""""""Great"""""" Zimbabwe

Math is a pretty important area to be advanced in.

And Tenochtitlan was pretty impressive if you ask me.

You're missing philosophy. Apparently it was ingrained into their society at an Ancient Greece level. Shame that the Spaniards completely destroyed all of the texts and murdered most of the philosophers.

They're language is pretty cool and still has 1.5 million speakers, but beyond all that they were disgusting savages whom no one liked and deserved what was comimg to them.

>Apparently it was ingrained into their society at an Ancient Greece level.

Yeah I really doubt this. Sure the Spanish burned some books, but you can't burn them all and none of what survived (like the inscriptions on temples) don't reflect anything beyond bronze-age tier conceptions.

Math was developed by the Maya and Olmecs, not by the Aztecs.

The New World was thousands of years behind the Old technologically, it's an inevitable consequence of their geographic isolation and the late start agriculture got there.

How late?

A good 6 to 14 thousand years later than in Mesopotamia.

This is going to be another thread where filthy mud-hut northern Europeans lay claim to some kind of pan-European or even Eurasian heritage to plump up their ancestors' achievements in order to shit on other cultures, isn't it?

After how many years of independent development?

Unknown, thousands of years most likely. But while wheat has been a staple since the neolithic, maize wasn't domesticated until the bronze age.

Who cares, civilization starts with agriculture

Sure. Like in Africa, New Guinea, and plenty of places. Humans invent agriculture after a while, there are no populations that haven't.

>Humans invent agriculture after a while, there are no populations that haven't.

Inuit.

>not to mention Zimbabwe was likely built by Indian traders.
This is a crackpot theory that was disproved decades ago. It's WE WUZ tier stuff. Why do I still see this on Veeky Forums, ostensibly a board filled with people who care about history?

Had lived in Arctic conditions for a few thousand years. Give them a chance, people were living in the Middle East for longer than that before they started farming.

Australian Aborigines didn't.

The closest they came was Fire Stick Farming.

Where they would burn down entire forests, hoping a desired plant would grow in its place.

abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/03/13/806276.htm

Why would anyone try to lay claim to Zimbabwe anyway.

Let's be honest it's not really that impressive.

That's a form of land management, every human society goes through that stage first. It's more accurate to call them hunter-gardeners than hunter-gatherers.

Aboriginal Australians in the southeast had wiers for catching fish.

>Where they would burn down entire forests, hoping a desired plant would grow in its place.

But on the other hand, that way of life persisted for forty thousand years.

Nope, they practiced slash-and-burn agriculture for generations before deforestation ruined the ecosystem. In b4 HURR DUMB NIGGERS RUINED THEIR OWN LAND! the only reason the same thing didn't happen to Europeans is the ecosystem in Europe is way more resilient than Australia's was.

no

that isn't even Animal Husbandry. They aren't breeding a sustainable population of eels separate from the wild. They are just capturing and keeping wild eels.

We're the Abos planting specific plants into organized fields?

It's not a step on the way to animal husbandry?

What does that have to do with anything?

what is any hunter gathering tribe, uncontacted peoples in the Amazon, the Sentinelese, the pre contact Australian Aborigines (no the liberal fire stick meme doesn't count), sami prior to 1600 , siberians, pygmies, tons of tribes in NA before contact (some had agriculture, a lot didn't), the ainu...

true agriculture requires that you are growing plants and animals separate from the wild ecology.

Abos only got to "almost there".

They had 60,000 years on that continent to figure it out too.

Instead you had some Abos that couldn't make fire. Some that wore no clothes. Some only used wood tools.

Those are very small populations.

Maybe it would be more correct to say, there is no continent where people didn't develop it.

>Sami
Not all of us were Arctic Reindeer fuckers. Some of us lived like the Scandis until they stole our lands and destroyed our cultures.

>the Sentinelese

Keep pigs and cultivate palms.

>Australian Aborigines

Lost agriculture when Australia became largely unsuited for it.

>siberians

Keep horses as food.

>pygmies

Male pygmies only hunt, but the females practice horticulture as well as gathering.

> tons of tribes in NA before contact

All had agriculture (maize) except where the weather didn't allow it.

>true agriculture

Yeah, no. Agriculture is the deliberate planting and harvesting of food, nothing more or less.

>he thinks agriculture is a "step up" in some uniform progression and not an economic choice that people made in response to specific circumstances

Probably raised by a single mother, too.

Is 60,000 years on a continent a long time for figuring out agriculture? Humans were in Eurasia for 100,000 years, and they hadn't developed agriculture by the time they were there for 60,000 years.

>Instead you had some Abos that couldn't make fire

They actually knew how to buy preferred to just get a natural fire and sustain it.

No

eurasia was too cold until 12,000 years ago.

can't farm when everything is glacier, snow, tundra, and primeval black forest.

>eurasia was too cold until 12,000 years ago.

So climate is an acceptable excuse for European backwardness, but not for the Abos?

Australia was then too dry.

there's nothing wrong with our climate, its sought after the world over

Australia was warm with rain forests and grasslands.

Kangaroos, Emus, and Wallabies could have been domesticated for food and hide.

Even plants suitable for domestication and planting in farm fields.

>Australia was warm with rain forests and grasslands.

Yes, until the AGRICULTURE of the Abos ruined it thru deforestation. This didn't happen in Europe only because Europe's soils are extremely rich and it's rains abundant, Australia didn't have teh resiliency so it didn't recover.

People dont invent agriculture because they are more clever but because of necessity

>because of necessity

And opportunity, the Inuit can live in the arctic circle for a million years but they're never developing agriculture.

> > not to mention Zimbabwe was likely built by Indian traders.
> This is a crackpot theory that was disproved decades ago.

Nonsense, nothing has been “disproved” as there is no solid evidence for any specific group building Great Zimbabwe and in fact it’s isolation and the complete lack of archeological evidence showing any kinda cultural progression leading to the structures, as well as the building technology being abandoned and not showing up anywhere else afterwards, strongly suggests the most logical answer being the influence of outside traders (Arabs, not indian).

Find a historian or archaeologist who actually supports the theory.

>go to southern Africa on a perilous journey to discover the secrets of the dark continent
>return with an untold wealth of knowledge and discovery
>write it all down so future generations can benefit from my experiences
>instead, they completely disregard everything I wrote and say "hmmmmm yes perhaps this was built by an ethnic group who have never built anything even remotely similar looking and weren't even in the area"

is there a point to antagonistic threads like this?
Just appreciate history for what it is, why does there need to be this competition always

>Zimbabwe has 90% literacy rate
How?

Mugabe was actually a really good leader for a while. Their literacy rate comes from that era.

> Find a historian or archaeologist who actually supports the theory.

You won’t find any nowadays, (same for the Solutrean hypothesis) as there is no segment of Western society more infected with political correctness then academia.

Any historian or archaeologist who dares go against the official narrative, soon find themselves being denied tenure and research grant money, leading to the present day situation where the only way to climb the academic ladder, is to attack traditional historical views and turn them on their head regardless of the actual evidence.

Thus we’re told Great Zimbabwe could only have been built by Black Africans, American Indians can only be descended from Asian immigration, the Easter Island culture was destroyed by Europeans, etc.

Galileo weeps...

Göbekli Tepe was HG and considerably advanced

Yeah but building a whole fucking city on water is pretty fucking impressive

If you can't get beyond that step you can't say you were on your way to it

Agriculture is the only way to sustain large populations, allowing you to have more kids, of course it's a step up

>Any historian or archaeologist who dares go against the official narrative, soon find themselves being denied tenure and research grant money,
>the only way to climb the academic ladder, is to attack traditional historical views and turn them on their head
Yeah that's not contradictory at all.

>Great Zimbabwe could only have been built by Black Africans, American Indians can only be descended from Asian immigration, the Easter Island culture was destroyed by Europeans,
I hope you realize you're precisely doing the same thing you accuse strawman archaeologists of doing, out of contrarian sensibilities which is basically the flip-side of political correctnesses.

Greater than anything you've done in your life.

>le you can't criticize a football player if you're not a football player yourself argument

Genuinely baffling to me that there are people legitimately employing this logic. And by the way I'm not OP.

> > the only way to climb the academic ladder, is to attack traditional historical views and turn them on their head
> Yeah that's not contradictory at all..

It isn’t, that is the politically correct academic party line and you don’t go against it if you want any kinda career.

> > Great Zimbabwe could only have been built by Black Africans,
> I hope you realize you're precisely doing the same thing you accuse strawman archaeologists of doing, out of contrarian sensibilities which is basically the flip-side of political correctnesses.

Except I’m not, I’m saying any historical research is valid regardless of what the eventual results are.

>what survived (like the inscriptions on temples) don't reflect anything beyond bronze-age tier conceptions.

>ideology evolves like metalworking

my fucking sides

Yes

Great Zim was a local development that did trade with far off entities like China. Some archeologist had a massive collection of letters from settlers near the site and abroad of people throwing a bitch fit about Blacks making Great Zim long long ago in like the early 20th late 19 century. She liked showing them off to her colleagues.

There are actually a ton of Zimbabwe's scattered around a big area but the Great one is the biggest and most intact.

To be fair Bantus were hardly around at the time