# Why were African civilizations so technologically far behind? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 4, 2006, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215 "2006-04-04T07:13:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/141 "2014-08-13T18:43:14Z")
We live to serve. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![fishandchips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@fishandchips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishandchips)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/142 "2014-08-13T21:35:08Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > As an aside, I think it’s a complete crock to exclude Egypt from any discussion of Africa, and focus on Sub-Saharan Africa as though it were an isolated entity. Egypt _was_ African. Egypt is African in Geography only. Ask any Egyptian (or North African for that matter) how they view themselves and relate to the world and it will most likely be anything from Arab/Muslim/Mediterranean. Even the late President Sadat was accused of ‘not looking Egyptian enough’. Oh, as an aside where in Sub-Saharan Africa is the closest thing to the Pyramids of Giza? In fact, strike that, let’s use Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a country that went through war and poverty under the Khmer Rouge. Where is the equivalent built by native Africans, not conquering Arabs? Name me an African UNESCO equivalent of monumental similarity to Angkor Wat. I’d be interested to know where it is… ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/143 "2014-08-13T21:41:24Z")
Oh wow. I don’t even know where to start. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/144 "2014-08-13T21:48:17Z")
Here, [go fill your boots.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Africa). And I’m struggling to think how on earth the Khmer Rouge could have affected the construction of Angkor Wat. Time travel maybe? ---
**Author:** ![fishandchips](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7cd45c/32.png) [@fishandchips](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fishandchips)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/145 "2014-08-13T21:54:28Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > Here, [go fill your boots.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Africa). > > And I’m struggling to think how on earth the Khmer Rouge could have affected the construction of Angkor Wat. Time travel maybe? Of that list you’ve provided all the most spectacular sites that are comparable with something like Angkor Wat are in **North Africa** - Fail. I asked for a monument built without Islamic/Arab influence in Sub Saharan Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/146 "2014-08-13T21:59:12Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > Egypt is African in Geography only. Ask any Egyptian (or North African for that matter) how they view themselves and relate to the world and it will most likely be anything from Arab/Muslim/Mediterranean. Even the late President Sadat was accused of ‘not looking Egyptian enough’. > > Oh, as an aside where in Sub-Saharan Africa is the closest thing to the Pyramids of Giza? In fact, strike that, let’s use Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a country that went through war and poverty under the Khmer Rouge. Where is the equivalent built by native Africans, not conquering Arabs? > > Name me an African UNESCO equivalent of monumental similarity to Angkor Wat. I’d be interested to know where it is… The Sudan has numerous pyramids. Considering that the Sudanese probably taught the Egyptians, that’s not surprising. [SEE: Nubian Pyramids.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/147 "2014-08-13T22:01:35Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > Of that list you’ve provided all the most spectacular sites that are comparable with something like Angkor Wat are in **North Africa** - Fail. I asked for a monument built without Islamic/Arab influence in Sub Saharan Africa. Dude, Angkor Wat is the largest religious monument in the world. There aren’t more than a handful of comparable monuments in the entire world, much less any particular continent. There are plenty of amazing achievements from African civilizations – like the aforementioned invention of steel-smelting. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/148 "2014-08-13T22:11:34Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > This was all thanks to the Phoenician, Sumerian, and Babylonian writing systems. The modern writing system we use today comes from Phoenician. Greeks developed their writing system centuries later to model the Phoenician system, and from the Greek and Phoenician alphabets emerged today’s “Latin Alphabet” of the characters “A, B, C, D,…” and so on. > > But no such writing system existed in Africa. Africans couldn’t trade or exchange ideas because there was no writing system. Wrong. There have been a number of writing systems (such as Tifinagh, Arabic, Ge’ez, etc.) in use in sub-Saharan Africa at various times dating back to antiquity. It’s utterly false to claim “there was no writing system.” > [@](#): > > Hopefully, there will be sensible responses. You’ll get sensible response. Unfortunately, you chose to pose something completely nonsensical in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/149 "2014-08-14T04:54:33Z")
Europe also had good natural harbors while Africa, especially among the west coast, has few or none. In Europe harbors like for London and Rotterdam which also connected with internal river systems helped push trade. In Africa ships were usually anchored offshore and they moved people and goods to and from them with rowboats. Africa has rivers but except for the Nile, they do not tend to be very navigable for large ships. In contrast the Rhine and the Thames river which are. Now personally I think North America was on the cusp of development when Europeans arrived. It would only have taken some small technological push, like learning how to use metals, to have pushed them along. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/150 "2014-08-14T07:03:17Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > Egypt is African in Geography only. Bullshit. > [@](#): > > Ask any Egyptian (or North African for that matter) how they view themselves and relate to the world and it will most likely be anything from Arab/Muslim/Mediterranean. Even the late President Sadat was accused of ‘not looking Egyptian enough’. Modern Egyptians have as much to do with the people who built the Pyramids as a modern resident of Bath has to do with the people who built Stonehenge. And almost half the fucking Mediterranean coast is in Africa, so saying “Mediterranean” doesn’t cancel out “African” And “Muslim” isn’t a population group. > [@](#): > > Oh, as an aside where in Sub-Saharan Africa is the closest thing to the Pyramids of Giza? The closest thing to the Giza pyramids would be… the fucking [Pyramids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_pyramids). > [@](#): > > In fact, strike that, let’s use Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a country that went through war and poverty under the Khmer Rouge. Where is the equivalent built by native Africans, not conquering Arabs? What does what happened under the Khmer Rouge (hundreds of years later) have to do with Angkor? Anyway, the direct equivalent of Angkor would be the Lalibela churches. Same time period, same motivation for construction…same UNESCO World Heritage Site status. In fact, was a WHS years before Angkor ever was. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/151 "2014-08-14T07:08:42Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > Of that list you’ve provided all the most spectacular sites that are comparable with something like Angkor Wat are in **North Africa** - Fail. I asked for a monument built without Islamic/Arab influence in Sub Saharan Africa. I’m sorry, was Angkor built without outside-Khmer influence? That’s a bullshit criterion. There are Classical Greek influences on the art of Angkor. Does that make Angkor _European_? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/152 "2014-08-14T07:11:38Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Now personally I think North America was on the cusp of development when Europeans arrived. It would only have taken some small technological push, like learning how to use metals, to have pushed them along. Definitely agree. They were [already](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Copper_Complex) [on the cusp](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America#North_America)[of that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_copper_plates), too. ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/153 "2014-08-14T14:52:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The [Haya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haya_people) people of Tanzania were the first people on earth to smelt steel. Perhaps my information is out of date, but I was under the impression that iron (and steel) production began in Anatolia 3000 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/154 "2014-08-14T15:24:24Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Perhaps my information is out of date, but I was under the impression that iron (and steel) production began in Anatolia 3000 years ago. Iron, yes. Accidental steel, in places, by bloomery methods, definitely. But the Haya were the first to run furnaces _specifically_ for producing steel. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/155 "2014-08-14T15:32:08Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > Perhaps my information is out of date, but I was under the impression that iron (and steel) production began in Anatolia 3000 years ago. I should have said “Carbon Steel”. The Haya were the first people to smelt carbon steel. ---
**Author:** ![GreatWyrmGold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@GreatWyrmGold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreatWyrmGold)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/156 "2014-08-14T17:13:51Z")
While Jared Diamond has been recommended multiple times, I’m going to repeat some of his important points that have been briefly touched on or completely unmentioned, for the benefit of readers without access to _Guns, Germs, and Steel_. First off, one needs to understand that agriculture is the basis for human civilization (with a few exceptions; for instance, the Pacific Northwest was fertile enough to support small, sedentary hunter/gatherer civilizations). Why? It allows sessile settlements, which allow people to own more than they can carry. It also greatly increases population density, which leads to more efficient methods of producing and distributing food to arise, which leads to the possibility of non-food-producing sections of the population who can lead, create art, make specialized tools and such, or even spend their time trying to advance their civilization’s understanding of the world. With this in mind, consider that Europe (as well as Asia and the lands in between) was well-situated to receive a bounty of domesticable species. Eurasia has a massive number of excellent plant and animal species for farming, while other areas had much sparser selections (understanding why horses but not zebras are domesticable, or why wheat is a superior staple crop to maize, is beyond the scope of this post; again, read an actual book). Egypt managed its famed civilization because North Africa (which includes Egypt) was close enough to the Middle East and Mediterranean civilizations to reap their benefits, while south of the Sahara almost might as well have been another continent as far as the rest of the world was concerned. The former is due to the similar latitude to and proximity of the “advanced” regions of the world, while the latter is due in no small part to a great difference in latitude and (perhaps primarily) to an intervening region of harsh climate frequently referred to as a giant expanse of burning sand. [hr] > [@The\_Piranha\_Brothers](#): > > Steam power was invented in antiquity in Alexandria, but used only for trivial tasks. No proper use could be found for which there weren’t already enough slaves. I seem to recall that steam power was used only for the ancient equivalent of ASIMO. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > Is there some theory that there is something about Christianity that aided in European dominance, such as rugged individualism or something? I’m sure there is such a theory. There’s also a theory that shapeshifting lizard people control the world. Europe was dominant before Jesus was a twinkle in [remainder of comment pre-emptively deleted to avoid flame war]; there’s no way any such values could have been instriumental in European dominance, even if they existed. > [@mr.jp](#): > > Considering how christianity’s rule halted scientific research, I think it is rather a huge factor against european dominance. But that is not a discussion for this forum I suspect. Now, God and I have no love lost between us, but this statement is only partly true. For much of human history, religion has spurred investigation into the natural world. Heck, as recently as the 19th century, we have Mendel (a monk) deriving modern gene theory and Darwin switching his career goals from clergy member to biologist (a choice that admittedly turned him into a demonized figure among those he would have once considered peers). It’s only fairly recently, no earlier than the 15th century or so, that science and religion have even been somewhat at odds, and only the rather modern rise of fundamentalism among popular Muslim and Christian speakers (and maybe Hindu/Buddhist ones? I sadly don’t really pay attention to that half of the religious world…) really made the whole Science vs. Religion conflict a thing. This isn’t saying that the Church made impossible research possible, any more than the Manhattan Project made the development of the nuclear bomb possible. Yes, it was the catalyst, but the reagents were already there for other reasons, and the reaction would have happened eventually without them. > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > And the [post=7262535]Muslims[/post]. In all fairness, Islam didn’t have much more than a foothold in Europe. With the exception of the Iberian peninsula, large groups of Muslims were only found in the Middle East, Africa, and other non-European places. > [@levdrakon](#): > > Atheist scientists say “we don’t know.” Christian scientists say “we don’t know - yet. But God had a plan and it’s our job to figure it out.” That’s more than a bit untrue. Secular scientists want to figure out how the universe came to be, but haven’t. Religious scientists accept that God created the universe, while fundamentalist “scientists” believe that God created the world several thousand years ago. “Christian” is in no way a firm dividing line between categories; some people follow the Christian faith but fall into the secular-scientist category of belief, while others put more trust in Genesis. Anyways, I think there’s a lot of confusion between how Christianity is now and how Christianity was before fundamentalism. Fun fact: The Christians Darwin actually debated were more open to non-Biblical explanations of the creation of life, the universe, and everything than modern Christians who debate with Dawkins and the like. > [@mr.jp](#): > > -Some historians claim that christianity was a factor in the collapse of the roman empire. True but misleading. The reason Christianity was thought to play a part in the collapse of the Roman empire was due more to the resulting increase in instability than anything having to do with Christianity. > [@Johanna](#): > > Well, well, well. Finally revenge for all the poor Poles who had to endure being the butt of all those Polack jokes from Americans. That IQ ranking by Lynn and Tanhanen places Poland’s IQ two points higher than the United States! Even though the claims made in their book are disputed, and it may be hokum, nevertheless it’s sweet sweet revenge to see Poles ranked higher in intelligence than Americans! As an American, I can confidently say that it’s not much to say you’re smarter than an average American. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Probably, the largest problem is simply there were no good materials to make paper, in sub-Saharan Africa. The Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations were, if anything, more lacking in terms of paper. Aside from this, how would paper be a cause of civilization (rather than an affect)? > [@MrDibble](#): > > As an aside, I think it’s a complete crock to exclude Egypt from any discussion of Africa, and focus on Sub-Saharan Africa as though it were an isolated entity. Egypt _was_ African. In a geographical sense? Yes. However, since it was easier to go from Egypt to Western Europe or China than it was to cross the Sahara, for most practical purposes, North African societies can be treated as part of the same “group” of societies as the rest of the Mediterranean civilizations, and hence most Eurasian peoples. It’s all in the definition. Going geographically, the original question is nonsense, with an answer of “What are you talking about? Look at Egypt!” > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Now personally I think North America was on the cusp of development when Europeans arrived. It would only have taken some small technological push, like learning how to use metals, to have pushed them along. Define “technological development”. If you mean simply “developing technology,” then they were well underway. If you mean “developing enough technology to contest European armies,” then heck no. No offense is intended to the Native Americans; it’s simply an impossibility for the Native American civilizations to have ever caught up to the European. Europe was advancing faster and faster; while the same would presumably be true in the Americas, their start was later (due to a poor selection of domesticable species) and their development was slower (due to a worse ability to trade between centers of civilization). If you switched the inhabitants of Mexico and Iberia some thousands of years ago, you’d find the former Zapotec/Aztec/etc conquering the former Castillan/Portuguese/etc. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/157 "2014-08-14T17:32:32Z")
> [@GreatWyrmGold](#): > > In a geographical sense? Yes. No. In a real, cultural cand trade connection sense. > [@](#): > > However, since it was easier to go from Egypt to Western Europe or China than it was to cross the Sahara Why would you have to cross the Sahara? There’s a little corridor that you can use to get from Egypt to the rest of Africa…it’s called “The Nile”, maybe you’ve heard of it? > [@](#): > > , for most practical purposes, North African societies can be treated as part of the same “group” of societies as the rest of the Mediterranean civilizations, and hence most Eurasian peoples. In antiquity, Egyptians viwed themselves as distinctly different from Asiatic and other med peoples. They also viewed themselves as distinct from Nubians, and routinely represented themselves as something other than either. So why group them with the former, not the latter? It’s not like the roots of Egyptian civilization are Asian or European. They’re indigenous. Sure, they may have gotten the basics of farming from the Natufians. Or not - see Nabta Playa culture for the real origins of Egypt. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/158 "2014-08-14T17:34:04Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > I asked for a monument built without Islamic/Arab influence in Sub Saharan Africa. ['kay](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe). Sir, I do believe you are a little bit out of your depth here. Your knowledge of African history appears to be a bit skewed. Africa was not a continent full of stone-age pastoralists. Native crops existed in the form of various millets, sorghum, yams, cola, coffee, black-eyed peas and african rice. Guinea fowl were domesticated in Africa and it is likely cattle were as well ( one of three possible domestication events ). Pottery, iron-working, local textile production - none of that was at all alien to the continent. Africa certainly lagged Eurasia after a certain point, with its _relatively_ easier diffusion of culture across the east-west gradient. But it wasn’t exactly a wasteland either. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/159 "2014-08-14T18:05:38Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > I asked for a monument built without Islamic/Arab influence in Sub Saharan Africa. [Aksum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aksum) ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215/160 "2014-08-14T18:13:08Z")
> [@fishandchips](#): > > Oh, as an aside where in Sub-Saharan Africa is the closest thing to the Pyramids of Giza? In fact, strike that, let’s use Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Where in Europe is there an equivalent of the Pyramids of Giza or Angkor Wat? The Great Pyramid was taller than any structure in Europe for over 2,800 years, and Angkor Wat is the largest religious monument complex in the world. There’s really nothing anywhere that’s comparable to them. This clearly demonstrates that the ancient Egyptians and Cambodians were superior to Europeans. Your lack of knowledge about sub-Saharan Africa appears to extend to Europe and Asia as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-african-civilizations-so-technologically-far-behind/351215.md?page=9)