies was due to an agricultural stagnation which was in turn the result of geographic considerations. He mainly focuses on two specific factors; first that Africa had fewer plants and animals that were suitable to domestication, and second that Africa's geography created extremely varied environmental zones that prevented the spead of domesticated plants and animals across the continent. Essentially, deserts, jungles, savanahs, and mountains were all too hostile to each others' indiginous life, which prevented locals from spreading the few domesticated crops and animals they did have beyond their areas of origin. This in turn kept the various African communities isolated and independent, limiting their cultural and economic exchange.

By comparison, Eurasia has a great deal of land from Iberia all the way to Japan which has a climate that is similar enough to allow species from one place to live in nearly all of them. Thus a standardized system of agriculture was arrived at relatively early, which prompted greater population growth and prosperity, which in turn spurred development in social structures and technologies at a greater pace.

It's the best theory I've heard so far, so until something better comes along, I'm inclined to believe it.

yes i am verytempted to buy that book, when i think i will have time to read it.

( i just bought the entire giles milton form a second hand book store, so it is going to be a while)