Why didn't Africa develop before the modern era?

[Arilou]

Pastoral Nomadic life a possibility

Eh, the Sahel works very well for that kind of thing (or at least, not very different from any other arid areas) And the Savannah's of southern africa isn't really much different from the steppes. (and indeed, the people there did adopt a pastoral lifestyle as soon as they got the right kind of animals)

One of the big problems though is the tse-tse fly. It meant many domesticable animals practically couldn't be kept in certain regions.

The question is why and how Africa failed to develop/adapt more efficient production methods to allow for sustained population growth and accumulation of surplus.

And that's where the issues of suitable crops come in.

 

[Arilou]

The talk was about spreading innovation

Yes, and the *new crops and agricultural techniques are by far the most important innovations* .

 

[The Super Pope]

Both in Eurasia and Africa climate zones are located horizontally, i.e. along parallels. And both Africa and Eurasia were largely North-South oriented, i.e. across climate zones. In Europe the trade between the North and South was always far more important than the trade with China. Same goes for East Asia, which had for most part more intensive relations along the North-South axis than along parallels. In Africa climate zones aren't impassable barriers either, even Sahara was constantly traversed by trade caravans.

As Arilou said, I was talking about the transferability of crops and animals due to climate conditions. The zone of dense habitation has enough similarity that the same plants and animals can flourish across most of it. What I said had nothing to do with trade

This is beyond ridiculous. Somehow Eurasian (and American!) species from diverse animal groups are domesticable, while their close African cousins are not. "Magic" may be the only explanation for such a phenomenon if only it was true. Why for example zebras aren't domesticable? What makes them so special and different from Tarpan-like Eurasian wild horses that were domesticated after centuries of selective breeding? Why Eurasian Phasanides like chicken could have been domesticated, while their African relatives couldn't have? Are the latter somehow magically resistant to artificial selection?

I am no biologist, so I can't explain why, but this is a fact. No sub-Saharan animal species has been domesticated. Attempts have been made with African wild-dogs that I know of, and I think zebras too. And I would bet my back teeth that people tried to domesticate these species, plus elephants, water buffalo and the like. None of these efforts succeeded. The proof of it is that there are no domesticated zebras.

The plague was endemic in Eurasia with a few sudden "spikes" in virility and mortality due to random mutations. Smallpox was always endemic. Perhaps you aren't aware, but malaria was also endemic in large parts of Europe until the large-scale draining of marshlands in the industrial era. It was encountered as far north as in Poland.

Not what the historical record said. Plagues came with huge mortality, then vanished again. Malaria was found in swampy parts of Europe, yes, but that is a different kettle of fish to its presence in Africa, nevermind the various other horrifying diseases lurking in Africa

 

[gagenater]

One theory I have heard about non domesticatability of African animals falls into two sections that boil down to 'they spent a lot of time with humans'

Basically humans evolved in Africa with the animals there. Any animals (either individuals or entire species) that were sufficiently unafraid of humans or early humanoids was slaughtered quick. By contrast the survivors developed a genetic disposition to being either insanely aggressive or insanely skittish around humans to avoid getting killed. All the surviving species and individuals represent those which have precisely the attributes making them the absolutely most difficult to domesticate.

When humans finally made it out of Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago, they were a non native invasive species - a weed if you will. They wiped out vast quantities of species that probably could have been domesticated if anyone had thought to try because they weren't terribly afraid or aggressive around the new two legged animals. A tiny few of these species accidentally survived to become domesticated instead of becoming extinct.

 

[Xeorm]

I'd imagine they're still domesticable if you're willing to breed the required docility into them. I'd also imagine that that sort of investment would be very expensive for anyone to do, and falls into a similar vein as trading crops.

Seems a good brand too for why there's so many animals domesticated in that climate band compared to everywhere else in the world.

 

[knul]

I'd imagine they're still domesticable if you're willing to breed the required docility into them. {...}

That's circular reasoning. If you can breed them to gain favourable traits, then they'e already domesticated. Domestication means that humans have that much control over an animal's or plant's procreation that they can control what traits are selected for (as opposed to natural selection).

One of the better chapters of "Gun, Germs and Steel" is about why so few plants and animals are domesticatable: the problem is that even a single problematic trait can make a species unsuitable for domestication.

 

[Boblof]

The proof of it is that there are no domesticated zebras.

That is circular reasoning, because something wasn't done doesn't mean it couldn't have been done. Modern humans have been around for atleast 170 000 years in environments with undeniably domesticatable species (like aurochs, horses etc that we know are domesticatable because they were domesticated) yet domestication only occured in the last 8 000 years. At any point during the previous 162 000 years your argumentation, and that of Diamon could have been used to argue that there was no such thing as a domesticatable animal in the entire world since noone had been domesticated up to that point.

That's circular reasoning. If you can breed them to gain favourable traits, then they'e already domesticated. Domestication means that humans have that much control over an animal's or plant's procreation that they can control what traits are selected for (as opposed to natural selection).

Not really, you can breed traits into natural populations by selective hunting. IMO that is likely a process that perceeded domestication of most animals in Eurasia.

 

[The Super Pope]

That is circular reasoning, because something wasn't done doesn't mean it couldn't have been done. Modern humans have been around for atleast 170 000 years in environments with undeniably domesticatable species (like aurochs, horses etc that we know are domesticatable because they were domesticated) yet domestication only occured in the last 8 000 years. At any point during the previous 162 000 years your argumentation, and that of Diamon could have been used to argue that there was no such thing as a domesticatable animal in the entire world since noone had been domesticated up to that point.

It would only be circular reasoning if I argued that no-one tried because it couldn't be done, and it couldn't be done because no-one tried. People did try, they couldn't do it. The species existing in Africa today have proven impossible to domesticate

 

[Furion Matsuya]

It would only be circular reasoning if I argued that no-one tried because it couldn't be done, and it couldn't be done because no-one tried. People did try, they couldn't do it. The species existing in Africa today have proven impossible to domesticate

I believe progress has been made in steps toward domesticating some species of antelope...

 

[Gordy]

It would only be circular reasoning if I argued that no-one tried because it couldn't be done, and it couldn't be done because no-one tried. People did try, they couldn't do it. The species existing in Africa today have proven impossible to domesticate

We don't know how many times non-Africans tried to domesticate wolves before they were succesful.

If it was (n) then surely at (n-1), it would be logical to argue "Well it's been tried, it didn't work, so it's not possible".

That's the problem with this. It boils down to "history happened this way therefore it is the only way it could have happened".

Aside from gagenater's point I've yet to see any actual thought behind why African animals are more difficult to domesticate and certainly no evidence.

 

[Gordy]

I believe progress has been made in steps toward domesticating some species of antelope...

I remember reading about a man riding a zebra. Fair enough there is a difference between one man riding a zebra once and them being domesticated but I think it does rather raise question marks about how they could not possibly be domesticated (and this is proven).

 

[Ithvan]

Zebra can be domesticated, more or less. They were used in circuses. They're just so scared that their hearts invariably fail after a while.
Zebra cavalry is thus not your best bet when riding into battle, what with the loud noises, shrieks and general mayhem killing off more of your trusty steeds than your opponent could. Hell, even horses had to be trained very extensively before they were able to be used in battle, just so they wouldn't panic and run away or - also - die of heart failure.

Part of his book also deals with this point. We have (as of 2015) very probably found every crop that yields more than it costs to grow and we have (pretty much) domesticated every animal that lends itself to domestication. I distinctly remember he gave an example that cross-breeding European apple trees with some American varieties produced a hybrid that gave higher yields, but that's improving what we've got already, not discovering new plants.
Early agriculturers have without a doubt tried to cultivate every edible plant they found in their vicinity and tried to domesticate every animal they saw and could get their hands on (probably aside from hippos, they're scary). It's just that they kept failing.

 

[Gordy]

Zebra can be domesticated, more or less. They were used in circuses. They're just so scared that their hearts invariably fail after a while.

Which tells me that they might need a couple of centuries of selective breeding.

Only since we already have horses (and they have become rather irrelevant to boot), it's not surprising that no-one has tried to do this.

 

[AjayAlcos]

See thread title.

As I understand it the main catalyst for development across Eurasia was the Silk Road trade routes between Europe, India and China. This meant that any major innovation in one place was invariably transmitted to the rest of the continent, meaning that the whole continent continued to advance if any one area of it was experiencing prosperity. I think that sytem largely broke down after the decline of the Mongol Empire into warring states, which stopped the continuing advances in Europe from being transmitted back to the East until it was too late (OK, it's probably more complicated than that).

What I don't understand is why much of Africa south of the Sahara remained largely tribal and underdeveloped. There were trade routes across the Sahara, and some rich kingdoms (Mali of course). And there was sea trade along the Indian Ocean coast, with ivory and exotic animals being major exports. Yet much of Africa seems to have stayed tribal until it was colonised by the Europeans in the 19th century.

Why was this? Was the geographic separation just too great? Why didn't they pick up the technology of the Indian and Arab civilisations?

Or am I just ignorant of African history?

Geography. If you take into account the amount of inhospitable areas (e.g. Kalahari, Sahara deserts), climate as well as the lack of rivers; it makes communication for peoples on the continent more difficult and by default inhibits the spread of ideas and innovation. Hence many African peoples such as the Zulu and Tuareg were by circumstance quite isolated to the outside world, not just their fellow Africans.

 

[Ithvan]

Which tells me that they might need a couple of centuries of selective breeding.

Only since we already have horses (and they have become rather irrelevant to boot), it's not surprising that no-one has tried to do this.

Pretty difficult to do if all of your breeding animals die of stress before they can reproduce. Though this is speculation on my part.

And there's also your second argument.

 

[Gordy]

Pretty difficult to do if all of your breeding animals die of stress before they can reproduce. Though this is speculation on my part.

I would imagine that zoos and circuses have always been able to breed animals. I doubt that they sent away to Africa every time they needed a new Zebra.

 

[imperium3]

Early agriculturers have without a doubt tried to cultivate every edible plant they found in their vicinity and tried to domesticate every animal they saw and could get their hands on (probably aside from hippos, they're scary). It's just that they kept failing.

The world would be a much more exciting place with hippo cavalry.

 

[Ithvan]

The world would be a much more exciting place with hippo cavalry.

Man, those Africans would've given the colonisers hell, gloriously stampeding their hippo cavalry through advancing expedition armies, routing Great Power after Great Power.

The world would also be a much more deadly place with hippo cavalry.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

I remember reading about a man riding a zebra. Fair enough there is a difference between one man riding a zebra once and them being domesticated but I think it does rather raise question marks about how they could not possibly be domesticated (and this is proven).

I think the issue as far as the Zebra was concerned is that they are more temperamental and aggressive then the ancestor of domestic horses which was one barrier and (I might be dead wrong here so no body bite my head off) most civilizations and cultures in the areas where they live didn't have large scale agriculture which helps a hell of a lot with domesticating a species (dogs and cats likely been a different story as far as I know) which takes time (the domesticating of Foxes in in 70's and 80's Soviet Russia seemly an exception).

Elands have been domesticated and Springboks albiet in small numbers. And plenty of domesticatible plants have been found they never got domesticated due to easyer to grow plants been avilable etc, Australia has many such species or so I've heard that never got domesticated untill recently (a few species that is, most haven't been) due to the lack of proper founder/basic easy to grow crops among the Aboriginals etc.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Man, those Africans would've given the colonisers hell, gloriously stampeding their hippo cavalry through advancing expedition armies, routing Great Power after Great Power.

The world would also be a much more deadly place with hippo cavalry.

Hippos are pretty useless as cavalry even if they were trained because they sunburn extremely easily.