Why sub-saharan Africans weren't able to domesticate local

>>2299420
can't ride a horse with these big ass nuts

>>2299420

Your question is rather misleading, some it implies animals were domesticated everywhere else. But for example, Europe didn't domesticate local animals either - domestic animals there were spread from the Middle East. Domestication is the exception, not the rule, and almost everyone got them from cultural exchange, not independent development. Sub-saharan Africa was culturally isolates from Europe and Asia, so they missed out.

The horse was domesticated first as food, before anyone thought to ride it. trying to domesticate an animal to be ridden takes too long to yield any returns, and it's just not something you think to do (hence Chariots got invented before horse-riding). Horses were only domesticated in Asia because although they are a grazing animal that is able to graze during harsh steppe winters, since horses will dig through snow and break ice to reach grass.
Africa doesn't have climates like that.

File: 1472787566584.jpg (75KB, 501x638px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 501x638px

>>2299448
>Europe didn't domesticate local animals either - domestic animals there were spread from the Middle East.
>What are cows, dogs, horses, sheep

I see Plebbit is already here.

Look up the range of the Zebra. The Bantu didn't make it there until about the 1600s.

>>2299459
Animals that were imported from the middle east and india into europe?

What, you think chickens 'n shit are were actually endemic to europe?

Nobody has every domesticated zebras. people have tamed zebras, never domesticated them. Same deal with elephants.

And besides, you're operating under a false premise. I can't really think of any farm animals that Europeans have that Africans didn't have.

>>2299471
Even Khoisan in South Africa had cows. (according to a book on South African history I have) Only animal I can honestly say they didn't have is horses, but there were no horses in Africa, so oh well.

Not saying that niggers aren't niggers by the way. But they did domesticate animals.

>>2299459
All of them were imported anon. And from the Middle East.

>>2299459
What a fucking tard

>>2299420

Heh, I'm sure some local wildlife managed to domesticate the africans.

>>2299448
>Sub-saharan Africa was culturally isolates from Europe and Asia, so they missed out.
There are reports from early traders in South Africa that talk about South-African herding sheep and cattle. Archeological findings suggest the same. In the cape region of Africa, herding domesticated animals has been around for thousands of years.

File: Aurochs_heck_comparison_0.jpg (97KB, 1154x938px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1154x938px

I wonder how many people died trying to take the Auroch

>>2299471
>Nobody has every domesticated zebras. people have tamed zebras, never domesticated them. Same deal with elephants.

Simply because whitey didnt remain in Africa long enough for it to happen

>>2299608
>kill mammoth because stone spears and shiz
>killing auroch no big deal
>look its calf is left behind
>let's not eat the calf because we just killed its mother and have lots of food and it can be made to follow us around

>>2299420
>weren't able to domesticate local wildlife
They did. Cattle, guineafowl, etc.

>>2299836
Pathetic
Meanwhile Europeans domesticated FUCKING AUROCHS

>>2299845
Europeans did not. Anatolians did. Also Sub-Saharan Africans independently domesticated cattle so that's a moot fucking point. Fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>2299851
Europeans did.

>>2299459
>Cows
Domesticated around the Mesopotamian region
>dogs
Domesticated in Europe
>horses
Domesticated in Kazakhstan
>sheep
Domesticated in Anatolia

>>2299857
Europeans did NOT domesticate cattle.

>>2299864
>>dogs
Domesticated in Europe
This will trigger the nigger, who's only experience with dogs is being mauled by German Shepards after committing a felony.

>>2299864
>>dogs
>Domesticated in Europe

We actually don't know where or when dogs were first domesticated.

>>2299867
They did domesticate fucking Auroch though

>>2299898
They didn't. They killed them all though :^)

>>2299864
>fucking auroch
Domesticated in Europe

>>2299888
The only thing we're sure is that it wasnt in Africa lol

File: IMG_0400.jpg (154KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x600px

I don't get it

We had cows, sheep, goats, chickens, cats, and dogs. And horses where the climate allowed.

What does it matter to you that we didn't ride fuckin' giraffes?

Why didn't asians ride pandas?

>>2299920
>What does it matter to you that we didn't ride fuckin' giraffes?
Missed moment of awesome

>>2299920
>Why didn't asians ride pandas?

They ride elephants, which you never managed to do

>inb4 Hannibal
Carthagianians were phoenicians from Greece, not noggers

>>2299932
*asian elephants

If you're a millet farmer in the sahel, why go to the trouble of trying to ride a raging bull elephant when you have horses? What's the benefit?

>>2299950
Although I should point out that the Ethiopians did use war elephants. The docile northern variety from the Maghreb.

>>2299904
>The aurochs, which ranged throughout much of Eurasia and Northern Africa during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, is the wild ancestor of modern cattle. Archaeological evidence shows that domestication occurred independently in the Near East and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago, giving rise to the two major domestic taxa observed today: humpless Bos taurus (taurine) and humped Bos indicus (zebu), respectively. This is confirmed by genetic analyses of matrilineal mitochondrial DNA sequences, which reveal a marked differentiation between modern B. taurus and B. indicus haplotypes, demonstrating their derivation from two geographically and genetically divergent wild populations
>Archaeological evidence shows that domestication occurred independently in the Near East and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822870/
And


>Domestication of the aurochs began in the southern Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia from about the sixth millennium BC. Genetic evidence suggests that aurochs were independently domesticated in India and possibly also in northern Africa

http://www.pnas.org/content/93/10/5131

>>2300033
>Domestication of the aurochs began in the southern Caucasus
>Caucasus
>Caucasian
>White
>European

Based Europeans domesticating fucking aurochs

Donkeys and Camels were domesticated by Africans.

Niggers, as a rule of thumb, are pretty dumb in general and thus not able to create civilization

>>2299932
No, the Phoenicians were from modern Lebanon, you silly goose.

>>2299420
While zebras look like horses, they don't have the same social structures as horses that allow them to be domesticated. Horses have a pecking order, alpha males, and a clear social hierarchy. A human is merely the alpha male, all other's fall suit with what the human does.

Zebras don't have this. They merely stay together because it's advantageous (there is a reason they have stripes.) They mate with whoever they want to and don't give a shit about status. A human couldn't place it'self into their society because they don't have one.

File: 450px-Caucasus_regions_map2.png (118KB, 450x389px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 450x389px

>>2300061
Do you even know where the Caucasus region is? Here is a hint

>>2299420
>Why sub-saharan Africans weren't able to domesticate local wildlife?
Becasue sub-saharan Africans are the local wildlife.

>>2301129
Its' actually the opposite problem. Horses have a fluid pecking order based on which male seems the strongest at the time.

Zebras have a much stricter social structure that's based on birth order.

>>2300061
Caucasian includes Middle Easterners/North Africans, Indians (who also have Dravidian blood) and people from the Horn of Africa (who also have Sub-Sarahan/Bantu blood

Also it's the Caucasus region is kind of Europe AND Asia (Armenia and Azerbaijan are included in both depending who is talking)

>>2301132
>he thinks Caucasus isn't Europe

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-31 at 4.25.05 PM.png (199KB, 2120x534px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 2120x534px

>>2299864
>>2299523

Horses were almost certainly domesticated by predecessor groups to Indo european cultures

>>2301161

>places are Europe if it suits my argument

File: europe-map.gif (242KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1000x750px

>>2301166
How the fuck is Caucasus not Europe you fucking retard? Are you American or something?

>>2301165
>he thinks protoindoeuropean and European are the same thing

God you're dumb.

>>2301172
>dur hur your stewpid!

Considering how most modern europeans carry their dna and indo europeans inhabited the boundaries of modern europe, gave most modern Europeans their language, I'd say indo euopeans fall under european

>>2301166
>reddit spacing

>>2301161
>>2301170
Caucasus is about as European as Turkey and North Africa

>>2299420
They did

http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/TWdom_animal.pdf

>>2299864
>>horses
>Domesticated in Kazakhstan
Borat, please!

>>2301170
the caucasus has always been its own separate sphere from the rest of Europe, some parts of it that are christian today actually got islam before christianity

>>2301170
By your own image only half the Caucasus region is European.

>>2301343
horses large enough to ride come from central asia, idk about the first domesticated horses though

>>2299420
The camel was domesticated in East Africa which is sub saharan

>>2301343
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1332

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse

>>2299448

> implying the modern Europeans didn't bring the animals with them into Europe
> implying Europeans have been static populations if Europe for the last 8000 years
> implying

>>2301357
as was the goat, cow, and horse

This question is retarded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horro_(cattle)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssinian_Shorthorned_Zebu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_horses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaldi

>>2301357
>sub saharan
No, the most ancient trade in East Africa was between Arabia, Sumeria, and East Africa.

East Africa is not Sub Saharan Africa. There is plenty of Eurasian Admixture in East Africa before 1000BC.

Consider Madagascar, it sits just off the coast of Africa, no Africans migrated there or to any island around Africa.

Around the 3rd century BC a bunch of Asians from Borneo migrated down the coast and colonized Madagascar, they brought the Blacks to the island, today there is barely any resemblance to the Borneo people in the features of the people, except in the highlands where they look less negroid.

Blacks just weren't very innovative. They were a little cut off from the rest of the world for quite some time, living hunter gatherer lifestyles in isolation.

>>2301170
Anatolia was European before a bunch of Muslims took it over.

Anatolia was home to the Early European Farmers who migrated throughout Europe.

>>2301324
>>2301347
>>2301348

>>2299700
If whitey remained long enough he would make them exticnt instead.

>>2301348
Mount Elbrus, the tallest mountain in EUROPE is in the CAUCASUS.

>>2301324
You're dumb.

>>2301402
>They were a little cut off from the rest of the world for quite some time, living hunter gatherer lifestyles in isolation.

Southern africa yes

West and East no

How the fuck do you think the bantu spread from west africa to uganda to Zimbabwe?

The developed agriculture and complex civilizations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235410801_A_developmental_history_of_West_African_agriculture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution#Agriculture_in_Africa

No shit they wouldn't colonize Madagascar when the Cushites were nowhere near and the Bantu had barely migrated close when colonization took place

>>2301172
The Proto-Indo-Europeans were from modern day Ukraine, so yes, horses were domesticated by Europeans.

>>2301402
>literally south of the Sahara
>"nu-no, that's not subsaharan!"

>>2301402
>East Africa is not Sub Saharan Africa. There is plenty of Eurasian Admixture in East Africa before 1000BC.

Its below the saharan desert therefore sub saharan

>But the Native Cushites are very genetically distinct and not closely related to the West Africans

>and they have significant eurasian admixture on top of that dating back before the advent of agriculture

Has nothing to do with them not being sub-saharan

If you mean West and Central Africa then say it

>>2301793
Eurasians migrated into the Sahel in the Neolithic bringing Northern influence to them.


The reason Africans were so fucked up is complicated.

Firstly, Lake Mega Chad dried up and the environment turned into a desolate desert.

Now if this had happened in Europe, or East Asia, then would the Eurasians or East Asians have developed to the state they are in now?

The destruction of the climate of the Sahara had devastating effects on the peoples of the Sub Sahara.

Agriculture spread into Africa from Eurasia. There is a reason that all cows in Africa are from Eurasia.

Pastoral peoples from Eurasia spread everything down there.

>>2301818
>sub saharan
That's not what Sub-Saharan means you fucking retard.

>>2301834
>sub-Saharan
>sʌbsəˈhɑːrən/
>adjective
>from or forming part of the African regions south of the Sahara desert.

Did anyone save that bit about how Zebras have tiny fucking brains and giant testicles, leaving them hormone-driven nutcases that are basically impossible to actually train?

>>2301832
>Lake Mega Chad

REEEEE!

>>2301847
You are the most retarded person I've ever met.

Okay, Antarctica is Sub Saharan.

>>2301864
So they're the niggers of the horse specie?

>>2301347
This is a lie, apart from azerbaijan most parts of the caucasus that are muslim today were christians.

File: subsahaaara.png (869KB, 1018x764px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 1018x764px

>>2301874
Sub-Saharan.... Africa

Jesus Christ kid its what EVERYONE means when they say sub saharan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Saharan_Africa

>>2301900
East Africa is as divided from the rest and closer to other afro-asiatics. Bantu and Afro-Asiatics are different things.

>>2301874
Sure. But insofar as it's not part of africa, Antarctica is not part of sub-saharan africa.

>>2301961
>Bantu and Afro-Asiatics are different things.

Sub Saharan is not a synonym for Bantu you cretin.

>>2299420
I think the sun cooks their brain; hence they are retarded over there.

>>2301961
that doesn't make it not sub saharan africa

You can just say West and Central

Or Bantu

>>2299700
Because whitey has advanced science and experience with horses. Prehistorical whites would have failed as much as africans

>>2301028
And it was a Greek colony u nincompoop

>>2302072
Antioch was a Greek colony, the Phoenicians were colonists before the Greeks were a thing.

>>2301983
I love the idiots who know nothing about Africa trying to discuss ethnology. They think Bantu is a synonym for black.

>>2302384
I know it's the same shit with Slav.

File: maasai-herding-cattle_20070917_001.jpg (68KB, 800x536px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x536px

>>2299420
>Why sub-saharan Africans weren't able to domesticate local wildlife?

You do know large swathes of iFrica was and still is filled with Nomadic-Pastoralist peoples herding cattle around, right?

>>2302105
>before the Greeks were a thing
Okay stop shitposting now.

>>2301832
This is false. Agriculture in Sahel came from dessication. The people who migrated into Sahara during the Neolithic subpluvial were herders but the history of the Sahara and Africa shows long histories of Kreb exploitation. Even in Nubia before eurasian agriculture indigenous barley was collected and eaten.

The formation of the Aqualithic's second stage stopped the first phases exploitation and penning of barbary goat and possibly giraffe but bos africanus was also taken as well. These semi domesticates mixed with Eurasian cattle but the agricultural history of Africa took a very different route that.was local in development.

>>2302035
where did you think whitey got that advanced science and experience with horses? they started with primitive stone age tech and ornery wild horse ancestors.

>>2299420
The fly epidemic that continues to this day makes it difficult. It's somewhat possible to domesticate cheetahs but it's hard to get them to breed in captivity.

>>2299471
Zebras are less social and genetically predisposed to be nigh impossible to domesticate.

>>2299920
Why didn't native Americans domesticate the vicuña into a rideable animal?

File: really2.jpg (7KB, 282x179px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x179px

/pol/ starts bait thread

/pol/ gets instantly btfo

It's pottery, really...

>>2302578
>this could've been the Lakota with buffalo

For the guys saying nobody knows where the dog/wolf was domesticated, it actually happened many different times in Europe and Asia. For whatever reasons, breeds or domesticated groups were lost over and over again for humans in both regions to domesticate more again.

Dogs nowadays descend from a group of dogs domesticated in Asia, traded all over Europe and Africa; even the European ones share more with that Asian group than with the other European domesticated groups.

you can't domesticate zebras, they lack the social structure that animals like cows or pigs have.

>>2302688
Eurasian pastoral peoples harvested wild grasses also. Archaeology has shown this even on the steppes.

The nomadic Eurasians in the neolithic that migrated into the Sahel also had pottery culture, they harvested the land also, you know, Hunter-Gatherer means Hunters, and Gatherers of fauna.

>>2303537

Must be great to live in a delusional state of ignorance.

>>2303137
Horses are much easier to tame than zebras

>>2303529
Too small and weak

File: pagoda.jpg (111KB, 741x557px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 741x557px

>>2299459
This

I find it interesting people in a history board dont realize agriculture, animal domestication, the wheel, steel etc. are not western european inventions. Europe was reall lucky to have the Mediterranean sea that facilitated the spread of knowledge across it.

In some parts it was almost impossible to keep domestic animals alive.

European explorers found this out the hard way when their horses and burden animals started dying due to diseases. They had to hire Africans to carry everything.

>>2303537
Its the same thing everytime

>Why did Sub saharan africans not do X

>But they did do X

>Whatever not as good as the Romans though

Or

>Why did sub-saharan africans not do X

>Ethiopians did X

>HOA and Cushites are not sub-saharan

Everytime

I can't help but feel like every explanation is just made ad-hoc. It's probably not, but I feel like it is.

Imagine if the situation was reversed.

"Oh Africans weren't able to domesticate their wildlife because they didn't have animals like Zebras who move in herds quite naturally, and Elephants who provide an incredible amount of meat compared to the puny cows and chickens that the Africans were stuck with."

I know it's probably not the case, but it all feels like you're "explaining away" something.

>>2304020
How? Zebras are turbo aggressive compared to horses and even more stupid (if it's somehow possible for a creature to be dumber than a horse). Sub-Saharan African elephants are mean as fuck.

What's illogical about concluding a sparsely populated continent riddled with plagues but the benefit of foreign livestock wouldn't bother? Of course a few groups like Ethiopians and Nubians trained war elephants, but surprise surprise it was the calm north african breed. It was only after the introduction of the SEA crop package that it was possible to expand agriculture into tropical africa. Millet can't thrive in the jungle like yams or bananas. Chickens helped too.

>>2303853
Not originally
They're like that now because whitey domesticated them

>>2304292
I think you missed the point. The specific example is not what matters.

>>2299932
>phoenicians from Greece

Shit son get your shit together. Phoenicians are from the Levant not from Greece.

>>2301402
>there or to any island around Africa
Factually wrong

>>2304020
>I can't help but feel like every explanation is just made ad-hoc. It's probably not, but I feel like it is.

Theres been how many examples in this thread alone of how they did domesticate animals

There very little need for ad-hoc when the assertion is a false one

>>2301402

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_history_of_Somalia

Whydid the ENGLISH weren't able to domesticate local wildlife? Is ENGLISH fauna just harder to domesticate than its Eurasian and American counterparts, or was it a result of other reasons (cultural, climatic, or racial)?

>>2304295
So, were you not allowed to use scissors back in school?