Africa�s Role in World History

Pretorian

Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166

Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 23:22

Originally posted by Penelope

Good point. I would also like to point out, that most of those empires, were larger than most European kingdoms and or empires.

Also a good point. It must surely be easier to build an empire in France, bounded on three sides by water and one side by mountains leaving only the eastern edge with no clear boundary, than to do the same in the middle of the boundless central African rainforest, or to build an empire that crosses vastly different climactic zones from desert to sahel to forest in West Africa. Yet Africans did just that. Sometimes without the benefit of horses and carts, either.

Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic)

Eondt

Earl

Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279

Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 06:28

Originally posted by pinguin

Zulu Empire? I wonder what we are talking about...

Don't know about you, but I am reading "Zulu Kingdom" in the post...which it was.

edgewaters View Drop Down

Sultan

Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394

Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 07:45

Originally posted by pinguin

I just wonder, besides coffee and cola nuts, which African foods are worldwide known?

Sweet potatoes (aka yams), amaranth, eggplant, millet, sorghum, and a very large number of lost crop types that were replaced with imports (eg the bambara groundnut which was replaced with the peanut, African Rice which was replaced with Asiatic rice strains, etc)

Bananas, for instance, came from Indonesia, and many other vegetables together with farm animals (goats, cows) were introduced to Africa.

Cattle are actually native to northern Africa, and were domesticated indepedantly - and possibly earlier than the breeds domesticated in the Near East.

According to our genetic analyses, African cattle originated neither from Indian humped cattle nor from Near Eastern cattle. Those findings support the separate-origins theory of cattle domestication favored by archaeologists, who had maintained that in Africa, too, cattle domestication was local. Our results confirm that African cattle stem from the domestication of a B. taurus type of wild ox that inhabited northern Africa when the Sahara region was much less arid than it is today. It may even be the case that the distinctive pastoral lifestyle of African tribes such as the Masai is of tremendous antiquity, and could pre-date the capture of cattle and development of milking in the Fertile Crescent.

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0203/0203_feature.html

Edited by edgewaters - 12-Nov-2007 at 07:56

Windemere

Samurai

Joined: 09-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105

Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 16:49

The above post from 'Natural History Magazine' is interesting, and it contradicts the conventional wisdom on the origin of domestic cattle in Africa. The original wild species that gave rise to all domestic cattle types was the aurochs (Bos primigenius) which existed across Eurasia in many different forms. The form that existed in Europe, Asia Minor, and the Middle East was known as Taurine (Bos taurus). They had no hump or dewlap. They were first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent area (modern Iraq) and in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). From there these Taurine cattle were brought westwards into Europe and eastwards into the Far East. They gradually separated into two distinct types, known as long-horned cattle (Bos longifrons) and short-horned cattle (Bos brachyceros). Both of these types are Taurine cattle.

A separate domestication of the wild aurochs took place in the Indus Valley (modern India and Pakistan). The type of cattle deriving from this domestication is known as the Zebu. This type has a hump and a dewlap.

The aurochs, the original wild species that gave rise to all domestic cattle is now extinct. The last aurochs survived in the Bialowieza Forest of eastern Poland until the 1600's and were prized by the nobility as a game species.

The first cattle were believed to have been brought to Africa in ancient times, and were of the Taurine type. Native African peoples eagerly took up cattle husbandry, and cattle eventually spread throughout the continent. At a later date but still in ancient times Arabs were believed to have imported Zebu cattle into the Horn of Africa area. Native African Nilotic tribes such as the Masai, Watutsi, etc. interbred these Zebu cattle with their Taurine cattle, producing a new crossbred type known as the Sanga. These were brought southwards by Bantu tribes who'd also eagerly taken up the pastoral lifestyle and make up the majority of native African cattle today, though some pure Taurine breeds continue to exist in West Africa. The original Taurine, Zebu, and Sanga types have been developed into many different localized breeds by selective breeding.

This is the conventional narrative of the origin of African cattle.

The above article from 'Natural History' changes things quite a bit. It states that wild cattle (the Aurochs) were native to North Africa (the Maghreb area), were domesticated there, and from there spread throughout the African continent. It states that their was an admixture of Taurine cattle brought in during ancient times and a later admixture with Zebu cattle brought in by Arabs and spread by Nilotic and Bantu tribesmen, but that indigenous North African cattle were the primary ancestral stock that gave rise to most African cattle.

It will be interesting to see what future conclusions can be drawn, and will probably depend upon further genetic analysis of African cattle breeds. I imagine that an analysis of the cattle of the Maghreb (North Africa) would be especially important.

Windemere

Guests

Guest

Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 18:20

Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by pinguin

I just wonder, besides coffee and cola nuts, which African foods are worldwide known?

Sweet potatoes (aka yams), amaranth, eggplant, millet, sorghum, and a very large number of lost crop types that were replaced with imports...

Well, "Sweet Potatos" is an American plant different of Yams; Yams are African and Asiatic, though. Amaranth is American. Eggplant came from India and Sri Lanka, Millet is Chinese and Sorghum is African and Asiatic.

The point is simple. Africa was a very stingy continent in plants and animals able to be domesticated.

jdalton

Pretorian

Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166

Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 01:07

Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by pinguin

I just wonder, besides coffee and cola nuts, which African foods are worldwide known?

Sweet potatoes (aka yams), amaranth, eggplant, millet, sorghum, and a very large number of lost crop types that were replaced with imports...

The point is simple. Africa was a very stingy continent in plants and animals able to be domesticated.

Different breeds of yams were domesticated independently in Africa and Asia. Sorghum and millet are also indigenous to SS Africa, which is not to say they aren't also indigenous to Asia. My book also says tef, but I don't know what that is. I don't know anything about the origins of amaranth or eggplants. Also, didn't house cats and lettuce originate in Egypt? Not that anyone eats house cats, I hope. Cry

Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic)

Guests

Guest

Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 01:19

You are right. It is interesting that some plants have been transcontinental, like the ones you mentioned above. Some are present worldwide by nature, like coconuts, for instance, because the plant floats. It is interesting, though, that cola nuts and coffee became so important in worlwide diet, and both came from Africa.

longshanks31 View Drop Down

Colonel

Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Location: Great Britain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 572

Posted: 25-Nov-2007 at 19:36

Africas impact on history is not to be underestimated, but for external impact, the history of the horse plays a large if lateral part of explaining the answer, particularly with regard to sub saharan africa.

I can go into this in greater depth, but it will be a bit round the houses and im hoping the connection between the history of the horse and the relative quietness of ss africa in history will be apparent now ive mentioned it, most of you guys are a lot smarter than me.

long live the king of bhutan

Decebal

Arch Duke

Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791

Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 21:59

well longshanks, contrary to popular belief, horses did play an important role in the history of Sub-Saharan Africa. There are kingdoms such as Kanem-Bornu which were based on it and it did play an important tolr in Songhay as well.

I think that the real issues which slowed the development of African civilizations are difficult terrain and somewhat poor food sources, and the difficulties posed by malaria, dengue fever and sleeping sickness. These diseases changed the pattern of African settlement, by creating bariers to livestock and by forcing African villages to be away from the water (which enables the spreading of mosquitoes). Being away from the water is not very productive, since it makes it that much harder to cultivate food on a large scale, which is critical to the development of civilizations.

What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Chilbudios View Drop Down

Arch Duke

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900

Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 22:51

Decebal, all I've read on horses (equus caballus that is, zebra or the donkey are also part of equus genus) point out they were not indigenous in Africa. But more important than horses is how to use them (they were known for a long time, but rather eaten than used in agriculture or riding). Kanem-Bornu and Songhay and other such kingdoms are rather recent on the history scale, and please note on the map how north are they when compared with overall sub-Saharan Africa. I guess they were most likely brought by nomadic elements crossing the Sahara, eventually as a replacement to camels in the raiding/military activities.

No doubt diseases shaped humanity in their own away. But what I find ignored is that people in various areas have different types of immunities, and different types of diet, which sometimes negate their harmful effect (check for instance the relation between fava beans and malaria). An insiniuation that humans will become "civilized" if they have the proper conditions sounds like wishful thinking to me. But maybe I'm missing some arguments/evidences ...

Edited by Chilbudios - 05-Dec-2007 at 22:53

jdalton

Pretorian

Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 166

Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 16:37

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Decebal, all I've read on horses (equus caballus that is, zebra or the donkey are also part of equus genus) point out they were not indigenous in Africa. But more important than horses is how to use them (they were known for a long time, but rather eaten than used in agriculture or riding). Kanem-Bornu and Songhay and other such kingdoms are rather recent on the history scale, and please note on the map how north are they when compared with overall sub-Saharan Africa. I guess they were most likely brought by nomadic elements crossing the Sahara, eventually as a replacement to camels in the raiding/military activities.

And if you look at the history of the Sahel, you can see that before Kanem-Bornu and Songhay and Mali and the like, there were few if any large organized empires in the region. So is the arrival of the horse responsible for this?

It's a fair point on the limitations Africa imposed on building cities. Imagine if early industrial revolution era London, with its rampant outbreaks of cholera and such, were situated in central Africa. Disease epidemics would be intolerable. On the other hand, Chilbudios is right that Africans weren't defenceless when it came to dealing with disease. SS Africa, Ottoman Turkey, and China all independently developed vaccinations against smallpox long before Europeans thought up the idea. I think it involved putting smallpox scabs in an incision under the skin of healthy children, thus significantly increasing the chances that they will develop an immunity to the disease without catching it.

An insiniuation that humans will become "civilized" if they have the proper conditions sounds like wishful thinking to me. But maybe I'm missing some arguments/evidences ...

Humans generally will become "civilized" if they have the proper conditions. Geography is the only reasonable explanation for why Eurasians built cities and ships and guns before Africans or Americans or Australians. Of course a lot also depends on your definition of "civilized." If you pick only one or two technological innovations your conclusions will be biased. If the Mayans used stone weapons does that make them uncivilized? They had writing and social hierarchies and aqueducts and intensive agriculture. SS Africa had iron, but if they didn't have full writing systems or large cities, does that make them uncivilized? Realizing that if you purposefully infect your children with smallpox scabs you actually increase their chances of survival seems live a very sophisticated and civilized decision to make. It took an awful lot of convincing for Europeans to reach the same conclusion centuries later.

Lords of Death and Life (a Mesoamerican webcomic)

Guests

Guest

Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:19

With all the due respect, I don't like the way Africa is used for political purposes and increase the self-esteem of minorities. History should be teach at its face value. Showing nothing more and nothing less than the facts.

First, Africa is not uniform, and speaking of the history of the Maghreb have very little in common with the history of Madagascar, or Egypt with Congo. Second, the diversity of levels of technological achievements is amazing: some people lived in advanced civilizations and others deep in the stone age.Now, the civilizations of Mediterranean North Africa to Egypt and Ethiopia were in permanent contact with the rest of the world in the international networks of commerce of the time, so claiming theirs cultures are "native" is pointless.

Finally, Subsaharan Africa for most of the time was very isolated of the rest of the world, and theirs technical and scientific achievements weren't much impresive. Most of them were tribal people and shared with them similar levels of development, like in Australia or Amazonia.

JanusRook

Sultan

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419

Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 01:48

or large cities, does that make them uncivilized?

To be fair, civilization comes from the latin word for city so yes civilizations require cities to be named as such. Otherwise they are just cultures, even though they may have advanced ideas, they won't be civilizations unless they have cities since it's only in large congregations of people that truly advanced concepts come together and remain.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.

Guests

Guest

Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 02:13

Originally posted by JanusRook

or large cities, does that make them uncivilized?

Precisely. Civilization is a culture of cities. That's the definition.

That doesn't mean that nomadic or agricultural people that doesn't have large cities are "primitive". It only mean that the level of complexity of the cultures and its technologies are smaller.

To be fair, one must say that even the simpler cultures made interesting inventions. For instance the Inuits invented the harpoon, the Australian Aboriguines the boomerang and the Tainos of the Caribbean the hammock. However, civilizations usually were more inventive by far.

All people around the world had a culture. But civilizations were quite fewer in number.

Edited by pinguin - 08-Dec-2007 at 02:22

jdalton