Someone contact lobstermobster at once. This entire thread needs illustrations.
Eh? The sub-Saharan Iron Age started well before the birth of Christ. This included use of iron hoes. Quoting:
We now know that the knowledge of iron-working, which had spread into the Nile valley by the fifth century B.C., had reached Northern Nigeria by the third century B.C. and the Zambezi region about three centuries later.
From Dating the African Past by J.R. Gray in The Middle Age of African History edited by Roland Oliver ( 1967, Oxford University Press ).
What sub-Saharan Africa never experienced was any intervening Bronze Age. It went from stone straight to iron.
There were also numerous migrations of peoples in Africa and reasonably intensive agriculture in certain favorable regions, though granted nothing quite as intensive as the Nile or other super-productive areas ( types of millet and sorghum were common grains ).
Sub-Saharan Africans kept and bred cattle, goats, sheep, chickens and dogs and were doing so 1,500 years ago. Where they could ( mostly on the southern edge of the Sahara ) they kept horses and raised huge armies of iron-mailed calvary. It was the Tsetse that limited further exploitation and it is natively bred African breeds like the N’dama that resist it today.
Zebras weren’t domesticated, because it is extremely likely that zebras simply can’t be domesticated. At least not in few enough generations to make it worthwhile to expend the resources.
'less that was a whoosh itself, that is 
Indeed it was. 
We know from popular music that, by the time of Christ, oxen and sheep were so domesticated they could keep time as backup for a drummer boy. Note that there are no zebras in the song.
One of those oh-so-clever game shows on public radio (I think it was “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me”) totally fell for the fake “Mr. Ed” story. As we learned from Spinal Tap, “There’s a fine line between clever and stupid.”
That is the answer right there. For the most part, pretty much any herbivorous mammal CAN be domesticated through selective breeding. What you end up with might not be anything similar to a wild counterpart however. Especially with animal like cattle that can interbreed, humans tend to go for hybridization first to try and breed out some bad habits, rather than taking the time to breed it out pure. Take a look at the Beeffalo for example.
Note that the Beefalo project is a tiny niche activity, while out and out bison ranching is moving into the big times. The bison in question are domesticated in that they live out their lives inside of fences rather than outside, but they don’t yet have much in the way of different behaviour from wild herds.
Humans have tamed zebras. However, it’s very difficult and except for the novelty of it not worth it if you have alternatives. Just google “Zebra breeding” and you’ll find a bunch of sites about it. They have also been interbred with horses, with varying results.
Here’s one, which says:
It goes on to say:
This site has a lot of info about various attempts through the ages to tame and breed them.
Among the difficulties:
Once you go black and white you never go back.
I’m not a biologist, but wolves are aggressive towards humans, aren’t they? And weren’t they domesticated?
Fucko off!
I went on a safari vacation in Tanzania earlier this year, and my guide told us that in addition to being generally intemperate beasts, zebra also have weaker backs than their horse counterparts. I haven’t done any research to determine whether that’s true, but it would certainly contribute to them being unsuitable draft animals.
You have to be able to actually do the selective breeding first. As mentioned in Bob55’s post, some animals simply won’t breed in captivity for a variety of reasons.
Not always. At the time of domestication the two were competitive predators and it probably began as cooperative hunting.
Why go to the trouble of domesticating a wild animal when you’ve already got a domestic animal that does the same job?
The only purpose of domesticating a zebra would be to create an animal that does the job of the horse, yet does well in Africa.
The trouble with this is that domesticating a species is a generations-long project. And the first results aren’t nearly as promising as the already domesticated species. After 50 years of selective breeding, and your tamed zebras still won’t be good draft animals or cavalry mounts compared to horses, who have been selectivly bred for thousands of years. And so when the one guy who dreams of domesticating zebras dies, the zebra domestication project dies with him, and everyone else keeps on using horses, even in sub-saharan africa where horses die like flies.
Remember that subsistence farmers aren’t interesting in developing animals and plants that might be useful many generations from now, they have to make a living here and now. So what function does a herd of half-tamed zebras serve on a subsistence farm? Or even, what function does a herd of half tamed zebras serve in a cavalry troop? If the half tamed zebras aren’t useful in their current half tamed state, the project gets abandoned.
Back in ancient times, horses were too small to be ridden. They were used to pull chariots. And I imagine those horses 4000 years ago were pretty aggressive nasty critters to work with. The only thing is, there was no already domesticated alternative to the horse, either you made do with half tamed chariot pulling horses or you did without. And chariots were a tremendous military advantage, and so they were used all over, no matter how much trouble the horses were, because they brought victory in battle. And over thousands of years horses were selectively bred for size and temperment all across Eurasia, until we arive at the present day.
But no one is going to undertake a thousand year project to do the same for the zebra, even if cavalry were still militarily important, because the alternative to cavalry zebras isn’t nothing, it’s cavalry horses. Even if those horses aren’t suited to your climate, it’s better to import horses and have them all die in a couple of years than try to use zebras as an alternative. If you compared those zebras to the horses 4000 years ago the advantages of the horses wouldn’t be so decisive, but zebras aren’t being compared to those ancient horses, they’re being compared to modern horses.
Re:
I’ve read that wild horses were never anywhere near as skittish and nasty as zebras. (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs & Steel) Also, as I found and cited earlier,
Please explain these statements, Stranger. They are contrary to my understanding of human development in Africa.
“Not always” is a little vague for my liking. I would guess that most, if not all, animals, particularly herbivores, are not always aggressive towards people.
In the thread on wolves as pets, people seemed to be implying that sooner or later there will inevitably be a violent incident between a wolf and its human (wannabe) master.
Do you have any kind of cite that would give me a sense of how aggressive towards humans wolves are; and how aggressive towards humans zebras are?
This makes a lot of sense to me.
By the way, here’s a picture of a wolf:
http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/images/wolves/wolf8.jpg
Here’s a picture of 3 wolves that have been domesticated:
Visually, the differences that result from thousands of years of breeding are very striking. Presumably there are many other differences in body structure and temperament.
If you can change a wolf that radically through breeding, I have a hard time believing that you can’t domesticate a zebra through breeding. I also have a hard time believing that proto-horses were not difficult and nasty and dangerous just like zebras apparently are today.
Admittedly, I’m not a biologist, but the most obvious explanation for the failure to domesticate zebras is what Lemur proposed.