Why has Africa always remained primitive ?

[Omega18]

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

Basically the quick summary is Jared Diamond argues when humans suddenly made an appearence on the American continent, they quickly wiped out horses through their hunting. The reason for this is that while horses evolved along with improved hunting skills of humans in areas such as Asia, horses in North America ran into humans with highly evolved hunting skills, but didn't have the natural instinct to run the moment they saw a human shaped thing approaching. This helped lead to horses in North America getting wiped out before they could be domesticated.

A related point is that due to relatively easy communication, horses were domesticated apparently in Asia and this knowledge and these horses then traveled elsewhere in the Euroasian continent.

[RedImperator]

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?

Probably. North Africa was considerably more hospitable at the time than it is now, and of course its land area is much much bigger than Italy's. But the Sahara might as well be another ocean; it's blocked innovations from Eurasia from reaching sub-Saharan Africa, and anyway, sub-Saharan predators make mincemeat of domestic horses and sleeping sickness kills whichever ones avoid the hyenas.

[Omega18]

Edit, I just screwed up by not reading carefully enough with my previous response and somehow missed you were talking about Africa instead of America.

The basic point is that North Africa at the time was effectively closer to being part of the Middle East, and the whole Eurasian transfer of ideas and animals. The Sahara provided a barrier to Carthagian knowledge and animals going further south, and sleeping sickness was a huge problem for horses. By contrast, the Mediteranian was effectively a highway for Carthage which connected it with other parts of the Mediteranian.

Basically the Carthaginians were not behind as far as domestic animals went, to the extent Carthage has limitations it was due to the climate of North Africa versus that of Italy. The example by Jared Diamond was more about why the true native African societies which didn't primarily rely upon their culture and animals being "imported" from elsewhere didn't have more success.

Longer term the issue for Africa was alot of these animal species didn't fit the climate well, while they did in Europe, which helped European societies. Its also rather important to note that horses had done a good job of penetrating into Europe by this period, the Gauls actually had rather good calvary, while horses had not penetrated beyond North Africa. Basically even during Roman times most African societies were clearly behind Eurasian ones.

[Pablo Sanchez]

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,

This is an absurd argument for two reasons--
(1) Europe is not actually that inhospitable and in many ways is better than SubSaharan Africa. The climate makes disease generally less virulent, there are very few large predators, the soil quality is better, and as I said before there are more rivers supplying better communications. As an example, the British isles have plentiful rainfall, a good growing season, generally good soils, and in the south of England the temperature remains in a comfortable 5-20 C range throughout the whole year (on average).

The fact that Europe has four seasons instead of one doesn't magically make so inhospitable that you need to come up with amazing innovations--a system for maintaining food stocks year round (solved by granaries and animal husbandry, both familiar to SubSaharan Africans), warm clothing (easily done), and sound construction of shelter are perfectly adequate to solve the problem.
(2) The argument falls apart under the most cursory examination. If Europe's "inhospitable conditions" were a spur to development, why then were the most advanced nations of the ancient period (Greece and Rome) located in the most hospitable climate zones, while cultures in areas that actually were inhospitable like Scandinavia stagnated by comparison?

[PainRack]

Let's not forget the importance of climate change. The melting of the ice age and the global rise in temperature of 1 degree celsius was sufficient to start an agricultural revolution in Europe, one that was bolstered further when the potato crop arrived from America.

Large food surpluses has arguably been the key to civilisation and large portions of Africia simply couldn't sustain large scale agriculture. Indeed, I read articles that suggest that the desertification and famine in Ethiopia during the 80s was a result of the adoption of European style agriculture, particularly in cattle. Furthermore, the overpopulation of Africian cities in the Congo as a result of Belgium policies and the resulting warfare this created was a key point in Diamond second book.

[Elfdart]

Basically the quick summary is Jared Diamond argues when humans suddenly made an appearence on the American continent, they quickly wiped out horses through their hunting. The reason for this is that while horses evolved along with improved hunting skills of humans in areas such as Asia, horses in North America ran into humans with highly evolved hunting skills, but didn't have the natural instinct to run the moment they saw a human shaped thing approaching. This helped lead to horses in North America getting wiped out before they could be domesticated.

I don't buy it. Humans might not have been preying on horses in the Americas until recently, but there were a shitload of other predators that did (about twenty medium-to-large ones capable of killing the American horses and zebras). When a horse, bison, camel or other herbivore hears rustling or smells or hears something out of the ordinary, its first instinct is to RUN or defend itself in some other way. The only animals that allow people to approach are tame ones and those that have NO predators in the wild (like certain isolated bird populations). The idea of wild horses that shared an ecosystem with three types of wolf, three types of bear, cheetahs, coyotes, dholes, cougars, lions, tigers, sabretooths, jaguars, dirk-tooths, and the short-faced bear (all known predators from N. America) is silly. I doubt any creature in North America at the time would think once, let alone twice about "fight or flight" when they saw humans.

[Elfdart]

A related point is that due to relatively easy communication, horses were domesticated apparently in Asia and this knowledge and these horses then traveled elsewhere in the Euroasian continent.

One thing people forget is that it's not just that only certain species can be domesticated. In many cases, it's only sub-groups within that species that can be domesticated. Only one sub-species of wild cat was tamed. It appears that only one sub-species of wild horse was domesticated and was later exported elsewhere. The same holds true for cattle with three subspecies being domesticated while all the others were uncontrollably wild (Caesar called the auroch the most fearsome creature on Earth).

[Darth Wong]

Despite all the objections, if I was a skilled game modder, I would make rhino cavalry for Rome: Total War. The very idea just oozes coolness.

[Omega18]

I don't buy it. Humans might not have been preying on horses in the Americas until recently, but there were a shitload of other predators that did (about twenty medium-to-large ones capable of killing the American horses and zebras). When a horse, bison, camel or other herbivore hears rustling or smells or hears something out of the ordinary, its first instinct is to RUN or defend itself in some other way. The only animals that allow people to approach are tame ones and those that have NO predators in the wild (like certain isolated bird populations). The idea of wild horses that shared an ecosystem with three types of wolf, three types of bear, cheetahs, coyotes, dholes, cougars, lions, tigers, sabretooths, jaguars, dirk-tooths, and the short-faced bear (all known predators from N. America) is silly. I doubt any creature in North America at the time would think once, let alone twice about "fight or flight" when they saw humans.

Your assumptions are somewhat flawed. The herd running everytime they hear anything means they will never end up eating anything and end up starving to death. Alot of the time they will simply be hearing another herbivore.

I happened to be briefly watching a nature program recently on wild feral horses in America today. The scientific observer was noting how the experienced stallion knew it didn't need to even bother running off a young Coyote since it was no threat to the herd. The point is is better for the horses to save their energy than blow all of it reacting to every threat.

This means the automaticly run instinct was not as clear as you are assuming it was. Its also highly possible that the Horse would assume that against something human size the "fight" option would be the better one, which would likely be a fatal decision for that horse.

By the way, some of your assumptions on animal behavior are quite wrong. While seals certainly have various preditors, if you go to the Gallapagos, they essentially have no fear of humans. While a bit of a different example, even squirels basically ignore people completely at many college campuses, although they certainly do have a number of preditor species that go after them.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Also, regarding horses and humans hunting them, apparently horses were particularly easy to kill for prehistoric humans in Europe. The process is based on the skittishness of horses and the fact that humans can use teamwork and terrain to their advantage.

The hunting team selects a cliff, ravine or similar terrain feature. Strategically placed hunters stampede the horses toward the terrain feature, and the herd goes over the edge. Then it's just a matter of dressing as many carcasses as feasible and leaving the rest. Lather, rinse, repeat, and in short order you'll be out of easily accessible herds, and eventually entirely out of horses.

[InnerBrat]

I only skim-read the thread, forgive me. But back to the OP, and let's assume we're talking Sub-Saharan Africa as the original question was essentially: "If humanity sprung up there, how come it's still the same?"

If it ain't broke, why fix it? Evolution, biological and memetic, is about adpating to changes and new environments and conditions. Sub-Saharan Africa was perfect for the origin of a new species called H. sap, and encouraged the development of tribal societies.

"More Advanced" (and gods I hate the word 'primitive' in relation to cultures or biology) civilisations came when humans migrated out of that bowl and found environments that encouraged, either through hardships or through improved fertility, a shift towards other sorts of social structures. Which in turn encourages the growth of what we call "Great Civilisations".

Lineages evolve at different rates. This should be blindingly obvious. Personally I find the whole question a little like asking: "Well, how come fish still have fins?" Just because tetrapods have feet doesn't mean fins don't have their place in nature. It's the same fallacious assumption that evolution is linear.

[Ariphaos]

Well lessee, arguing only up until 1600, just before Spain starts the mass-slave trade in 1604.

The Horse - Those who would later become known as the Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse some six thousand years ago. They then went out and kicked much ass. Nearly every other animal rather pales in comparison, here.

I think this is the primary reason.

Grass - Eurasia had lots of good grasses, though I think Africa should have been able to compete in this arena somehow - native Americans worked very hard to make their grasses work, and it gave them a technological level only a couple millenia behind the Eurasians despite a late start on the order of twenty thousand years.

Genetics - The L0/L1 and L2 subgroups of humanity are all confined to subsaharan and east Africa. The portion of the L3 subgroup that is in Africa roughly represents that region which meaningfully contributed to modern civilization.

'Being close to Europe/the Middle East' is almost a reflection of the fact that it's the L3 haplogroup of humanity. Mountains and the Sahara meant that, until recently, very little contact could be made with the emigrant L3 group.

I think this is a weak factor, myself, but its a fairly close map and it should be noted that civilizations arose in the Americas (L3 subgroup) far faster than Africa did, even though certain regions should have spurred such development. Even the Kingdom of Benin's achievements pale in comparison to the Inca.

Did any subsaharan group develop a written language on their own? I can't seem to recall any.

----

Germs are a reason America got conquered, they are not a reason Africa got conquered.

Anyway, my two cents.

[RedImperator]

Genetics - The L0/L1 and L2 subgroups of humanity are all confined to subsaharan and east Africa. The portion of the L3 subgroup that is in Africa roughly represents that region which meaningfully contributed to modern civilization.

'Being close to Europe/the Middle East' is almost a reflection of the fact that it's the L3 haplogroup of humanity. Mountains and the Sahara meant that, until recently, very little contact could be made with the emigrant L3 group.

I think this is a weak factor, myself, but its a fairly close map and it should be noted that civilizations arose in the Americas (L3 subgroup) far faster than Africa did, even though certain regions should have spurred such development. Even the Kingdom of Benin's achievements pale in comparison to the Inca.

Did any subsaharan group develop a written language on their own? I can't seem to recall any.

...are you seriously arguing for the genetic inferiority of Africans as an explanation?

[Lord Zentei]

Looks like it to me...

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Genetics - The L0/L1 and L2 subgroups of humanity are all confined to subsaharan and east Africa. The portion of the L3 subgroup that is in Africa roughly represents that region which meaningfully contributed to modern civilization.

'Being close to Europe/the Middle East' is almost a reflection of the fact that it's the L3 haplogroup of humanity. Mountains and the Sahara meant that, until recently, very little contact could be made with the emigrant L3 group.

All this demonstrates is that the L0-L2 subgroups were isolated in sub-Sahara and east Africa. The conditions there that made it difficult for primitive humans to exist above the subsistence level are likely much more significant contributors to the absence of "civilization" in that part of the world than any implied genetic inferiority.

I think this is a weak factor, myself, but its a fairly close map and it should be noted that civilizations arose in the Americas (L3 subgroup) far faster than Africa did, even though certain regions should have spurred such development. Even the Kingdom of Benin's achievements pale in comparison to the Inca.

The Americas also had the advantage of an easily-cultivated grain crop (maize) and land and climates which could support such cultivation. You need reliable agricultural output to sustain any attempt at civilization building.

Did any subsaharan group develop a written language on their own? I can't seem to recall any.

Language with formal writing likely evolved from a need to accurately track inventories, events, and other things important to a sophisticated civilization. (i.e. the information storage, information transfer, and information processing requirements exceeded the ability of tribal mechanisms (read: oral traditions and the memories of tribal elders) to cope.) However, in order to have a system of writing, you have to first develop a sustained non-nomadic civilization, which was difficult to do in that part of Africa for reasons already listed earlier in the thread.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The Americas also had the advantage of an easily-cultivated grain crop (maize) and land and climates which could support such cultivation. You need reliable agricultural output to sustain any attempt at civilization building.

To clarify, according to Diamond that's part of what slowed the Americas down. It took far more effort to make maize a useful crop than most European crops; 15 mutations for maize, as opposed to 1 or 2 IIRC. He used that as an example of what slowed the Americas down; the simple delay in creating a good food crop plant. So, in terms of the arrival of good crops, it goes Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa; in terms of civilization building, it's also Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa. No need for racial theories.

[Ariphaos]

Looks like it to me...

It's not particularly PC, but genetic mutations give rise to mental as well as physical differences. I just don't like throwing the idea out. Nearly every major L3 subgroup had -some- notable civilization to their name. Then the Bantu discovered agriculture and conquered most of subtropical Africa in no time.

There is the Kingdom of Benin and Munhumutapa, the former of which claims descendancy from Egypt (doubtful, but Benisu -> Benin?). Great Zimbabwe was certainly a Bantu civilization.

Our current genetic lineage is 70,000 years old. While stagnation tends to be the rule of the day for evolution, it brings to mind why it took subsaharan Africans 66,000 years to come up with agriculture, Europeans 40,000, and so on. I find it harder to believe that the potential for agriculture in Africa only popped up 4,000 years ago instead of suffering through millenia of stagnation because the needs and benefits of such are less obvious / more difficult / whatever reason. But there is a reason.

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

It's to tell the geeks from the non-geeks. Don't worry, it just means you're not a geek.

Language with formal writing likely evolved from a need to accurately track inventories, events, and other things important to a sophisticated civilization. (i.e. the information storage, information transfer, and information processing requirements exceeded the ability of tribal mechanisms (read: oral traditions and the memories of tribal elders) to cope.) However, in order to have a system of writing, you have to first develop a sustained non-nomadic civilization, which was difficult to do in that part of Africa for reasons already listed earlier in the thread.

AFIAK they were absent from the Kingdom of Benin, Great Zimbabwe and other large African civilizations that arose sometime around the 10th-12th centuries of the Christian era. Though, I suppose we have a much firmer picture of the development of Benin and Great Zimbabwe than the people of Egypt, the Indus Valley, or Sumer, and it's not really fair to make such a comparison.

[Durandal]

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

The pack of cigarettes in his avatar has "Malboro" (as in "bad") as the brand, not "Marlboro". I don't know what it's supposed to be, probably some sort of spoof.

[Lord of the Abyss]

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

The pack of cigarettes in his avatar has "Malboro" (as in "bad") as the brand, not "Marlboro". I don't know what it's supposed to be, probably some sort of spoof.

A reference to the Final Fantasy monster, perhaps.

[Lord Zentei]

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

It's to tell the geeks from the non-geeks. Don't worry, it just means you're not a geek.

Well, actually...

It merely means that I didn't scrutinize your avatar closely enough to see the difference.

As for your point: damn straight it is not PC. But plenty of L3 groups did not develop civilization despite living in areas that are now cultivated. I deem that yours is the burden of proof if you claim that genetic factors are involved.

What is it with these guys who have cigarette advertisements in their avatars?

The pack of cigarettes in his avatar has "Malboro" (as in "bad") as the brand, not "Marlboro". I don't know what it's supposed to be, probably some sort of spoof.

So I see now.

[Broomstick]

Looks like it to me...

It's not particularly PC, but genetic mutations give rise to mental as well as physical differences. I just don't like throwing the idea out. Nearly every major L3 subgroup had -some- notable civilization to their name.

Uh, yeah, the great civilization of pre-Colonial Aboriginal Australia instantly leaps to mind.



Your human subgroups have absolutely no problems with adopting modern technology and absorbing an education given an adequate environment.

it brings to mind why it took subsaharan Africans 66,000 years to come up with agriculture, Europeans 40,000, and so on.

Europeans did not invent or discover agriculture - they imported it from the Middle East and Asia. By that reckoning, the Bantu are more "genetically" suited/capable of civilization than Europe is, since they seem to have independently domesticated their plant crops.

I find it harder to believe that the potential for agriculture in Africa only popped up 4,000 years ago instead of suffering through millenia of stagnation because the needs and benefits of such are less obvious / more difficult / whatever reason. But there is a reason.

Yes, there is a reason. Fewer suitable crops and animals for domestication than anywhere else short of Australia.

[Ariphaos]

Yes, there is a reason. Fewer suitable crops and animals for domestication than anywhere else short of Australia.

Yet the Bantu did it, and once that happenned, they seemed to be catching up fairly quickly.

But why 4,000 years ago and not earlier? Fire was discovered, in Africa, half a million years ago after all.

[Aeolus]

Yes, there is a reason. Fewer suitable crops and animals for domestication than anywhere else short of Australia.

Yet the Bantu did it, and once that happenned, they seemed to be catching up fairly quickly.

But why 4,000 years ago and not earlier? Fire was discovered, in Africa, half a million years ago after all.

The cape has a suitable climate The rest of subsaharan Africa does not. One of Africas problems is any crops that are developed there can only be grown in the relativly small area the originated in. Unlike say wheat in Eurasia or Maize in North America.

[PainRack]

To clarify, according to Diamond that's part of what slowed the Americas down. It took far more effort to make maize a useful crop than most European crops; 15 mutations for maize, as opposed to 1 or 2 IIRC. He used that as an example of what slowed the Americas down; the simple delay in creating a good food crop plant. So, in terms of the arrival of good crops, it goes Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa; in terms of civilization building, it's also Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa. No need for racial theories.

Can you refer me to the section where he stated this?

[Aeolus]

To clarify, according to Diamond that's part of what slowed the Americas down. It took far more effort to make maize a useful crop than most European crops; 15 mutations for maize, as opposed to 1 or 2 IIRC. He used that as an example of what slowed the Americas down; the simple delay in creating a good food crop plant. So, in terms of the arrival of good crops, it goes Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa; in terms of civilization building, it's also Eurasia > Americas > subsaharan Africa. No need for racial theories.

Can you refer me to the section where he stated this?

He talks about it in the chapter "apples and indians"