File: dens.jpg (124.8 KB)

124.8 KB JPG

>>18433800
River deltas. However most Wikipedia graphs are wrong, in reality the dense areas were small. The smallpox crap is fake.

>>18433813
It's just strange how despite having worse agricultural technology, Africa had densely populated areas

File: civil (1).jpg (707 KB)

707 KB JPG

>>18433915
It's false information like basically everything. No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad.

>>18433800
>Why was West Africa so dense in even 1000 AD compared to the rest of the world?

It's purely speculative
Them negroes didn't have written records let alone population census

>>18434067
>Them negroes didn't have written records
They did
>>18434067
>let alone population census
They also had those

>>18434159
They quite literally didn't, especially not in 1000 AD
Northern Mali had some shallow records in Timbuktu but that's three/four centuries later, it didn't include census and it's nowhere near the area depicted with high density on that map (present day Nigeria)

>>18434169
To my knowledge I don't think there is a single primary source of the Mali Empire that comes from and during the time it existed. Even Merovingian France, which is considered very obcsure and poorly recorded, had three

>>18434067
>It's purely speculative
Contemporary observations of the apparent high population density made by European travellers in the early modern period, 19th-century estimates, and early 20th-century census data make such speculative estimates quite plausible.

>>18434318
I mean it's definitely plausible. I wonder if this means that West Africa was more developed than we know. Like look at the (pre-colonial) Ife Ife art, there is no way that could have been made without a dedicated artisan class. It is impressive even today.

>>18433800
West Africa in 1000 AD is actually seems normal, though? It has roughly the same density as continental SEA. Which is pretty much what you'd expect.
>>18433915
The continent's agricultural technology wasn't really 'worse' than what you'd find in Eurasia.

>>18434368
Usually people associate SEA with Angkor Wat which is one of the most famous structures today. Meanwhile a lot of people are shocked to find out SSA ever had agriculture at all. And to my knowledge, the agricultural technology they had was worse. Excepting the Horn of Africa and Nubia, there were no ploughs, no water wheels, no fertilizer, not many terraces, no crop rotation, very simple irrigation (if any at all), and even by colonial times grain was still manually crushed to make flour. I'd really like to be wrong about that but everything I've read confirms that. SSA didn't have agriculture until around 3000 BC, when Egypt and Sumeria were doing their thing. Even today Africa as a whole makes up like 4% of fertilizer use, Asia is something like 51%.

>>18433800
Why wouldn't it? It has good climate and yams aren't that hard to grow that [Africans] couldn't do it.

>>18434385
>there were no ploughs, no water wheels, no fertilizer, not many terraces, no crop rotation, very simple irrigation (if any at all), and even by colonial times grain was still manually crushed to make flour
NTA, but plows were present in some parts of West Africa, and crop rotation was practiced alongside land rotation.
A plow is not necessarily better than a hoe in terms of productivity. Cultivation is less accurate, meaning that you have to plant larger acres, part of of the production is sacrificed used to feed the animals and there task that the plow can't accomplish