I’ll do. Wait a decade and you’ll see it.
OK. Can we see a cite for that?
I thought wagons / chariots were hypothesized to have arisen in easternmost Ukraine into Central Asia among the horse using nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe, and have diffused down into the fertile crescent? I seem to have read it once.
If that’s so, I suppose we have to say what is meant by Europe…
No, you’re right, I exaggerated a teeny bit. Europe would mostly have been in the early Bronze Age. I’d put chariot adoption in Nubia at ~1500BCE (see pg 116 here), while the usual date for the end of the Neolithic even in Britain is 2500 BCE. My bad, let the rhetoric get away from the facts.
That’s one theory. The other is that it arose in Mesopotamia, and that ox/onager chariots were adopted to horses when they came along.
To me, I mean West of the Caucasus, North of Turkey.
Well, I guess like the Nubians, we confront then the dodginess of applying modern categories to people who lived millennia ago.
As far as I can tell, these sorts usually mean “White western Europeans” except when it is to their advantage to include others.
Thanks. At any rate, I think the larger issue is that **pinguin **is simply wrong in his characterization of development in Africa.
So did the wheel make it farther south into Africa? I know the Nubians traded with the interior, so it would seem odd for the people they made contact with not to adopt it, but I’ve seen a couple places that seem to say there wasn’t any use of the wheel in the Southern parts of Africa in the pre-colonial era.
Ask Livingston if he saw wheels in tropical Africa.
Thats not really helpful.
No, the question is, why are you the first person in human history to suggest that there is any competition between the two?
What’s the importance of that? Who cares if Nubians used chariots when we know very well that Egyptians spread the Hycsos technology around. And the Hycsos brought charriots from Mesopotamia. And who cares if Europeans lagged behind in technology at that time? Do you care? I don’t.
To say “Nubians used charriots” is like saying “Sri Lankas invented cell phones” just because they can buy them today.
There are paintings in the Sahara from its wet period of chariots.
They seem to have fallen out of use.
But so did the wheel in the Middle East, it was out competed by the camel as an efficient transport means (relative to the technology - that is pre-engine).
I’d guess with the Tse Tse zone(*), which puts something of a wall to animals of burden usage, the wheel diffusion was limited.
(*: I have no idea what it was in the eras we’re talking about, maybe farther north?)
Why not?
And so?
The only folks who seem to have invented chariots on their own seem to have been a few tribes up in Central Asia.
Everyone else, W. Europeans, etc. borrowed em.
Of course the phrase “no sense re-inventing the wheel” comes to mind as to the absurdity of your argument and its constantly shifting goal posts.
I said no Wheels existed in SS Africa. With exceptions, that is true for most of the region, except for its borders.
The point is, the interior of Africa was a tribal region, and that’s why its development started late. I wonder why this reality is so hard to grasp for some people.
Now, I was comparing two regions of similar level of development and how they are doing. That’s all. Who cares about Egypt, Nubians, Tumbuctu, the Chinese, the Inuits or the Martians. Let’s focus in the topic.
Besides, I already was convinced New Guinea perform as an average SS African country. That’s OK the question is answered.
Certainly, the Wheel was invented just once and spread from Mesopotamia or Central Asia. But, unfortunately, didn’t entered the interior of Africa, and Nubia was just an exception rather than a rule.
Don’t worry, New Guineans, Australians and Native Americans didn’t know the Wheel either, so what’s the problem.
This is got to win a prize: “What I said was true except that it’s false.”
I’d say it is hard to grasp because it’s bollocks.
Oddly earlier you were writing that PNG was “winning” the development race. Really queer definition of winning if that means “performing about on average.”
The problem is that your argument - such as it is - is pretty incoherent and largely characterised as several people have pointed out by constantly shifting goal posts. (I’m not going to touch ‘exception’ since I just alluded to chariot paintings throughout the Sahara…)
My question was precise: to compare two regions. But a smoke curtain of retoric blinded us all.
The question was already answered. Why we continue arguing with medieval schollastic?