Why has Africa always remained primitive ?

[Kettch]

PBS on the Zebra:

Perhaps the most puzzling question Jared Diamond encounters as he investigates animal domestication is: Why were no large mammals ever domesticated in tropical Africa?

Africa, south of the Sahara, is home to the richest diversity of animal life on the planet, including some of the largest mammals on earth. So why did the Africans never domesticate the rhino? Why did they never farm the hippo? The elephant? Or the giant wildebeest? Perhaps most strangely of all, given the importance of the horse to European history, why did tropical Africans never domesticate their own species of wild horse, the zebra?

Zebra are closely related to the domesticated horse, sharing a genus (Equus) and a common ancestor. They stand nearly five feet at the shoulder, live in small family groups or herds, are sociable herbivores who breed well in public and live in harmony with their mammalian neighbors, like antelopes and wildebeest. They are even strong enough to carry an adult human on their backs.

Zebras are also notoriously difficult to catch. They have evolved superb early-warning mechanisms , such as peripheral vision far superior to other horses. Often bad tempered, they grow increasingly antisocial with age and once they bite, they tend not to let go. A kick from a zebra can kill — and these creatures are responsible for more injuries to American zookeepers each year than any other animal.

Pity the poor human, therefore, who might try to domesticate a zebra in the wild. During the colonial era, some adventurous Europeans tried to harness this African horse. Lord Rothschild famously drove a zebra-drawn carriage through the streets of Victorian London. Yet these creatures were never truly domesticated — they were never bred and sustained explicitly under human control.

Why is it so hard to tame the zebra? Survival of the Fittest.

Zebra and other African game evolved characteristics to help them survive one of the harshest environments on earth.

Africa was the birthplace not just of humanity, but also of much of our planet's plant and animal life. Species which remained on this continent rather than migrating to new lands, evolved alongside one another for millions of years, becoming highly attuned to the predatory nature of their environment.

Sharing their habitat with some of the most dangerous predators on earth, including lions and cheetahs, leopards and hyenas natural selection forced African wildlife such as the zebra to evolve clever survival techniques.

Similar antisocial characteristics have prevented the domestication of other African wild game. Rhinos, at over 5 tons in weight and immensely strong, could have been terrific beasts of burden for African farmers -just imagine the sight of a rhino-mounted cavalry! Yet rhinos are spectacularly bad-tempered and unpredictable. Although they have poor eyesight, their senses of smell and hearing are especially acute. Despite their bulk, rhinos are remarkably agile, and when provoked into a charge — often by little more than an unfamiliar smell or sound — an agitated rhino can reach speeds of up to 45 km per hour, even in dense undergrowth.

The hippo, could also have offered unique agricultural and military advantages to African civilization. However, the hippo's aggressive nature, crushing jaws and four-and-a-half ton size make them deadly. They are also extremely territorial — males often fight to the death over control of a harem. Hippos are said to account for more human deaths throughout Africa per year than any other mammal, except the lion.

A pattern emerged. African herbivores were simply too aggressive for human control. Elsewhere in the world, mammals evolved in isolation from human interference — after all, man only lived outside of Africa for a fraction of his existence on earth-- around 50,000 years. When man arrived in Eurasia and in the Americas, native herbivores were by nature less cautious and more receptive to human control.

But in Africa, man and beast have evolved alongside one another for millions of years. Large mammals have learned to avoid — or if necessary, attack — human beings, resisting capture with some of the most sophisticated physiological characteristics on earth.

[Darth Raptor]

If memory serves, the species of elephant used by Carthage weren't even African, but more closely related to the Indian strain. To say that African elephants are belligerent is something of an understatement. Every large mammal on that continent seems to be ill tempered. Understandable, if a bit alien. Megafaunas just don't exist elswhere anymore, and humans have become accustomed to being top predator.

Logistically speaking, the utility of rhinoceros cavalry would probably be limited to defensive maneuvers.

[Simplicius]

Logistically speaking, the utility of rhinoceros cavalry would probably be limited to defensive maneuvers.

Aren't they rather frightfully near-sighted? I would think that, plus their olfactory sensitivity and reactions to same, would render them entirely unsuitable for battlefield oparations.

[Elfdart]

The zebras used for Rothschilde's coach were youngsters. Adult zebras are almost uncontrollable.

In her review of a book about horse evolution in the New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas mentions what happened when a wrangler in Florida who kept a zebra (I remember this review from several years ago -subscription required for the full quote and article):

Zebras, for instance, furiously resent all our efforts to coerce them. A captive zebra, a stallion whom this reviewer met in Florida, almost bit off his keeper's penis right through the keeper

IIRC, the phrase was "through the keeper's overalls".

There's a guy in Parker County Texas who keeps several zebras on his ranch. He doesn't ride or handle them. They just run wild. I'll bet he heard about the guy in Florida!

[Darth Raptor]

Aren't they rather frightfully near-sighted? I would think that, plus their olfactory sensitivity and reactions to same, would render them entirely unsuitable for battlefield oparations.

The issue is actually taming one; as their senses of hearing and smell are just fine. Really, all you'd need to do was get them to charge in the general direction of the enemy's massed infantry formation. It's not like they need to know where or why they're running.

Also, I can't remember where I read this, but rhinos allegedly have weak hearts. I've heard stories of them being chased by jeeps (for distances well within their physical capability) only to keel over and die. Apparently, it's easy to scare a rhino to death. This is not a quality one looks for in a battle mount.

[Adrian Laguna]

If memory serves, the species of elephant used by Carthage weren't even African, but more closely related to the Indian strain.

They used the African Bush Elephant. Found in northern Africa back when it wasn't mostly desert.

[Broomstick]

Every large mammal on that continent seems to be ill tempered.

Including the humans.

Also, I can't remember where I read this, but rhinos allegedly have weak hearts. I've heard stories of them being chased by jeeps (for distances well within their physical capability) only to keel over and die. Apparently, it's easy to scare a rhino to death. This is not a quality one looks for in a battle mount.

Not much different from horses, which are convinced everything is going to eat them, including small leaves and twigs. You can run horses to death, too, yet we've still used them in battle.

[Donraj]

Well, Africa spawned Ancient Egypt which would qualify as 'great.' Carthage is also a less grand example. As for why the great empires were almost always found in Eurasia, the simplest cause would be the fact that the region did not have foodstuffs suitable for mass production, such as rice or grain, to support the population required. This is the hypothesis (very simplified here) put forth in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

He also mentions the lack of domesticatable animals, and points out how history might have been different if, say, the Zulus could have fielded armies of rhino calvary.

I still haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel. Does the author mention the rhino cavalry idea as a serious possibility or is he just throwing out a frankly awesome image to illustrate his point?

[RedImperator]

Well, Africa spawned Ancient Egypt which would qualify as 'great.' Carthage is also a less grand example. As for why the great empires were almost always found in Eurasia, the simplest cause would be the fact that the region did not have foodstuffs suitable for mass production, such as rice or grain, to support the population required. This is the hypothesis (very simplified here) put forth in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

He also mentions the lack of domesticatable animals, and points out how history might have been different if, say, the Zulus could have fielded armies of rhino calvary.

I still haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel. Does the author mention the rhino cavalry idea as a serious possibility or is he just throwing out a frankly awesome image to illustrate his point?

It's a throwaway line to illustrate a point: the reader is invited to imagine the effect of a massed rhinocerous charge against a Roman legion, to illustrate the advantage large domesticated animals gave Eurasians over the rest of the world.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't think all of Africa was ever completely primitive. As far as I know, Egypt has never been all that primitive compared to the rest of the world. It was a big civilization that was pretty advanced, got conquered by Persia, Greece, and Rome in that order and was a bread basket for all of them (that's why Caesar was interested in Egypt, he wanted their GDP and cheap grain to fuel pet projects of his). They had loads of universities and businesses. They were a trade focal point. Even after Islam and the Ottoman Empire, Egypt wasn't exactly behind the rest of the world on the tech curve (you could argue in places the Ottomans had a leg up in places on the Europeans). It's not the most wealthy place in the world now, but it's basically modern in a majority of the country. Certainly not primitive.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I don't think all of Africa was ever completely primitive. As far as I know, Egypt has never been all that primitive compared to the rest of the world. It was a big civilization that was pretty advanced, got conquered by Persia, Greece, and Rome in that order and was a bread basket for all of them (that's why Caesar was interested in Egypt, he wanted their GDP and cheap grain to fuel pet projects of his). They had loads of universities and businesses. They were a trade focal point. Even after Islam and the Ottoman Empire, Egypt wasn't exactly behind the rest of the world on the tech curve (you could argue in places the Ottomans had a leg up in places on the Europeans). It's not the most wealthy place in the world now, but it's basically modern in a majority of the country. Certainly not primitive.

But Egypt had all the advantages that the other civilization-spawning river valleys in Asia Minor and Asia proper had. It had the vast, easily cultivated Nile River valley. That same river was also large, relatively calm and easily navigable. They had access to easily domesticatable animals from Asia Minor and the Mediterranean region of eastern Europe. And they had trade access to these areas, and could generate large quantities of export, owing to the fact that they had that large, easily navigable river on which to move goods down to the Mediterranean.

Given that similarly hospitable river valleys spawned civilizations, one would've almost expected something substantial to appear in the Nile River valley, even though much of the rest of Africa was barely capable of sustaining human life on the subsistence level.

[Darth Wong]

I still haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel. Does the author mention the rhino cavalry idea as a serious possibility or is he just throwing out a frankly awesome image to illustrate his point?

It's a throwaway line to illustrate a point: the reader is invited to imagine the effect of a massed rhinocerous charge against a Roman legion, to illustrate the advantage large domesticated animals gave Eurasians over the rest of the world.

Weren't there plenty of horses in North Africa around that time too? More than there were in the Roman peninsula, in fact?

[Lord Zentei]

I don't think all of Africa was ever completely primitive. As far as I know, Egypt has never been all that primitive compared to the rest of the world. It was a big civilization that was pretty advanced, got conquered by Persia, Greece, and Rome in that order and was a bread basket for all of them (that's why Caesar was interested in Egypt, he wanted their GDP and cheap grain to fuel pet projects of his). They had loads of universities and businesses. They were a trade focal point. Even after Islam and the Ottoman Empire, Egypt wasn't exactly behind the rest of the world on the tech curve (you could argue in places the Ottomans had a leg up in places on the Europeans). It's not the most wealthy place in the world now, but it's basically modern in a majority of the country. Certainly not primitive.

But Egypt had all the advantages that the other civilization-spawning river valleys in Asia Minor and Asia proper had. It had the vast, easily cultivated Nile River valley. That same river was also large, relatively calm and easily navigable. They had access to easily domesticatable animals from Asia Minor and the Mediterranean region of eastern Europe. And they had trade access to these areas, and could generate large quantities of export, owing to the fact that they had that large, easily navigable river on which to move goods down to the Mediterranean.

Given that similarly hospitable river valleys spawned civilizations, one would've almost expected something substantial to appear in the Nile River valley, even though much of the rest of Africa was barely capable of sustaining human life on the subsistence level.

Not to mention the fact that as I pointed out earlier, North Africa is not at all in the same cultural domain as Subsaharan Africa; it's historically been closer to the Near East and southern Europe.

[Darth Wong]

Not to mention the fact that as I pointed out earlier, North Africa is not at all in the same cultural domain as Subsaharan Africa; it's historically been closer to the Near East and southern Europe.

Isn't it fairer to say that the Middle East and Southern Europe was more in the cultural domain of Egypt? After all, the Egyptian Pharaohs came first.

[Lord Zentei]

Not to mention the fact that as I pointed out earlier, North Africa is not at all in the same cultural domain as Subsaharan Africa; it's historically been closer to the Near East and southern Europe.

Isn't it fairer to say that the Middle East and Southern Europe was more in the cultural domain of Egypt? After all, the Egyptian Pharaohs came first.

Arguably, though I wasn't insinuating that Egypt was a tributary to Europe and the Near East, just that they were in the same cultural domain.

(BTW: the Sumerians came first, and they were in Iraq. )

[Aeolus]

I still haven't read Guns, Germs and Steel. Does the author mention the rhino cavalry idea as a serious possibility or is he just throwing out a frankly awesome image to illustrate his point?

It's a throwaway line to illustrate a point: the reader is invited to imagine the effect of a massed rhinocerous charge against a Roman legion, to illustrate the advantage large domesticated animals gave Eurasians over the rest of the world.

Weren't there plenty of horses in North Africa around that time too? More than there were in the Roman peninsula, in fact?

Diamond was talking about sub saharan Africa.

[Darth Wong]

Not to mention the fact that as I pointed out earlier, North Africa is not at all in the same cultural domain as Subsaharan Africa; it's historically been closer to the Near East and southern Europe.

Isn't it fairer to say that the Middle East and Southern Europe was more in the cultural domain of Egypt? After all, the Egyptian Pharaohs came first.

Arguably, though I wasn't insinuating that Egypt was a tributary to Europe and the Near East, just that they were in the same cultural domain.

The problem is that I'm hearing people using "they're closer to Europe" as some sort of rebuttal to people pointing out that Egypt is an exception to the "Africa has always been backward and primitive" rule. The obvious implication is that they are the exception because they're close to Europe, when in fact they initially led the way and Europe followed.

(BTW: the Sumerians came first, and they were in Iraq. )

I think most people consider the first important civilizations to be the ones who built impressive lasting monuments.

[Lord Zentei]

The problem is that I'm hearing people using "they're closer to Europe" as some sort of rebuttal to people pointing out that Egypt is an exception to the "Africa has always been backward and primitive" rule. The obvious implication is that they are the exception because they're close to Europe, when in fact they initially led the way and Europe followed.

That is not my argument at all. The question was why Africa has remained primitive: the statement that it has been primitive is by and large false unless you specify subsaharan Africa. Moreover, it is certainly the case that North Africa, the Near East and Europe are historically much closer to one another culturally and technologically than North Africa and southern Africa were to one another.

The argument that communication with other cultures is important to development since no civilization invents all the advances it uses does not insinuate in any way shape or form that proximity to Europe is somehow important; Europe almost certainly benefited more from proximity to the near East and Egypt than the reverse, though it is also true that Egypt+Aksum and the near East benefited from proximity to one another. It just so happens that Europe was part of the same cultural domain as Egypt and the Near East.

I think most people consider the first important civilizations to be the ones who built impressive lasting monuments.

The Sumerian cities were eventually taken over by the Akkadeans. There are monuments in Iraq from those times, though they are much less well known than the pyramids.

[Vehrec]

Isn't it fairer to say that the Middle East and Southern Europe was more in the cultural domain of Egypt? After all, the Egyptian Pharaohs came first.

Arguably, though I wasn't insinuating that Egypt was a tributary to Europe and the Near East, just that they were in the same cultural domain.

The problem is that I'm hearing people using "they're closer to Europe" as some sort of rebuttal to people pointing out that Egypt is an exception to the "Africa has always been backward and primitive" rule. The obvious implication is that they are the exception because they're close to Europe, when in fact they initially led the way and Europe followed.

(BTW: the Sumerians came first, and they were in Iraq. )

I think most people consider the first important civilizations to be the ones who built impressive lasting monuments.

Diamond does point out in his book that the Egyptian domesticates were by and large not native species, that they were imports from the fertile crescent. The exceptions to this are the donkey and the cat. Not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
If you look at a map of the lanuages of Africa, you will notice that Afro-asiatic languages dominate the northren third of the continent. Niger -Congo languages occupy most of the southren portions of the continent, and the single large Bantu subfamily. There are also small pockets of other language families, but with the exception of a large island of Khoisan (bushman) languages in South Africa/Botswana they are by no means continuous. The island of Madagascar is inhabited by decendents of indonesian settlers and their african spouses, but the entire island speaks what is recognizably Indonesian. Its these language distrobutions that lead Diamond to the conclusion that the Bantu were initally a group that discovered farming somewhere in West Africa. I defy you to grow north african/mediteranian crops in a central african envroment. You need a totaly different set of plants.
The problem with the Bantu's discovery of farming was that it came too late. They only began their expansion around 3000 BC, five thousand years later than the first farmers in China and Mesopotamia. And while they could have been receptive to the learning of the northren states, they were cut off by the barrier of the Sahara. So they had to make do with what they could come up with on their own. They had to invent iron smelting all on their own. Still, they were organized into iron using chiefdoms and kingdoms by the time the Europeans came. So they were just about 1000 years behind or so.

[Lord Zentei]

The problem with the Bantu's discovery of farming was that it came too late. They only began their expansion around 3000 BC, five thousand years later than the first farmers in China and Mesopotamia. And while they could have been receptive to the learning of the northren states, they were cut off by the barrier of the Sahara. So they had to make do with what they could come up with on their own. They had to invent iron smelting all on their own. Still, they were organized into iron using chiefdoms and kingdoms by the time the Europeans came. So they were just about 1000 years behind or so.

For a more extreme example of this situation, look no further than the Brazilian Amreindians and the Australian Aboriginals. Their development was also hampered by isolation and a shitty climate (apart from the lack of large mammals that could be domesticated).

[Elheru Aran]

Sub-Saharan Africa is largely a result of large-spread tribal rivalries, centuries of depredations from Arab and European slave traders, and repressive colonial regimes which negatively reinforced much advancing in technology.

As to why they didn't advance much until they were colonized-- that's because they had what they needed to survive. Europe is a cold, wintry land in comparison; you have to innovate to survive, and extensive trading also sprang up in the Mediterranean as well.

Africa, on the other hand, remained a tropical continent for the most part, populated largely with animals (the great majority of which were pretty edible) and small tribal groups which specialized in small-scale agriculture adapted for their specific region. Tribal differences were strong enough that there was little desire to unify; the Mali and Songhai empires are very much the exception, being held together by Islam and a strong military, and the Zulu were simply one huge tribal group being held together by a series of kings. Inter-tribal trade, consequently, was of little importance as most were reasonably self-sufficient.

Innovation was also limited due to their environment; they had little in the way of available metals (no fancy mining techniques to extract the large quantities available today) and the large forests, combined with enormous stretches of sparsely treed grassland, pretty much put the kibosh on large-scale exploitation of wood as a resource; they couldn't chop down trees and make lumber, which in turn prevented them from coming up with the wheel. Outside contacts such as Arab traders had little desire for them to innovate as well, to keep the market viable.

I'd go on further, but as Broomstick says, there's definitely no one reason for Africa's backwardness. It's largely a combination of environment, tribalism, trade (or lack thereof), and colonial repression.

[Aeolus]

I found a summary of Diamonds ideas at
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~rbell/GunsGermsSteel.html
It is interesting reading but I really recommend his entire book.

[Big Orange]

The problem is that I'm hearing people using "they're closer to Europe" as some sort of rebuttal to people pointing out that Egypt is an exception to the "Africa has always been backward and primitive" rule. The obvious implication is that they are the exception because they're close to Europe, when in fact they initially led the way and Europe followed.

That is not my argument at all. The question was why Africa has remained primitive: the statement that it has been primitive is by and large false unless you specify subsaharan Africa. Moreover, it is certainly the case that North Africa, the Near East and Europe are historically much closer to one another culturally and technologically than North Africa and southern Africa were to one another.

The argument that communication with other cultures is important to development since no civilization invents all the advances it uses does not insinuate in any way shape or form that proximity to Europe is somehow important; Europe almost certainly benefited more from proximity to the near East and Egypt than the reverse, though it is also true that Egypt+Aksum and the near East benefited from proximity to one another. It just so happens that Europe was part of the same cultural domain as Egypt and the Near East.

But many people in North Africa are essentially subsaharan Africans even though that part of the continent overlaps heavily with Southern Europe and the Near East in terms of ethnic migration. And I don't think Ancient Egypt was exclusively a Caucasian culture, since the River Nile is the longest river in the world that goes very far into Africa, well past the equator. And looking at the Ancient Egyptian wall paintings, many of the ancient people of Egypt would've looked quite similar to modern Ethiopians or people from Somalia (although there would be Mediterranean Caucasians as well).

[Broomstick]

Forget the wall paintings - look at Egyptian mummies. They range from clearly European in features to clearly sub-Saharan to definite Asiatics. Egypt has long been a crossroads of trade and the people reflect that. The predominate type, then as now, has been what I'd consider a dark Caucasian/Arab/Semetic type, but both royal tombs and common burials clearly show that folks of other types immigated and even held high status. At least one dynasty was definitely Nubian in origin - i.e. dark-skinned sub-Saharan. The Ptolemies were Greek - i.e. European Caucasians. Egypt was arguably the first multi-ethnic empire. It's stupid to try to shoe-horn them into one or another racial group because they just don't fit the definitions.

[Lord Zentei]

But many people in North Africa are essentially subsaharan Africans even though that part of the continent overlaps heavily with Southern Europe and the Near East in terms of ethnic migration. And I don't think Ancient Egypt was exclusively a Caucasian culture, since the River Nile is the longest river in the world that goes very far into Africa, well past the equator. And looking at the Ancient Egyptian wall paintings, many of the ancient people of Egypt would've looked quite similar to modern Ethiopians or people from Somalia (although there would be Mediterranean Caucasians as well).

So? The fact that there were subsaharans in Egypt makes no difference to the fact that sub saharan Africa was far more isolated from other cultures than North Africa, the near East and Europe, and that this impacted negatively on the development of that region. I never claimed that there was no communication at all: in fact, my statement that the Aboriginals of Australia and the Brazilian Amerindians were a more extreme example of the isolation that hampered subsaharan Africa rather suggests that there was some communication between subsaharan Africa and the rest of the world, yes?

Incidentally, I also specifically mentioned Aksum, which covers Ethiopia (Ethiopians being Hamites, just like the ancient Egyptian natives) and Somalia. Arguably I should also have mentioned Nubia (Sudan).

Forget the wall paintings - look at Egyptian mummies. They range from clearly European in features to clearly sub-Saharan to definite Asiatics. Egypt has long been a crossroads of trade and the people reflect that. The predominate type, then as now, has been what I'd consider a dark Caucasian/Arab/Semetic type, but both royal tombs and common burials clearly show that folks of other types immigated and even held high status. At least one dynasty was definitely Nubian in origin - i.e. dark-skinned sub-Saharan. The Ptolemies were Greek - i.e. European Caucasians. Egypt was arguably the first multi-ethnic empire. It's stupid to try to shoe-horn them into one or another racial group because they just don't fit the definitions.

Who the hell is shoehorning anything into racial groups? Quite apart from the fact that the founders of the Old Kingdom were ethnic Hamites, as shown by the very mummies you mention, the fact that the Middle Kingdom and Young Kingdom as well as the Late Period in Egypt was multiethnic strengthens my argument, which is based on the assertion that a crucial element to the success of civilizations is communication, and has nothing to do with ethnic groups whatsoever.