about some of the absurdly early estimates for the development of iron mettalurgy in West-Africa? There's apparently evidence of it starting 5000 years ago, which, as far as I'm aware, is about the same time that farming got popular there. Most other estimates are only like, 3000 years.
>>18409280Walls predate agriculture, so I don't find it that weird.
>>18409283>Comparing walls to one if the most important discoveries in human history The cope is embarrassing
>>18409280They are exaggerated and based upon flimsy evidence.
>>18409332> flimsy evidenceHow so?
>>18409280ShieeetFor example, there are Neolithic like terracotta warrior figures, and they're carrying what looks like slingshots that use small stones. See Nok, didn't even have bladed weapons. Iron was not widespread.>There's apparently evidence of it starting 5000For example cuz?
>>18409364majority of the Benin Bronzes date to the 1500s and 1700s, and they typically used European metals in their construction
>>18409364Using ebonics to mock kangz is way too overdone to be even slightly funny.To actually answer your question, I'm pretty sure those pre-1000 BC estimates come from Lejja (Nigeria).
>>18409280Whites took it south with them.
>>18409368Interesting but it has nothing to with thread main subject which is about IRON working
>>18409364>>18409371Iron was not the main metal during early metallurgy. It was copper, then bronze (a stronger alloy of tin [rare] and copper), then iron. The reason is simple: for iron you need higher temperatures than copper or bronze.
>>18409379It is known that SSA skipped straight to the iron age via indigenous technology.
>>18409379>Iron was not the main metal during early metallurgy.West Africans didnt got memo, they skipped bronze and went straight to iron
>>18409379They created the necessary temperatures with stone age tech and were able to skip straight to iron because of it. Specifics vary a lot by region, suggesting age, but they basically made it as described in picrel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_metallurgy_in_Africa
>>18409375But why didn't black men conquer Europe equally...
Pointless since they still got curbstomped by Whites and live in shanty towns to this day. Doesn't matter if they had invented ray guns if they just did nothing with them and still got butchered.
>>18409280That is pretty neat.
>>18409332this. but this shouldn't be used to discredit what I believe to be the fact that west africa did independently develop iron metallurgy, having largely skipped the 'bronze age' (though bronzes exist in west africa, they were mostly ornamental and came long after iron tool use). west african iron metallurgy probably dates back to a roughly similar era to the development of ironworking in the near east. Africa was not generally technologically inferior to Europe and the near east until the age of sail and even then retained rough parity in some fields until the enlightenment and industrial revolution. Main issue being that the geography of Africa is very unfavorable for seafaring, river navigability is poor and trade was much more difficult. >>18409368addressed this and of course i see it a few posts down. tl;dr the ideology of inherent african inferiority is based mostly on ignorance. and i say this as a very well read race conscious man. Part of the issue is the uneducated racist sees Africans as a race when in reality there are at least five distinct races of Africa, two of which are erectus tier and two of which are not at any population-level congenital cognitive disadvantage vis a vis other brown people.I stopped being so racist when I realized how brown the racist community was.
>>18409566>west african iron metallurgy probably dates back to a roughly similar era to the development of ironworking in the near eastArcheological evidence says otherwise >Main issue being that the geography of Africa is very unfavorable for seafaring,Currents made maritime activity difficult but not impossible Gold Coast mariners travelled as far as West Central Africa >river navigability is poor and trade was much more difficult.Water transport was the preferred means of transport for merchants, large cannoes and river barge had significantly higher cargo capacity than caravans and we're much faster.
>>18409566> two of which are not at any population-level congenital cognitive disadvantage vis a vis other brown people.I assume you mean east and north africans? I really doubt the former is any smarter than west-africans; they were exclusive pastoralists for most of their history (pastoralists have universally lower EA3 than adjacent agriculturalists) and I'm pretty sure only a few groups decided to actually adopt agriculture when it arrived.
>>18409382It makes more sense than you think. Tin is surprisingly rare on Earth's surface. It is even rarer than uranium. Countries that relied on bronze were massive empire who ran complex trade routes. No Tin deposits, or no trade routes, no bronze.
People often assume iron replaced bronze because it was "better." In reality, early iron was often softer and more brittle than high-quality bronze. Iron won because of availability.
>>18409935Iron is better than bronze though
>>18410042Iron alloys are, but it took a while to figure them out, trial-and-error really. Also you need more heat to work with iron than bronze.
>>18409889>I assume you mean east and north africans?Why do dumbfucks in the site Always confuse Horn Africans with East Africans?
