quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: For example, modern researchers are confused about how ancients were able to make huge stone blocks with such precision, while able to lift them at great heights when they can weigh anything from 200 tons to 1200 tons, if not more.
Egyptian monuments have been cited as examples, including the Great pyramids. But these researchers are amazed by this, because they say Egyptians didn't have wheels or pulleys, or any "sophisticated" tools. Is it time for researchers to revise this assumption?
Even items relatively as small as pottery dating to 11 and 10 ky ago have been located in Africa. How could they have been without a wheel?
^^They definitely need to revise any erroneous assumptions. A bit of info from Reloaded Ancient Egypt and the wheel.
---------------------------------------------
"Homegrown" Ancient Egyptian technology -far from "unchanging" or "static"
Ancient Egyptians pioneered numerous technologies and were not "static" and "unchanging", but show a number of innovations. For example, in addition to the wheel for pottery from very early on, there were pulleys to hand the carcasses of animals to be processed and lathes (Ian Shaw 2003, Ancient Egyptian Materials and technology). Wheeled vehicles from Egypt appear in the record as early as the 13th Dynasty, not as fancy Hyskos chariots but as wheeled sleds. QUOTE:
"Interestingly, earliest representation of wheeled vehicle from Egypt (tomb of Sebeknekht at El Kab, Dynasty XIII) shows sledge, mounted on four disk wheels rather than rollers."
-- Wheeled vehicles and ridden animals in the ancient Near East (1997), By M. A. Littauer, J. H. Crouwel
-------------------------------------
Use of the wheel in the Nile Valley- more data
"Much earlier forerunners are shown in tomb paintings of the late Old Kingdom and the 11th Dynasty showing siege towers with wheels; depictions of movable siege towers exist from the 6th Dynasty onwards.) This indicates that the wheel was used in the transport if heavy loads more frequently than assumed.. The use of wheeled equipment in building is not yet attested to but may have been fairly common. The soft surface of the desert sand and the mid of the cultivation may have been a serious obstacle for heavy carriages but not so much for sledges."
--The encyclopaedia of ancient Egyptian architecture By Dieter Arnold. 2002. p 195 --------------------------
"In all probability wheels would have been of little practical use, for the building blocks used were far too large and too heavy to be carried on a wooden-wheeled cart. The relative scarcity of wood in ancient Egypt would have made the building of such carts difficult and overcoming the practical and technical difficulties of building carts to carry and move great weights would have probably proved impossible.
Wheels would have been, in any event, a far from practical method of transport on either agricultural land or the desert where they would have become quickly bogged down in either mud or sand."
--R. Partridge. (1996) Transport in ancient Egypt. p76 ---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGING INNOVATIONS IN BUILDING CK TECHNOLOGY Egyptians pioneered in the use of stone, a more difficult material to work with, compared to the mud-brick of Mesopotamia. The massive works of polished granite and limestone show a skill and craftsmanship beyond anything from contemporary Mesopotamia. And that is not even getting into the mathematical, engineering and astronomical knowledge that came with the package. Ramps in raising huge monuments and buildings were a sophisticated adaptation with at least 5 different types of ramps in use to supplement log rollers, ropes and sledges. As one historian notes:
"The Egyptians advanced beyond the Mesopotamians in another area: vaulting. They used the tunnel or barrel vault as their Near Eastern counterparts did, but they added a new style called the corbel vault that creates arches using stones that jut out to support other stones. What this indicates is that Egyptians builders were not determined in their architectural structures by other civilisations or influences. another example of this is the innovative cantilevered beams over the King's Chamber in Giza pyramid. The pent roof distributes weight and stress in a new way. In other words, Egypt had skilful engineers who created new types of architectural supporting systems." --Y.C. Chiu, An introduction to the History of Project Management. 2010
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Much earlier forerunners are shown in tomb paintings of the late Old Kingdom and the 11th Dynasty showing siege towers with wheels; depictions of movable siege towers exist from the 6th Dynasty onwards.) This indicates that the wheel was used in the transport if heavy loads more frequently than assumed...
Zarahan, I agree with your point, as indicated in the above citation, about the prospect of the wheel appearing in the Nile Valley much earlier than 'western' scholarship is generally willing to give it credit for. I kinda hinted to this in the OP, i.e. if I didn't make myself clear.
It is to this end, I pointed to the appearance of pottery in Africa, among the earliest anywhere, if not the earliest. I can't imagine how it could have been achieved without some intuition into wheel-making. If there are any takers on how it was achieved without the knowledge of the wheel, then please come forward.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think a very skillful technician could pull it off I don't think the woman above made use of a potters wheel, The result a very beautiful functioning piece of art.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there more stuff that better demonstrate how the pottery around the lady was produced. The pot you showed below looks nothing like the stuff the lady was tampering with above. See their bases. The smooth surface is definitely not there, on the item the lady is handling in the photo.
If those pots were made with just bare hand, and not tools, than yeah, the work would be impressive. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When looking at the beautifully symmetric form of a Zulu pot, one must remember that there is no potter’s wheel or kiln available. The pot is formed by building up coils of clay and smoothing them down with any found items such as the back of a spoon or a water-worn rock. One has only to look at the work of a beginner to see how difficult it is to maintain form! http://www.eshowemuseums.org.za/index.php/vukani-museum/craft-techniques/pottery/
Not the same pots but man these folks have skills technique must have took yrs to master,but it all goes to show that there is more than one way to arrive at the same answers using very different solutions.
I must get at-least one of these amazing original work.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You believe that they were using spoons back [and possibly the laborious means described in the link] 10ky to 11ky ago to smoothen clay pots?
Well, I guess I can give it the benefit of doubt, but I'm still waiting for that photographic demonstration of pottery making.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - That beautiful pot not only demonstrates African artistry, but also the Sub-Saharan Africans basic flaw. A pot is a functional thing, not an art object, the more high quality pots that you can make, the better it is for your society. Not only does it allow everyone to have pots, but it also gives you something for external trade.
But in typical African fashion, they adapted themselves to the situation, rather than finding ways to adapt the situation to them. The ancient Africans in Japan did the same thing and also produced fantastic but inefficient pottery.
The solution was of course, the potters wheel: believed to have been invented by those very innovative Africans in Mesopotamia.
I am reminded of (I think it was Sowell's) article, enumerating the reasons why Sub-Saharan Africans did not flourish, he cited unnavigable rivers and lack of draft animals. Though he was wrong on draft animals, historically Oxen were common use in the south - Why not elsewhere? But his point still holds, there is little or no evidence that Sub-Saharan Africans attempted large-scale projects to bend the environment to their needs, rather, they always bent themselves to the environment.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread was posted to squash ignorance like the one showcased above.
The undated (Japanese?) pot displayed above is actually less complex to make than the Zulu example posted right above it. It requires skill, if I'm to take Brada's link at its word about the procedures involved, to get that curvature and with such smoothness.
You could be learning something from preceding posts rather than relying on non-African authors who understand very little about Africans, and making fatally flawed calculations, that the content of this very thread belies, about Africans not "making the situation work for them".
What do you think the invention of pottery is, if not an effort to turn a difficult environment otherwise for humans? Yes, Africans invented this concept...11ky ago!
More facts:
Not only was cattle domestication pioneered on the continent, but so was another important animal that would usher in what is called "trade" and produce what is called "civilization": the donkey!
Humans learned to survive outside of Africa, because they brought with them, survival culture from the motherland to their new homes, "to bend the environment to their needs". In other words, "bending the environment to their needs" was an African export to the outside world.
This is why modern humans remained while homonids inside and outside of the continent died off. This should not be rocket science.
It'll feed you the necessary fundamentals about the social development of humans. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike I think you misunderstood somethings here not every African including South of the dessert Africans made pots the way the Zulus made them,some had been using the potters wheel for millennia as a matter of fact it could just be they invented the darn thing..don't quote me that. and as far as manufacturing hell some were manufacturing carbon steel smelted a higher temperature in kilns more advanced than anything found in Europe and Asia some 2000yrs ago and not only that they were exporting it. Africans like the people of Kano were mass producing goods like leather for export over seas,there was no cookie cutter form of African civilizations some developed quite differently from others each with it's own ingenuity..Europeans only got the upper hand when they began to mechanize production other wise called the industrial age.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in typical African fashion, they adapted themselves to the situation, rather than finding ways to adapt the situation to them.
Yeah and look where that mind set got all of us GLOBAL WARMING!! holes in the ozone layer,acid rain loss of valuable forest, rivers with no fish I know you are not much of a youtube man and especially since this vid is quite long but I implore you to take the time and view it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU&feature=player_embeddedPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada-Anansi - I'm well aware that Africans invented advanced technologies, including smelting and boat design. But those technologies were isolated and did not disperse continent wide - far from it. Therefore there was no continent-wide trade in local advancements. Sowell, I think correctly, attributes this to difficulties of long distance travel, AND the tsetse fly.
My point was that other civilizations also had difficult terrains to deal with. The Mongol Japanese had a country so hilly that the wheel was useless to them, But they found other means.
For Africans, the tsetse fly may have been the greatest impediment, but instead of trying to find ways to eradicate the fly, they simply adjusted to it, by all but abandoning those areas. Thereby leaving millions of acres undeveloped and underutilized.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike again that's not necessarily true in all cases for how do you explain the spread of iron or the banana,very few societies in Africa did without iron and wide spread intellectual exchange did spread between the Swahili states and those of the Savannah/Saharan empires, books were found in the libraries of Timbuktu of Swahili origins on the other side of the continent. and just try to plant certain crops from the temperate zone into the sub tropics,you would be facing starvation,so by necessity they had to come up with new crops new ideas depending on their new environs,and while Japan maybe a hilly country it does not vary much in topography for once you scale or sail around those mountains with your crops and live stocks you are pretty much set, not to mention vast areas of the Asian main-land is wide open grass lands. Btw on a side note Many of the Meso American civilizations were abandoned precisely because they over worked their environment culling forest to make beautiful but now abandoned temples On the spot where Timbuktu now lay was an even more larger more ancient city going back to the time of the Greeks and could rival any of the cities in Mesopotamia but they too fell because they over worked the land bending it to their will as you might put it, they had to wait centuries to re-build in the middle ages.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who say things like Mike does, do it because they refuse to do the simplest of things: read up on African historiography. Not simply frantic google-scavengng here and there for tidbits.
More informed perceptions of African historiography have come from Euro folks than knowledge inferred in Mike's interpretations of things African. This is the kind of thing that makes some segments of continental Africans nurture perceptions about the diaspora, whereby the latter comes across as having lost all sense of identity about things African, and are reminiscent of Africans only in physical appearance. The thinking thereof goes, that said people have been completely Europeanized. This of course, is not entirely true, but one can get a sense of where some of this sentiment comes from.
A continent as big as Africa, especially before the advent of anything remotely resembling our current globalized system, should not be expected to have "continental-wide trade". No continent back then met this condition, and sense of nationalism was fairly different than that which exists today.
Instead, there were trading-blocks; even today, trading-blocks exist despite globalization.
As Brada correctly notes, even then, the notion that there were no continental spread of technology, is plainly bogus. Writing systems, animal domesticates, plant domesticates, metallurgy like iron/steel production for example, language, farming subsistence, pottery designs, architecture, textiles have developed within and spread to vast areas of the continent.
The impact of disease and pestilence is not something that is just relegated to African historiography. Every place on the globe at some point in time, where humans have occupied, humans have had to confront certain types that are harder to eradicate, and this continues today.
A lack of understanding of Africa leads to a misinformed gravity of situations like this. For instance, being misinformed about Africa's role as the origin hub for a good majority of species around the globe.
This means that, this is likely also where the most diverse representation of such species is likely to be found. Agents of disease are therefore going to by harder to eradicate, because of diversity and hence, more capacity for resistance against eradication methods.
And predictably on the tsetse fly issue, Mike is also wrong about the lack of existence of eradication and control solutions for the problem over the course of history of the co-existence of these pests, humans and their domesticates. An active desire to research could have readily prevented this misinformation.
Trying to completely eradicate tsetse flies is as challenging as eradicating mosquitoes, or cockroaches, if not even more....i.e. nearly impossible. What can be done and has been done in history, are *ecology-friendly* control methods that can substantially reduce their presence, and integrating those methods with newly discovered effective prevention solutions.
Today, as we speak, eradication methods being sought out for tsetse flies involve understanding their genome and coming up sterilization solutions. This is how complicated of a program, the eradication of tsetse flies is cutting out to be. How far back in history would humans have used a genetic solution to eradicate these pests? I think any reasonable reader can guess the answer for themselves.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic