These two structures were built during roughly the same timeframe. Both were vastly wealthy nations, yet there are many examples of very complex designs in France during that time period, whereas relatively simpler structures like the Djenne mosque were fewer in number.
What is the reason for this? Lack of materials? Inspiration? I don't want the answer to be racist.
Different t areas developed at differ we rates
One issue is that if a system works for a culture they tend to keep it and not improve - eg Polynesians never developed higher level tech but were able to colonise thousands of islands, China never took gunpowder to the next level and so on
Both of those structures were built by the French m8.
The current Djenné mosque was built in 1907 by French colonial authorities. Pic related is what it looked like before.
>just the aesthetic sensibilities of the cultures
If you really wanted to fight racism you'd make a bit more effort.
The west Africans were like the celts, they just didn't know how to do it. arches, flying buttresses, cement and whatnot took 100s of years to develop. If they could they would, if they weren't cucked by other civilizations they would eventually, but they were cucks, and didn't, like the celts.
Yeah two different ares with different Climate, resources and architectural history.
Oh and the African one had no exposure to foreign architect except Islamic based ones which even then we're pretty minute.
Much more than just funded. It was built under French administration, and the works were directed by a French-educated mason. The layout is that of a Baroque church, and nothing about the building bears any resemblance to the original mosque.
That's not the original mosque.
It's a former jihadist fort built over the ruins of the true mosque. The fulani mujahideen destroyed it for being too ornate and detailed for fundamentalist tastes.
The mosque was originally described as having a large dome and intricate colorful patterns on it.
t. Mandinka-Sorko hybrid
You're right it's not the original mosque, but it's a mosque nonetheless, which was built next to the original one. The original one was not destroyed though, just abandoned.
This is how the original building was described:
>There is no other written information on the Great Mosque until the French explorer René Caillié visited Djenné in 1828 and wrote "In Jenné is a mosque built of earth, surmounted by two massive but not high towers; it is rudely constructed, though very large. It is abandoned to thousands of swallows, which build their nests in it. This occasions a very disagreeable smell, to avoid which, the custom of saying prayers in a small outer court has become common."
Either way it was completely different and much simpler than the current construction.
They hired an Andalusian architect to build the Djenne mosque. Those pillar supports and mud walls were the only materials available to them. Djenne and Timbuktu were rich and educated, but with limited building materials you can't build as well, plus architectural styles that make it easier to build the actual stuff.
You're not going to find many extravagant examples of African architecture, considering that most of their cities and structures that did exist are ruins, and being a society of oral tradition they wouldn't really have the written records to provide evidence.
This is the Yeha temple in Ethiopia. It once stood several stories tall and dates back to 7th or 8th century BC. Now it's a heap of ruins and there's no records to tell us what it looked like standing.
Here is your answer, written a few centuries before you had to ask it...
>What is the reason for this? Lack of materials? Inspiration? I don't want the answer to be racist.
The mosque of Djenne is meant to be a simple piece of architecture. The people of the area have always been a fairly simple folk and the mosque serves its purpose as a town hall and a place of prayer. If you think about it, it's incredibly practical given the environment. The structure is solid in the dry seasons and in the wet and floody seasons is fairly easy to repair.
Most people here either inherit a house or buy a new one. In those sort of areas, every successive generation builds its own house and if it's washed away in a flood, you build a new one from the mud. The mosque of djenne is designed to be a somewhat more permanent structure, albeit easily repairable, but is also reflective of the general architecture around it like any other religious structure, and most of the people around it live in mud houses like they have for hundreds if not thousands of years and they don't see any real reason why they should change that. Also, the mosque could be said to reflect some of their religious beliefs about the transient nature of this world while the church there could be said to reflect the permanent nature of God and his church/kingdom. Both serve their spiritual purposes well and I don't think it's fair to judge one as better than the other just because one is a bit more indulgent in its style.
You need only a fraction of that, but many other inventions dating back to the Middle Ages.
Sub-Sahara Africa is fucking pathetic compared to any other region on the face of the earth.
>different place, diferent people, different population size, different culture, different economy, different geography, different climate, different technology, different materials, different infrastructure, different religion, different conditions, different aestethics, different functions, different thinking, different skills, different history, different social organisation, different political system, different ways of doing things, different mentality, different posibilities, different needs and wants, different situations, differnt reaons
I believe this quote from Avatar does a fine job correlating what's happening.
>I don't want the answer to be racist.
But the answer is racist by definition