African history

originally posted by: CoolBuzz
It's like this I consider the entire world, all people of the planet who have lived here as one big tribe subdivided in many tribes.

While "sort of true" in general you haven't really made clear what the timeline and so forth you're talking about.

It has a hierarchy and I currently am convinced the African tribes are the most strongest so they should be at the top. Now the white mans tribes might appear stronger with nukes and knowledge and all but when it comes to it well the Africans have more convincing ancestors.

The European areas had a number of advantages not found in the rest of the world. If the Europeans had been limited by resources in the same way as the Africans had, we would see a different outcome.

In my own country we had primitive people which I've investigated, like hunebedden are their graves and quite some stuff has been found and reconstructed, but because I know enough about them I traced their steps back to Egypt and from there back to the middle of African countries and I believe before that the ancestors came from the seas, which would have a link to various evolution theories. Another tribe went to the right basically which became present day Asians, Aboriginals and also Northern and Southern Americans (not those who came from Europe).

You've mixed events that happened over hundreds of thousands of years. I think you first need to get a timeline sorted out.

So Dogon was mentioned that might be interesting and I've read a little about it in the past but put it on hold because it appeared too newagey. So some more cave paintings from other countries for comparison. In Indonesia people who lived there made this:

True for the Dogon material. And remember that it's been recorded around 1950 or so, so you are not seeing the same thing as records of a tribe from 1000 or 2000 years ago. And the cave paintings you show vary from 40,000 years old to 30,000 years old - there's no connection between them and today's religions.

Religions and language and culture changes rapidly. We don't understand the English that Beowulf's written in for the most part (though translators and scholars do) and our religion today is nothing like that of Beowulf'ts time. The ancient Egyptians had trouble reading texts written two thousand years earlier and their religion wen through many changes.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
If we originated in Africa then devolution is proven.

How is a nonexistent process proven?

Im fairly certain ancient Africans could live without air conditioning.

I'm fairly certain a large number of modern Africans can and do live without AC. Those of European and Asian decent are also capable of living without AC. We're just used to modern conveniences. Being spoiled doesn't disprove any aspects of the MES.

Global warming and all..

Surrrrreeeeee... whatever you say

We're not adapting, we're on life support hoping no one trips over the plug.

Anything aside from anecdotal hyperbole to support this notion?

So are Africans the originals and everyone else is devolved man?

Sub Saharan Africans have the highest degree of genetic diversity of all living Homo Sapiens Sapiens so yes, they have been around longer than europeans and Asians as a distinct genetic group. But no, nobody else is a devolved man.

Or are the others just prototypes and Africans are evolved to survive global warming?

What the hell does this even mean?

Take your pick.

I pick none of the above.

Convergent evolution is an entire new ballgame.

Convergent evolutions is a well known and understood process. How exactly does it play into what you're trying to get at?

Kinda proving the semantics of human origin of little value, essentially proving that the source material, the waveforms, were already programmed into the simulation before spawning.

If it proves that then you should have no problem providing citations to support this line of thought.
Right?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: CoolBuzz
It's like this I consider the entire world, all people of the planet who have lived here as one big tribe subdivided in many tribes.

While "sort of true" in general you haven't really made clear what the timeline and so forth you're talking about.

It has a hierarchy and I currently am convinced the African tribes are the most strongest so they should be at the top. Now the white mans tribes might appear stronger with nukes and knowledge and all but when it comes to it well the Africans have more convincing ancestors.

The European areas had a number of advantages not found in the rest of the world. If the Europeans had been limited by resources in the same way as the Africans had, we would see a different outcome.

In my own country we had primitive people which I've investigated, like hunebedden are their graves and quite some stuff has been found and reconstructed, but because I know enough about them I traced their steps back to Egypt and from there back to the middle of African countries and I believe before that the ancestors came from the seas, which would have a link to various evolution theories. Another tribe went to the right basically which became present day Asians, Aboriginals and also Northern and Southern Americans (not those who came from Europe).

You've mixed events that happened over hundreds of thousands of years. I think you first need to get a timeline sorted out.

So Dogon was mentioned that might be interesting and I've read a little about it in the past but put it on hold because it appeared too newagey. So some more cave paintings from other countries for comparison. In Indonesia people who lived there made this:

True for the Dogon material. And remember that it's been recorded around 1950 or so, so you are not seeing the same thing as records of a tribe from 1000 or 2000 years ago. And the cave paintings you show vary from 40,000 years old to 30,000 years old - there's no connection between them and today's religions.

Religions and language and culture changes rapidly. We don't understand the English that Beowulf's written in for the most part (though translators and scholars do) and our religion today is nothing like that of Beowulf'ts time. The ancient Egyptians had trouble reading texts written two thousand years earlier and their religion wen through many changes.

Actually, the idea of Europe as some kind of blessed place is a modern fiction. The intellectual revolution of Greece is one of the most unlikely things in history, as Greece has notoriously poor soils. The really good land in the ancient world was the Fertile Crescent, the Nile valley, and China.

Greece happened because they made a virtue out of a vice by becoming great warriors and seafarers, colonizing, conquering, striving and learning from the more ancient civilization. There was nothing inevitable or even particularly likely about it. They made it happen despite a great relative lack of resources.

Italian soil is a bit better, but the Roman Empire could not happened until they colonized Egypt--in Africa--and turned it into the bread basket of the empire. It is a classic example of how Europe had no advantages, and in fact had to overcome great hurdles.

I am going to presume that you are talking about Jared Diamond and mention that an awful lot of his work is proven hogwash, for example, the idea that Africa lagged because African Aurochs and zebras as not domesticable. Zebras have been domesticated in small numbers by European enthusiasts, and you can easily find images of them on the internet pulling carriages. Nor is there any evidence that African Aurochs have any worse temperament than European or Indian. Africa had a perfectly good domestic carbohydrates/Protein package in wild rice and millet, and a lot of the diseases that Diamond blames for Africa's lag, such as malaria, also existed in Europe before Europeans drained the swamps and improved the environment. In any event, malaria did not hinder the development of India. Even Diamond, who gave a sort of rebirth to environmental determinism with Guns, Germs, and Steel, cites Asia, not Europe, as the land with the most domesticable animals and crops.

Indeed, it is one of the great questions of Egyptology as to why Egyptian civilization got no further than Sudan. There is simply no reason that it could not have continued to make its way up the Nile into Uganda and the lakes region.

All this is not to denigrate Africans. On the contrary, I am a big fan of many of the ancient and medieval civilizations such as the various Nubian states, Aksum, the various Somalian cities, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, the forest kingdoms, the Swahili and the Shona who built the zimbabwes and supplied the gold that fueled the Swahili trade. I do believe that all peoples have groups that strive to build and improve. But talking down Europe is not a way to build up Africa.

a reply to: cachibatches

it is one of the great questions of Egyptology as to why Egyptian civilization got no further than Sudan. There is simply no reason that it could not have continued to make its way up the Nile into Uganda and the lakes region.

Well I take slight issue with the notion of Egyptian diffusion in inner Africa, it is more likely that those diffusion reached Egypt from inner Africa, forget about looking for grand architecture in early Uganda or the great lakes during the rise of Egypt for the time being, the institutions of kingship and religious outlook is remarkably similar without being identical, even in the headrest and royal collar, the crook and frail etc , it is more likely that they simply did not go for large states as happened in the Sudan and Egypt until long after.

large states before the super state of Kush gobbled them all.
pre unification Egypt was very similar, before the folks from Abydos took over everything north of what was called Ta-Seti creating the super state we are familiar with.

Mockup of an early temple in Naqada, for the God Min.

Shilluk religious buildings south Sudan.

Egyptian headrest

Turkana headrest. Kenya.

originally posted by: peter vlar

I'm fairly certain a large number of modern Africans can and do live without AC. Those of European and Asian decent are also capable of living without AC. We're just used to modern conveniences. Being spoiled doesn't disprove any aspects of the MES.

Yes, we do, and in Texas and New Mexico and Arizona. I'm pretty darn white-bread and I've lived in West Texas for many years without air conditioning. My husband's family is six generations of Texans who moved here before AC and electricity existed.

a reply to: CoolBuzz

I imagine if the Antarctic region was to be thoroughly explored in it's entirety we might find a few shocking secrets as to Humanities origins and/or ancient past.

Keeping in mind said region may not always have been covered in ice sheets or even in the same location, geographically speaking, if our Earth has experienced any kind of significant pole shift in the past.

originally posted by: cachibatches
Actually, the idea of Europe as some kind of blessed place is a modern fiction. The intellectual revolution of Greece is one of the most unlikely things in history, as Greece has notoriously poor soils. The really good land in the ancient world was the Fertile Crescent, the Nile valley, and China.

I agree to some extent, but it needed more than good land to make things happen.

Greece happened because they made a virtue out of a vice by becoming great warriors and seafarers, colonizing, conquering, striving and learning from the more ancient civilization. There was nothing inevitable or even particularly likely about it. They made it happen despite a great relative lack of resources.

Actually, Greece is a relative latecomer to the civilizations group, attaining notability a thousand years after Egypt,Mesopotamia, India, and China did. They had the shoulders of giants to stand on.

Italian soil is a bit better, but the Roman Empire could not happened until they colonized Egypt--in Africa--and turned it into the bread basket of the empire. It is a classic example of how Europe had no advantages, and in fact had to overcome great hurdles.

Actually, they were doing quite well before them. Egypt's grains were a big advantage but note that they were not a permanent advantage -- not so great an advantage as the reorganization of the army into a professional army and the production of high scale weapons technology for the time.

I am going to presume that you are talking about Jared Diamond and mention that an awful lot of his work is proven hogwash,

I agree that his ideas don't always hold up

for example, the idea that Africa lagged because African Aurochs and zebras as not domesticable. Zebras have been domesticated in small numbers by European enthusiasts, and you can easily find images of them on the internet pulling carriages.

They're actually tamed but they're not domesticated (there's a difference.) One can also tame lions and tigers but this doesn't make them domesticated. Furthermore, if you read up on them (as I have) you will find out that even tamed they're not ideal animals for draft or other purposes... the hybrids (with domestic animals) are somewhat better but far less suitable than mules, donkeys, or horses.

Nor is there any evidence that African Aurochs have any worse temperament than European or Indian.

The aurochs of northern Africa was domesticated into their cattle around 7,000 BC.

Africa had a perfectly good domestic carbohydrates/Protein package in wild rice and millet, and a lot of the diseases that Diamond blames for Africa's lag, such as malaria, also existed in Europe before Europeans drained the swamps and improved the environment. In any event, malaria did not hinder the development of India. Even Diamond, who gave a sort of rebirth to environmental determinism with Guns, Germs, and Steel, cites Asia, not Europe, as the land with the most domesticable animals and crops.

What they often lacked were viable roads. Egypt, for example... the only real "road" was the Nile.

Indeed, it is one of the great questions of Egyptology as to why Egyptian civilization got no further than Sudan. There is simply no reason that it could not have continued to make its way up the Nile into Uganda and the lakes region.

Have you seen the Nile and Luxor? The area around the Sudan? I ask, because I have. They maintained a fort there when kings could hold power and had enough troops. But it's a long way from the capital city (Memphis of the White Walls or another) and there's a lot of sand and rock and difficult terrain. Easy enough for the locals to put up a strong resistance.

In addition, this area was the source for the professional army for Egypt. However - with troop movements restricted to the Nile or trade routes and no corps of engineers (ala the Romans), their effect was limited.

However, none of this addresses the point in the original post which seems to be a fairly confused idea of African history and African geography (other than as a "huge blob" rather than "a land mass almost double the size of Russia and featuring the largest areas of difficult territory on the globe - including desert, swamps, and jungles.


(sizes reference)
mountain ranges by location

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: cachibatches
Actually, the idea of Europe as some kind of blessed place is a modern fiction. The intellectual revolution of Greece is one of the most unlikely things in history, as Greece has notoriously poor soils. The really good land in the ancient world was the Fertile Crescent, the Nile valley, and China.

I agree to some extent, but it needed more than good land to make things happen.

Greece happened because they made a virtue out of a vice by becoming great warriors and seafarers, colonizing, conquering, striving and learning from the more ancient civilization. There was nothing inevitable or even particularly likely about it. They made it happen despite a great relative lack of resources.

Actually, Greece is a relative latecomer to the civilizations group, attaining notability a thousand years after Egypt,Mesopotamia, India, and China did. They had the shoulders of giants to stand on.

Italian soil is a bit better, but the Roman Empire could not happened until they colonized Egypt--in Africa--and turned it into the bread basket of the empire. It is a classic example of how Europe had no advantages, and in fact had to overcome great hurdles.

Actually, they were doing quite well before them. Egypt's grains were a big advantage but note that they were not a permanent advantage -- not so great an advantage as the reorganization of the army into a professional army and the production of high scale weapons technology for the time.

I am going to presume that you are talking about Jared Diamond and mention that an awful lot of his work is proven hogwash,

I agree that his ideas don't always hold up

for example, the idea that Africa lagged because African Aurochs and zebras as not domesticable. Zebras have been domesticated in small numbers by European enthusiasts, and you can easily find images of them on the internet pulling carriages.

They're actually tamed but they're not domesticated (there's a difference.) One can also tame lions and tigers but this doesn't make them domesticated. Furthermore, if you read up on them (as I have) you will find out that even tamed they're not ideal animals for draft or other purposes... the hybrids (with domestic animals) are somewhat better but far less suitable than mules, donkeys, or horses.

Nor is there any evidence that African Aurochs have any worse temperament than European or Indian.

The aurochs of northern Africa was domesticated into their cattle around 7,000 BC.

Africa had a perfectly good domestic carbohydrates/Protein package in wild rice and millet, and a lot of the diseases that Diamond blames for Africa's lag, such as malaria, also existed in Europe before Europeans drained the swamps and improved the environment. In any event, malaria did not hinder the development of India. Even Diamond, who gave a sort of rebirth to environmental determinism with Guns, Germs, and Steel, cites Asia, not Europe, as the land with the most domesticable animals and crops.

What they often lacked were viable roads. Egypt, for example... the only real "road" was the Nile.

Indeed, it is one of the great questions of Egyptology as to why Egyptian civilization got no further than Sudan. There is simply no reason that it could not have continued to make its way up the Nile into Uganda and the lakes region.

Have you seen the Nile and Luxor? The area around the Sudan? I ask, because I have. They maintained a fort there when kings could hold power and had enough troops. But it's a long way from the capital city (Memphis of the White Walls or another) and there's a lot of sand and rock and difficult terrain. Easy enough for the locals to put up a strong resistance.

In addition, this area was the source for the professional army for Egypt. However - with troop movements restricted to the Nile or trade routes and no corps of engineers (ala the Romans), their effect was limited.

However, none of this addresses the point in the original post which seems to be a fairly confused idea of African history and African geography (other than as a "huge blob" rather than "a land mass almost double the size of Russia and featuring the largest areas of difficult territory on the globe - including desert, swamps, and jungles.


(sizes reference)
mountain ranges by location

The exact phrase you used was: "If the Europeans had been limited by resources..." The fact is that North Africa and the Middle East dwarfed Southern Europe in resources. Good land, gold, you name it.

Yes, Greece was a latecomer. You are making my point. They did not have the natural advantages of fertile land and had to rely on human talent to play catch up and surpass the others.

The Nile became the bread basket of the empire. That is a simple fact. They could not have fed their empire without Egypt. We are talking about resources. Again, when you talk about how well they were doing without them, you make my point. Europe lacked resources, and made up for it in talent.

Domesticating is taming plus breeding. They have also been bred, so they can be domesticated. The reason that they are more difficult is that any domestication process would start in modern times. That is exactly the point: it could have been done thousands of years ago and we would have had a docile population. Horses were once more difficult too.

Diamond makes the point that Africa lagged because their aurochs were more difficult to domesticate. If you are saying differently, then you take another of his points off the table for me. We have agreed that he is often confused, so no harm done.

Roads are created. One of my greatest moments was standing at the point of the Aurelian wall where the Via Appia meets the Via Latina.
The other rivers of Africa are not completely navigable, but they are partially so. You can take a ride down the Niger to this day.

The Romans got to Sudan in the South, Scotland to the North, and Ctesiphon to the east. Besides, it isn't really an issue of how far the army can march. It is a matter of cultural influence. Roman glasswares and coins were traded in India and China.
Again, pointing out that Romans had a core of engineers is making my point. The Romans developed an engineer core to do what other ancient peoples couldn't. They developed the true arch and concrete to revolutionize architecture. When they needed a navy, they built a better one than Carthage. The Romans did whatever needed to be done in terms if human capital--it was not merely depending on resources.

I understand the original point, but you said something that is inherently not true, and it isn't a matter of belief. We look at lush, green Europe and compare it to the Sahara and the desertified Middle East, but in ancient times, it was Europe that was poorest in resources. There was nothing inevitable about Europe's rise. It happened because of people working AGAINST the hand they were dealt.

Again, none of this is to degrade Africans. I am a fan of African history. Africa has its role in the progress of the world the same as Europe.

a reply to: paraphi

yeh especially the Zulu

who claim humans were originally hermaphrodites and could communicate via mental telepathy
who were then led astray by the chitauri

there were other african nations who honoured their previous kings back further than antiquity
and they were plant people when humans were plant like before they were flesh and bone

originally posted by: cachibatches
The exact phrase you used was: "If the Europeans had been limited by resources..." The fact is that North Africa and the Middle East dwarfed Southern Europe in resources. Good land, gold, you name it.

You seem to be looking at the endpoints and not necessarily at the pattern through time. Europe is -- well, actually, it's an artificial boundary. And it's not clear if you're talking about the entire continent of Africa (this is what I assumed) or simply the Sahara and parts above.

Yes, Greece was a latecomer. You are making my point. They did not have the natural advantages of fertile land and had to rely on human talent to play catch up and surpass the others.

The main advantage that Greece (which includes Crete and the Minoans) had was that it controlled major areas of the Mediterranean Sea during the Bronze Age and it only really rises to power around 800 BC (more strongly around 600 BC) with the rise of the powerful city states.

At this point, "fertile land for people" is kind of a non-starter since they're getting a lot of their wealth by controlling trade. This was enhanced by their navies (a necessity for them) which made it possible for them to go out and conquer and enslave a lot of people who had technology. They don't get into an age of great inventions until around the time of Alexander the Great.

The Nile became the bread basket of the empire. That is a simple fact. They could not have fed their empire without Egypt. We are talking about resources. Again, when you talk about how well they were doing without them, you make my point. Europe lacked resources, and made up for it in talent.

Europe wasn't starved for resources. What Rome wanted was a reliable delivery of grain -- to Rome itself and not to the empire. Italy's quite fertile and able to grow a lot of food. Egypt was a wealthy enemy and had a lot of resources but the Roman Empire wouldn't have starved without it.

Domesticating is taming plus breeding. They have also been bred, so they can be domesticated. The reason that they are more difficult is that any domestication process would start in modern times.

Actually, they're more aggressive and more easily spooked than horses are. Although attempts have been made to domesticate them, they have proven tameable but not domesticatable -- as opposed to the donkey and the various wild equines of the world.

A similar situation existed in the Middle East with gazelles. Attempts were made to domesticate them and while they can be tamed and bred, it did not produce a domesticated gazelle.

Diamond makes the point that Africa lagged because their aurochs were more difficult to domesticate. If you are saying differently, then you take another of his points off the table for me. We have agreed that he is often confused, so no harm done.

Cattle were important in Egypt from before recorded history (before 3200 BC.) The only "aurochs" cattle in Africa (as far as I can tell) were those in North Africa, which were domesticated. I believe Diamond was including all of Africa (not just the Sahara-and-northward area) and none of the bovines below the Sahara have proved easy to domesticate.

Roads are created. One of my greatest moments was standing at the point of the Aurelian wall where the Via Appia meets the Via Latina.

Yes, but it's not on a flood plain (as is the area along the Nile where any road would be flooded and buried in silt every year) or on the edge of a desert where sandstorms bury it (actually, you don't even have to be on the desert. In Lubbock, Texas, we'd get spring dust storms that would completely cover the smaller roads and we could only drive by following the fence lines or the lines of trees.)

The Romans got to Sudan in the South, Scotland to the North, and Ctesiphon to the east. Besides, it isn't really an issue of how far the army can march. It is a matter of cultural influence. Roman glasswares and coins were traded in India and China.

This doesn't quite make your point since this happened only fairly late in history and it was due to a number of factors. Take a slice at different time periods (for example, 1500 BC) and you will find a different answer.

I understand the original point, but you said something that is inherently not true, and it isn't a matter of belief. We look at lush, green Europe and compare it to the Sahara and the desertified Middle East, but in ancient times, it was Europe that was poorest in resources. There was nothing inevitable about Europe's rise. It happened because of people working AGAINST the hand they were dealt.

You seem to be considering only a small part of Europe - the continent is hardly resource poor. One of its huge advantages is the sheer amount of usable timber; a resource that Saharan areas of Africa did not have (the palm trees and acacia trees of Libya, Sudan, Egypt, etc are not good for large wooden structures. Good wood was one of the most expensive trade goods in Egypt.) Amber and precious stones made their way through the trade networks and Europe's food production was not the main reason it lagged behind until 1500 BC or thereabouts since it's also rich in fruit varieties and in the number of domesticated species of plant and animals.

Europe (and the Celts) also controlled the iron trade for quite awhile (around 800 BC until around 300 AD) It had the vast steppes of Russia and easily domesticated equines. It had a lot of tin mines for bronze (which Egypt and Africa did not have (in the north... their bronze was a compound with arsenic and imported tin)) and had easier access to other areas of the world for trade and invasion.

The lag seems mainly to be in terms of culture - there's a lot of small countries and kingdoms but no real ability to take over anything else. The Celts, who were probably the best contenders for empire-making in Europe also had a culture that promoted conflict between Celtic tribes and distrust between each group of Celtic tribes made permanent alliances impossible - even Arminius could not hold them together for more than a decade.

Once Rome smacked them into submission, the area grew rapidly thanks to natural resources. The post-Roman empire and the Ottoman empires did not depend on the wheat of Egypt.

a reply to: Byrd

The lag seems mainly to be in terms of culture - there's a lot of small countries and kingdoms but no real ability to take over anything else. The Celts, who were probably the best contenders for empire-making in Europe also had a culture that promoted conflict between Celtic tribes and distrust between each group of Celtic tribes made permanent alliances impossible - even Arminius could not hold them together for more than a decade.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement.
Tribalism is the reason Africa and parts of europe seemed to lag, it also the case with the americas.
Tribal rivalries keep cultures from reaching nation state status, they might pull together a few loosely related clans, but can never achieve an overall dominance it takes to build a nation or state.

On agriculture affecting societal development, I have read a very good paper on how organized agriculture leads to state building, class stratification and organized warfare. I will track it down.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Byrd

The lag seems mainly to be in terms of culture - there's a lot of small countries and kingdoms but no real ability to take over anything else. The Celts, who were probably the best contenders for empire-making in Europe also had a culture that promoted conflict between Celtic tribes and distrust between each group of Celtic tribes made permanent alliances impossible - even Arminius could not hold them together for more than a decade.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement.
Tribalism is the reason Africa and parts of europe seemed to lag, it also the case with the americas.
Tribal rivalries keep cultures from reaching nation state status, they might pull together a few loosely related clans, but can never achieve an overall dominance it takes to build a nation or state.

On agriculture affecting societal development, I have read a very good paper on how organized agriculture leads to state building, class stratification and organized warfare. I will track it down.

I think that tribalism can be identified identified as the root cause of a lot of problems. The "us versus them"makes for bad trading partners and worse neighbors and while wars drive some technology, cultures fall behind in other areas and lose opportunities -- not to mention that the outcomes make resources fairly unstable. It's hard to get ahead if you lose all your iron mines after a big battle... and harder still if the wars over iron have killed all your miners.

a reply to: Byrd

Another thing most researchers over look, is some societies, really shunned centralization and may not have anything to do with food production and the like, such as the Ibos, well developed but had no use for kings, they came together for common projects and defense but part ways after, while their neighbors build huge states and even empires, that's why I posted above that the folks south of the Sudan had the same or similar cultural elements to build states but never did until relatively late.
Take another example of a people that lived within both Egypt and Kush and have deep interactions with both, the Madjyai , they never developed writing or a state although states they interacted with did, they remained nomads to this day, even though they had the capacity to do so, they were the go to special forces in both Egypt and Kush more often guarantors of kingly power especially in Egypt.

Go on... everyone.

I thought these books would be interesting since they are older

african religion

a reply to: sapien82
Fascinating link. Never been to that site before.


Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: sapien82
Fascinating link. Never been to that site before.

Harte

Some excellent examples of colonialism, there. I agree that it's fascinating!

a reply to: Byrd

Yeh there are some really good out of print books there

most are free to read save for the odd page , which is blocked for members etc

but you can find some real gems in there

they do a free book every week if you sign up

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: cachibatches
The exact phrase you used was: "If the Europeans had been limited by resources..." The fact is that North Africa and the Middle East dwarfed Southern Europe in resources. Good land, gold, you name it.

You seem to be looking at the endpoints and not necessarily at the pattern through time. Europe is -- well, actually, it's an artificial boundary. And it's not clear if you're talking about the entire continent of Africa (this is what I assumed) or simply the Sahara and parts above.

Yes, Greece was a latecomer. You are making my point. They did not have the natural advantages of fertile land and had to rely on human talent to play catch up and surpass the others.

The main advantage that Greece (which includes Crete and the Minoans) had was that it controlled major areas of the Mediterranean Sea during the Bronze Age and it only really rises to power around 800 BC (more strongly around 600 BC) with the rise of the powerful city states.

At this point, "fertile land for people" is kind of a non-starter since they're getting a lot of their wealth by controlling trade. This was enhanced by their navies (a necessity for them) which made it possible for them to go out and conquer and enslave a lot of people who had technology. They don't get into an age of great inventions until around the time of Alexander the Great.

The Nile became the bread basket of the empire. That is a simple fact. They could not have fed their empire without Egypt. We are talking about resources. Again, when you talk about how well they were doing without them, you make my point. Europe lacked resources, and made up for it in talent.

Europe wasn't starved for resources. What Rome wanted was a reliable delivery of grain -- to Rome itself and not to the empire. Italy's quite fertile and able to grow a lot of food. Egypt was a wealthy enemy and had a lot of resources but the Roman Empire wouldn't have starved without it.

Domesticating is taming plus breeding. They have also been bred, so they can be domesticated. The reason that they are more difficult is that any domestication process would start in modern times.

Actually, they're more aggressive and more easily spooked than horses are. Although attempts have been made to domesticate them, they have proven tameable but not domesticatable -- as opposed to the donkey and the various wild equines of the world.

A similar situation existed in the Middle East with gazelles. Attempts were made to domesticate them and while they can be tamed and bred, it did not produce a domesticated gazelle.

Diamond makes the point that Africa lagged because their aurochs were more difficult to domesticate. If you are saying differently, then you take another of his points off the table for me. We have agreed that he is often confused, so no harm done.

Cattle were important in Egypt from before recorded history (before 3200 BC.) The only "aurochs" cattle in Africa (as far as I can tell) were those in North Africa, which were domesticated. I believe Diamond was including all of Africa (not just the Sahara-and-northward area) and none of the bovines below the Sahara have proved easy to domesticate.

Roads are created. One of my greatest moments was standing at the point of the Aurelian wall where the Via Appia meets the Via Latina.

Yes, but it's not on a flood plain (as is the area along the Nile where any road would be flooded and buried in silt every year) or on the edge of a desert where sandstorms bury it (actually, you don't even have to be on the desert. In Lubbock, Texas, we'd get spring dust storms that would completely cover the smaller roads and we could only drive by following the fence lines or the lines of trees.)

The Romans got to Sudan in the South, Scotland to the North, and Ctesiphon to the east. Besides, it isn't really an issue of how far the army can march. It is a matter of cultural influence. Roman glasswares and coins were traded in India and China.

This doesn't quite make your point since this happened only fairly late in history and it was due to a number of factors. Take a slice at different time periods (for example, 1500 BC) and you will find a different answer.

I understand the original point, but you said something that is inherently not true, and it isn't a matter of belief. We look at lush, green Europe and compare it to the Sahara and the desertified Middle East, but in ancient times, it was Europe that was poorest in resources. There was nothing inevitable about Europe's rise. It happened because of people working AGAINST the hand they were dealt.

You seem to be considering only a small part of Europe - the continent is hardly resource poor. One of its huge advantages is the sheer amount of usable timber; a resource that Saharan areas of Africa did not have (the palm trees and acacia trees of Libya, Sudan, Egypt, etc are not good for large wooden structures. Good wood was one of the most expensive trade goods in Egypt.) Amber and precious stones made their way through the trade networks and Europe's food production was not the main reason it lagged behind until 1500 BC or thereabouts since it's also rich in fruit varieties and in the number of domesticated species of plant and animals.

Europe (and the Celts) also controlled the iron trade for quite awhile (around 800 BC until around 300 AD) It had the vast steppes of Russia and easily domesticated equines. It had a lot of tin mines for bronze (which Egypt and Africa did not have (in the north... their bronze was a compound with arsenic and imported tin)) and had easier access to other areas of the world for trade and invasion.

The lag seems mainly to be in terms of culture - there's a lot of small countries and kingdoms but no real ability to take over anything else. The Celts, who were probably the best contenders for empire-making in Europe also had a culture that promoted conflict between Celtic tribes and distrust between each group of Celtic tribes made permanent alliances impossible - even Arminius could not hold them together for more than a decade.

Once Rome smacked them into submission, the area grew rapidly thanks to natural resources. The post-Roman empire and the Ottoman empires did not depend on the wheat of Egypt.

Again, you are repeating things that are incorrect and not understanding that you are making my points.

Yes, the Greeks prospered despite poor soils because they controlled trade. EXACTLY. Your original point is that Europe had resources that Africa did not have, and it is much the other way around. The European intellectual revolution happened because the Greeks became first traders and warriors, and then scholars, to compensate.

It is a fact that Egypt was the breadbasket of the empire because of the extreme fertility of the Nile Vaelly. FACT. Not debatable.

Again, zebras have been both tamed and bred. THEY HAVE A WORSE DISPOSITION THAN HORSES BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT DOMESTICATED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. If Africans had done the work, there would docile breeds.

And on and on.

a reply to: cachibatches


Sorry, but you're the one not seeing the forrest for the trees here. You're focusing on Greece's lack of fertile farmland to the detriment of all other resources. Yes, their wealth was built on trade but to obtain that trade required a navy. You can't have a navy without lumber, without a way to feed your standing armies and navy, to pay them and to cloth them, you simply don't have them. You're neglecting the big picture and focusing on specific details.

As for Rome being reliant on Egyptian grain... not anywhere near to the extent you seek to insist. Rome stretched from North Africa (Carthage) to Britannia long before the death of Caesar, the triple alliance, civil war and eventual ascendency of Augustus. They did quite well for hundreds of years prior to incorporating Ptolemaic Egypt into the blossom of Rome.

As to your thoughts on domestication in Africa, particularly Zebras... morphological similarities are where their affinity with Equus ends. Taming them has only happened on a small scale and domestication has never been successful. They've never been ridden, they are morphologically too small to support the weight of a grown man. Sure, with several thousand years of selective breeding it could have been accomplished similarly to horses, but Zebra have some unique personality traits as a result of their close quarters contract with predators and created a unique set of behaviors not found in horses. When a horse is spooked, it kicks randomly and tries to get away. When a zebra gets scared or kissed off and kicks, it looks down between it's legs, aims, and goes for the head. Just to provide context, Zebras kill lions with kicks to the head, either immediately or because they break the lions jaw and it starves to death. No horse has ever killed a lion! And even "tame" zebras will inflict vicious bite wounds on their handlers. They are simply far more aggressive than horses and have a social hierarchy based on dominant females. Horses have no such thing. To keep comparing the Zebra to a horse and insist it should have been easy is born of notnloking at all of the facts.

And just to quickly touch on your hypothetical evolutionary scenarios... it's a really over simplified and dumbed down approach by saying tribe A went north into Europe, tribe B. Went East into Asia, Tribe C. Went to the Americas and so on and so forth. We know by studying genomics that human migrations and admixture events are a much more complicated scenario than what you are describing in vastly over simplified terms.