Why were African civilizations so technologically far behind?

The undeniably sub Saharan African Kingdoms of Nubia,Axum,Nok,Mali,Songhai,Benin and others were great civilizations in there own right. Many scholars attest to Egypt founding by sub Saharan Africans(as did Herodotus,Diodorus and other contemporay historians of the same era). The oldest man made megaliths are found in South Africa. In order to develop a complex civilization on your own one needs domesticated crops and domesticated animals,both of which are native to Eurasia. None are native to Africa.(or Australia, New Guinea, etc.) Areas with domestic crops and animals developed civilization independently. Later areas near them got the technology and knowledge from the 1st creators and built their civilizations later. You see the earliest civilizations in Eurasia(China,MohenjoDoro,in India) or in or near the middle east(Egypt, Sumeria). Other ancient civilizations sprang up near them later(the Hittites, the Minoans and later the Greeks)After the Sahara dried up about 10 to 5 thousand years ago it made it more difficult for these things & ideas to drift into southern Africa. Watch Guns,Germs and Steel link. It explains things well. Any place you see a primarily tribal culture is devoid of domestic crops and animals. If they have them they were introduced later by Europeans.
Ideas transverse easier from east to west(ie: the silk road) than north to south due to radical changes in terrain and habitat(ie: Sahara desert,jungle,mountains,etc.

Source(s):
Guns Germs & Steel Guns, Germs and Steel Part 1 of 18 - YouTube
Origins of Egypt- Origin of the ancient Egyptians - YouTube

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:7, topic:351215”]

As to your supposition above, the author demonstrates how hunter-gatherer societies don’t have the need (or leisure time) to develop sophisticated weapons, but farming/ranching societies do develop warrior classes. This makes the hunter-gatherers easy targets. Obviously, there’s a lot more to it than that. Check out the book!
[/QUOTE]

With rare exceptions, Africans weren’t hunter-gatherers but farmers and herders.

Anyway, their technology wasn’t that far behind. It was more advanced than in the Americas, in particular. They had large empires, that required administration and Advanced legal systems.

Finally, in the parts of Africa that were in contact with the “Eurasian world”, that is, that had access to the innovations (say, domesticated horses, writing,…) that would spread from the China Sea to the Atlantic Ocean essentially as soon as they were invented somewhere the technological level was quite similar.

An example of it that I find striking : at some point someone began to melt bronze (according to a recent hypothesis somewhere in Iran), and all of Eurasia went through a Bronze Age. Later on someone began to melt Iron and everybody went through an Iron Age. But in sub-Saharan Africa, isolated from main communication roads, there never was a Bronze Age. Africans went directly from stone to iron. It shows in my opinion that Eurasia had (very roughly) a kind of cultural unity where everybody adopted everybody’s innovations, while Africa (or the Americas) followed her own path at her own pace. Americans’ path led them to writing, huge monuments but no metallurgy, Africans’ path led them to the opposite situation.

There’s no particular reason for areas completely (Americas) or mostly (Africa) isolated to go through the same advances at the same speed. Eurasia, due to its size and population had an advantage in this regard.

And anyway, again, until the Renaissance in Europe, the differences weren’t that huge.

OK, it was a zombie. I hadn’t noticed. Sorry.

Zombie thread.

Ok, quick history lesson so get comfortable…
The true reason why Africa is backwards is not IQ, but because firstly, Africans have never really been motivated socially to progress or advance. They’re not technoligically inclined either. The generally nomadic lifestlye suited them, and they didn’t have a reason to change.

Africans didn’t start to be motivated to progress until they came into contact with other cultures–the first of which were the Arabs.

History shows that diversity (and to an extent competition) is what fuels progression. Because coming into contact with other groups stimulates growth. For a simple example of this, look at the level of advancement between Greeks compared to the advancement of Vandals and Vikings. Scandinavians were uncivilized and savage precisely because they weren’t diverse and came into contact with no one other than un-advanced tribes, and perhaps Celtic tribes (the Celts were more advanced in terms of metal-working) to the South.

Meanwhile, while Northern European tribes were considered backwards by the Greeks, the Greeks were building cities, their artisans made statues, and they created the Olympics, and they theorized about the atom, democracy, and the Republic.
Why was this? Because Greeks were not only naturally industrious, but they had access via trade with the premier empires of the world and the cradle of civilization.

Unlike Africa, there was a free flow of ideas into Europe from Asia. Ideas traveled from Persia and Egypt to Greece. And Persia, Greece, and Egypt all benefited mutually from their interractions. Because the competition stimulated growth.

No real competition existed in Africa to stimulate such growth, because Africans as a people were nomadic and hadn’t made cities until within the past 2000 years. While Babylon, Sumeria, and Akkadia had established cities all over the Cradle of Civilization: Mesopotamia.
The Greeks have much that they owe to the Sumerians and Akkadians, who invented farming and civilization. This meme quickly spread from Mesopotamia, reaching Egypt, the Indus valley (Mohenjo Daro), and then Greece.

Meanwhile, Chinese were establishing a civilization in the Yangtzee river valley.
But Africa just was too isolated. As before stated, isolationism stagnates growth. It was Babylonian and Sumerian ideas which made Greece great–thus Greece benefited from this free-flow of ideas. In fact, Greek knowledge of astronomy and science doesn’t even touch Sumeria, who famously depicted the Sun being orbited by the various planets.

Rome, likewise, would have never become great if not for the exchange of ideas. Rome was, as some of you may know, initially a trading port established by Phoenicia. Phoenicia was located in modern-day Palestine and Lebanon. And Greece and Phoenicia colonized much of the Mediterranean.

Not only did the Phoenicians establish Rome, they established trading points all along North Africa. Which was the precursor to the Carthaginian empire.

After Phoenicia fell, Carthage and Rome emerged from the remnants of their civilization. Romans were highly uncivilized and took most of their culture from the Etruscans who lived nearby. However, as Rome became larger, they recieved an influx of Greek culture. By the time Rome controlled the entire Italian peninsula, Alexander the Great had already conquered the known word, bringing in new ideas from Persia, Egypt and even India.

But Greece was eventually conquered by Romans. The Greeks viewed Romans as savages with no culture, and the Romans were in awe of Greek culture, thus they adopted not only words from the Greek language into Latin, but they adopted the Greek pantheon, Zodiac, astrology, and all Greek science.

Thus we can see an unbroken archeological line where ideas moved from Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) and made it to Phoenicia (Palestine/Lebanon) and from there to the warring city-states in Greece.

After the Vandals and other tribes invaded Rome from Northern Europe and Scandinavia they knocked Europe back intellectually perhaps a 1000 years. And Europe experienced a Dark Age and became more isolated than it was during the days of Rome. Thus, there is a correlation between isolationism and lack of intellectualism. Coupled with anti-scientific Church suppression, Europe languished as a continent of warring Christian kingdoms and factions. They had virtually abandoned the legacy laid down to them from Greece, Sumeria, Babylon, and others.

Meanwhile, the Islamic conquest was taking hold in the Middle East. After Northern European tribes had defeated Rome, leaving Constantinople behind, Arab conquests took control of North Africa, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. While Europe languished in the Dark Ages, the Islamic Empire created the greatest civilization of the time. It imported the ideas from Rome and Greece and the old Persian culture. It didn’t have to start from scratch, just like Rome and Athens never started from scratch. There is a reason Mali is often cited as one of the few examples of Sub-Saharan civilization - the adoption of Islam, brought there by Muslim Berber and Tuareg merchants. Islam also spread in the region by the founders of Sufi brotherhoods. Even then, because of the (sub-saharan) African lack of emphasis on the written word, events were recorded only by outside muslims introducing the religion. With this came Islamic manuscripts. However, while the North, West and East coasts (esp the Horn of Africa) benefitted from contact with muslim traders (mostly Arabs), the interior’s population were still largely nomadic and isolated, with no real need/motivation to advance themselves.

Meanwhile, Alexandria was arguably the greatest center of intellectual thought. The Byzantines had the rest of the Great Library effectively destroyed, previously (because the church in Constantinople viewed science as heretical to Christianity). Thus Alexandria passed to yet another culture. This sparked intellectual growth in the Arabic Empire. Among other things, Al Gebra was invented there. “Algebra” as it’s known today still possesses its Arabic name. The modern checking and banking system was established there, whereby Islamic traders would establish their presence in Africa and China. The number system was also established there. The numbers we use today “1, 2, 3, 4…” are called “Arabic numerals” as they were invented and used by Arabic traders.

Why was the Arabic Empire so successful? Because it was diverse and open. It connected with other cultures. Paper money was invented by the Chinese and the Arabs quickly imported this concept. The word “Check” comes from the Arabic word “cheque/cheq” since Arabic traders couldn’t afford to bring gold with them on trading excursions, since they might be robbed.

After Europe opened itself back up to diversity and knowledge, after the Arabs had been defeated by Ottomans, who brought guns and cannons to Europe, the resulting period became known as the “Renaissance.” The Renaissance (And you can read the work of historian Gavin Menzies on this) was largely funded by Chinese and Arabic capital. The Arabs had economic interests in Venice. However, the Spanish, Dutch, and Portuguese tried to find new routes of trade to China because. But the Arabic empire controlled a monopoly on most of the trade routes, so they could sell their products to Europe for higher prices because they viewed Europe as a new market for profit.

In the process, European explorers “discovered” the Americas. Once the Europeans started to colonize these areas, they brought in more capital–and the “Cold War” between the Arabic Empire and the European kingdoms was broken because the Arabs couldn’t compete financially as Europeans had reached new markets. Thus, civilization started to return to Europe as the Middle East slunk into a Dark Age (that lasts today) and the Middle East and Europe traded places.
And that’s the best summary as any that can be given for why Africans were always behind. They just weren’t subject to the factors that made Indo-Europe and the Middle East great. As you can see, in the Old World, knowledge was shared and passed between peoples.

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.
Thus, if you don’t have the time to read the above summary, it boils down to six things.
SUMMARY: Trade, proximity, free-thought, diversity, trade routes, and written “PHONETIC” language from the Middle east helped the Old World become great.

Africans only had themselves, while Mesopotamia, being conveniently located in a “fertile crescent” surpassed them on all counts. Mesopotamia was also conveniently located within proximity to the Nile culture, as well as the Indus river valley (the Harappan civilization and Mohenjo Daro). Though, the Nile culture wouldn’t exist for sometime after.

Anyway, thanks for your time. I realize this board isn’t scientifically or intellectually inclined, and is instead nationalistically inclined, but I hopefully wasn’t hurting anyone by stating facts.
Hopefully, there will be sensible responses.

When you post nonsense like this, I am not inclined to believe anything else that you have to say.

Australia and New Guinea are home to rice, bananas, taro and sago, to name just a few domesticable crop plants. As far as we can tell, agriculture was first *invented *in New Guinea, as much as two thousand years before anywhere else in the world. It was indisputably invented independently there simultaneous with invention in China and the fertile crescent.

So to declare that New Guinea lacks domesticable plants and that areas with domesticable crops always develop civilisation is patent nonsense.

Again, when you start your post with nonsense like this, I am not inclined to read further through your overlong post.

Most Africans are not nomadic and have not been for several thousand years. Most Africans are and were sedentary, grain growing, cattle farming village and city dwellers.

Until 100 years ago there were more and a higher percentage of nomadic people in Asia than in Africa, and I strongly suspect that is also true of Europe.

Oh, this should be good…so you resurrected this twice dead zombie to tell us…what?

Oh, you’re here to tell us complete bullshit, I get it. Leaving aside the expected “lazy Africans” stereotype…

Africans don’t have a “generally nomadic lifestyle”. Most Africans are settled agriculturalists, and have been for thousands of years.

So you fail, factually, from the get-go.

So you’re completely unaware of Nubia, Kush or the Red Sea empires, I take it.

Gosh, I wonder what continent supports the most diverse human populations by far…

Oh, yes, Africa does.

Ignorant bullshit.

No, that was a cavalcade of factual failure. You know nothing about history or Africa.

North and South America were settled by the ancestors of the groups in purple, and Native American development was pretty similar to African development, before Europeans arrived.

Probably, the largest problem is simply there were no good materials to make paper, in sub-Saharan Africa. The Arabs perfected the process, imported from the Chinese, but the people in Europe had better availability of materials to take that horse and run with it.

Life in most regions of Africa in 800 AD probably wasn’t significantly different than life in Europe in 800 AD. It still took another ~1000 years, from that point, for Europeans to really start advancing past the point of the rest of the world. That’s not great evidence for inherent genius. It points more to slow evolution of ideas, floating around the world, and finally the right mix just happening to find some nucleution points in Italy and the Netherlands.

How do you explain why Europe, the Middle East and Asia were already advanced in classical antiquity? Even later on in the 15th century (when Europeans first visited sub-Saharan Africa), every centre of civilization across Europe and Asia, from London in the West to Tokyo in the East, and from Sri Lanka in the South to Sweden in the North had at least the following:

The wheel. Wheeled carts. The plough. Irrigation. Glazed pottery. Glassware. Sailing ships. Steel. Writing. Book-length works of history, fiction and philosophy. Calendars. Clocks. Mathematics, including at least arithmetic and geometry. Ability to construct permanent bridges capable of spanning wide rivers and permanent buildings on the scale of a cathedral or palace. Bureaucratic government.

And those are just the basics. On top of these, each region had its own specialisms. E.g., China had its porcelain (preceded by the invention of Gunpoweder during the Tang/Song Dynasties (9th to 11th century). Europe had its vertical windmills, and Korea had underfloor central heating.

Sub-Saharan Africa had none of the above, with the limited exception of Axum and the Sahel kingdoms, which had some of the above, but not all. Some tribes lacked metalworking skills, any sort of agriculture, or the ability to make woven cloth. In other words, they were living, technologically speaking, in the Palaeolithic.

The gap in technology between Europe and Asia on the one hand, and the rest of the world on the other, is so obvious that it’s simply insane to deny it.

What does that even mean?

Bwah hah hah ha h ah hah haaaaa.

I have to echo the sentiment: You know nothing about history or Africa.

<snip> Lot of of irrelevant red herrings.</snip>

Can you please quote where anybody in this thread has denies the existence of a post-renaissance technological gap? Of course you can’t, because nobody has.

What we have been doing is mocking your ludicrous assertions that:

  • Most Africans were nomadic.
  • Africans only made progress through contact with outsiders.
  • Africa lacks diversity.
  • Africans are lazy.

Those claims are utter bullshit and easily disproved.

We are all perfectly aware that there was a post 15th century technological gap between Africa and parts of Eurasia.The ridiculous part is that you are trying to explain it as being the product of factors that`are easily provable as untrue. Things that nobody with even a rudimentary knowledge of African history (ie me) would believe.

So, exactly like some tribes in Asia at the time? In fact, exactly like some tribes in Asia right now.

And thus your entire argument collapses.

I will amend my conclusion. Your arguments betray a comprehensive lack of knowledge of history, Africa *and *Asia.

And Africa wasn’t? Egypt. Kush. Nubia…

There were no African tribes living in the Paleolithic at colonization, this is just your ignorance revealing itself yet again.

Name one tribe living in the Paleolithic. Just one.

Please tell me, where was steel first smelted using blast furnaces?

There’s no denying that, at colonization, Western Europe enjoyed technological advances over Africans. There are several reasons for that. Inborn laziness on the part of Africans was not one of them.

Yet what happened to those societies by the middle ages? In the case of Egypt, it was conquered by the Persian Empire around 616 AD., then was part of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire with its capital at Constantinople, before finally being conquered by Arabs who introduced Islam - the dominant religion and culture ever since.

Blast furnaces first existed in China from around the first century AD and in the Europe from the Middle Ages.

There is nowhere in my original post that mentions the words lazy/laziness.
I suggest you read most, if not all of it for the full picture.

My point is that the sheer size of Africa and nomadic lifestyles of certain tribes (the Baka, San and Fulani people to name a few examples) isolated those in the interior and reduced the incentive/motivation to develop technological advancements that the populations in North, North East and West Africa enjoyed due to greater contact with Arabs, Europeans and even Indians travelling to the East coast. The flow of ideas between Europe, Middle East and Asia only travelled so far.

The Haya people of Tanzania were the first people on earth to smelt steel.

I’ll toss my hat into this zombie…

Guns, Germs, and Steel mentions not so much ideas but specific physical aspects of civilization travel well east-west - especially crops and domestic animals. The wheat that generated the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt did not translate to lower Africa (Diamond says) because the climate and timing of the rainy season were all wrong.

Also, it seems to me the start of any civilization is food surplus. Egypt has a massively fertile river valley, and easy access to irrigiation since the valley is only a few miles wie in many points. Mesopotamia also seems to have this sort of advantage - the cradle for Ur and Babylon was a lot more fertile and wetter than the climate of today. (As was Lebanon with its cedar forests).

Europe, north and south of the alps, was remarkably free of dry savannah and desert. It provided a well-watered fertile location where the same crops as used in the middle east could generally be used. There are a few areas of the world that are free of the curse of semi-desert or bad climate, and those are the areas most quickly settled by civilizations expanding out of their cradles.

I’m not sure how the geography of Africa contributed to its isolation and lack of development. Certainly local civilizations did rise and then fall. Perhaps, like the Mayans in the Yucatan, the combination of climate change and soil exhaustion meant a long-term dense agricultural population was difficult before modern fertilizer and mechanized irrigation.

Certain diseases may have been widespread, but the swampy lowlands and tropical rainforest of central Africa encouraged disease vectors like mosquitos while the convenient good drainage and winters of Europe helped control them. Face it, Europe was an incredibly friendly environment for an agricultural civilization.

As for expansionism, Europe also had the Mediterranean and then the Atlantic and North Sea to encourage the development of ship technology, while most other civilizations were limited to river craft and minor coastal trade. Consider the volume of trade that could be transported on one ship, it probably carried as much as a whole caravan; despite the risk of pirates, shipping was more isolated from banditry and hostile intermediate states than caravans… and faster. the entire Age of Expansion from the 1400’s was driven by the desire to get spices by the shipload from China.

Geography also permitted relatively separated and isolated countries to emerge, but connected enough that they needed to continually improve military technology to defend themselves from neighbours. This need for weaponry is a significant driver in the development of technology. China only needed to defend itself from guys with horses and bows… Africa - an isolated civilization was in little need of defence beyond longer pointy sticks than its neighbours.

For industrialization, England was in a relatively unique situation. Remember coal was the driver for industry, but the steam engine was developed to help drain deeper and deeper coal mines, which fed the metalworks and cloth mills that produced a huge surplus of goods. Outside of northern Europe, very few places have the convenient combination of coal and metal in proximity to excellent well-watered cropland. Africa, as far as I know, did not.

As for Christianity - somewhere around the renaissance the catholic church gave up trying to argue that scientific knowledge was counter to devotion to God. Moslems, who until then had been liberal about science, changed to the more restrictive view.
here’s what I posted in another thread over 2 years ago about Galileo - it was more of a political and theological dispute than an anti-scientific argument, his timing was off. he pushed his astronomical views based on science at the same time some anti-Rome types were pushing it based on Greek mysticism:

What’s that got to do with how advanced they were in classical antiquity? I mean, I know you’d like to Gish Gallop on out of there, but you brought it up, man - focus.

BZZZT Fact fail, yet again. Man, you should have seen that was a trick question and Googled it, at least…

Seriously? You going with the “I didn’t use that exact word” defence? You think we’ve never seen a dogwhistle as obvious as “Not socially motivated to change” before?
Man, it almost makes me long for the intellectual rigour of the last Stormfront invasion…

The Baka are semi-nomadic at best. San are nomadic hunter-gatherers. And neither the Baka nor the San are representative of mainstream Africa in any way, either.

The Fulani (the guys with the large pastoral herds and the ironworking) are, but then, they’re hardly Palaeolithic. None** of them are Palaeolithic**, still waiting for that one cite.

And Eurasia is bigger than Africa, with plenty of nomadic tribes all over the place. So what the ever-living Hastur does nomadism have to do with motivation, again?

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.

Why is it that 99% of zombie-resurrectors are posters of unmitigated bullshit?

Glad I skipped the long post and went straight to the responses. Dopers save me a lot of time that way. :slight_smile: