History of Technology

[meanlittlechimp]

Can anyone here who was educated in India, China, Japan etc, tell me what you've been taught that you think Westerners wrongly get credit for?

I always assumed everything was pretty much invented in the West, except for gunpowder, paper, etc, But beyond these cliches, almost everything else is given credit to the West during the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

I was surprised to learn, after high school, that Copernicus was NOT the first to discover the earth revolves around the sun; the Indian astronomer, Aryabhata, did a thousand years earlier. Steel was invented in China over 1,500 years earlier than the west. de Gama was not the first to sail around Cape Horn, several Muslims and Chinese did it regularly and a Muslim navigator actually guided de Gama throughout the entire voyage.

Can anyone here add to this? or debunk anything else?

[meanlittlechimp]

The argument that is becoming more common amongst historians, is that China went through an industrial revolution before Europe did, which lead to a global economy that stretched from Japan and Malaysia all the way to Italy and Egypt. The current revisionist history claims many of the "western" ideas were actually diffused from the East. There is significant evidence that these ideas like printing, heliocentric model of the solar system etc, were simply passed through the Europeans, rather than being re-invented or re-discovered. Memes used to travel more slowly back then, but they did move in a global fashion; and there was significant contact between East and West, even before the Silk Road, according to many historians. There is evidence of fairly large Jewish settlements in China before 1000AD.

Printing was not invented by Guttenberg as is typically claimed, and was invented in China 700 years earlier, and metal moveable type was invented in Korea 100 years before Guttenberg. Iron clad ships were invented before the Merrimac and Monitor.

The superiority of their agricultural technology led them to have urban areas with 2 - 5 million people in the 6th century. While Paris didn't have more than 1 million until the 20th century. Asia had cities that numbered over 600,000 in 300 BC.

The typical paradigm for modern science is Greece -> Rome -> Europe/America.

This view seems a simplistic one and discounts pre-Greek contributions to Greek thought (Persian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Bablyonian etc) as well as Eastern influence on "western" development after the Greeks.

Here are some relevant links I've found:
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/id1.html
http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/index.html
http://www.1001inventions.com


*sorry if some of this is repeated information I posted elsewhere; thought it deserved it's own thread.

[outmywindow]

While it's true that many things are invented and/or used by one culture before another, if those cultures have zero (or virtually zero) direct contact, the second culture to come up with the idea has, for its own purposes, originated the concept.

For example, the concept of the bow and arrow has been independently invented and used by many cultures. Just because the Ancient Greeks may have come up with it before the American Indians (I have no idea who actually came up with it first, or in what order after that), this doesn't diminish the ingenuity or importance if the invention for those on the North American continent, nor would American Indians be wrong not to give the Greeks due credit.

Now that we have the knowledge and ability to educate ourselves at to who and where an idea originated, we should of course do this. Historically, however, the originator within any particular culture is probably what's most important.

[meanlittlechimp]

Well the whole argument was that it wasn't re-invented in many of the cases. Printing was widespread in China before Marco Polo visited and they printed more books/scrolls than the rest of the world combined at that point. The fact that much ancient knowledge, from the Greeks, was retaught to Europe via the Muslims, shows there was significant and direct diffusion rather than independent re-invention. There must have been other knowledge from China, India, the Muslim world, that was also transmitted (rather than re-invented independently). Chess for instance was initially played first in China and India, and I don't think the West re-invented the game independently, but rather adopted it and changed the rules slightly.

The crankshaft invented by Al Jazari (which is essential to the steam engine), and hand crank invented in Han China, were NOT re-invented during the Industrial revolution but adopted.. There were many European scholars, that had access to these documents, and were quite aware of them. One argument was the Renaissance occurred in Italy because geographically, they had consistent trade with these far away lands. The library of Alexandra was built using an interesting method. They had a law that searched every ship to dock in it's ports, and seized every scroll or piece of writing on that ship, which was meticulously copied and translated before the original was returned to the owner. The access to sea routes in the Mediterranean have always been hugely important, not just in trade but knowledge transfer.

There is a myth that there is something inherent and innate in Western culture (from the Greeks to Modern times) that allowed for their development and their colonization of a large part of the world during the 18th and 19th centuries. The widely held misconception is that all modern science is a legacy from Aristotle to Newton with nothing else before it, or between.

The more I learn, the more I think the West's rise was more due to a combination of numerous other factors: the destruction of the Muslim world by the Mongols, Chinese isolationism at the zenith of their power, use of slaves and access to the raw materials in the Americas etc. The wealth created during this period led to a modernism (in terms of political organization, legal system, financial systems etc) that further propelled it's lead on the rest of the world.

[eyebyte_atWork]

There were also many cryptographic techniques that were used in Europe as recently as WWII (and a bit after) that were first pioneered by Muslim countries first during Europe's dark ages.

[meanlittlechimp]

There were also many cryptographic techniques that were used in Europe as recently as WWII (and a bit after) that were first pioneered by Muslim countries first during Europe's dark ages.

That's kind of surprising, since Mathematics was far enough along by that point; we would have went far past, medieval methods for cryptography.

[meanlittlechimp]

Actually it makes sense since it was before computing and modern prime number methods. Just looked up whom, you must have been referring too.

Al-Kindi introduced the technique of code breaking that was later to be known as 'frequency analysis' in his book entitled: 'A Manuscript on Deciphering Cryptographic Messages'. http://www.cs4fn.org/history/darkhistory.php

[Hustler]

Pascal didn't invent Pascal's Triangle. Many cultures had come up with it before, from Persia to India to China. Even some dude in Italy did so before Pascal. Fibonacci didn't come up with the Fibonacci sequence. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, was not the first physician. Imhotep is widely regarded as the earliest historical physician.

OMW makes a good point about the same technology or idea being developed independently, and that's valid for cases of the Pre-Columbian Americas vs. the rest of the world (bow and arrow, pottery, the ziggurat, the wheel, agriculture, the calendar, mathematics, writing, etc.) but, given the interconnectedness of Eurasia and Africa, most discoveries along the way were shared, not discovered independently.

The notion of western intellectual/cultural superiority is not fully understood. It's pretty well understood why the west so easily dominated the Americas (see Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond), but there is still a lot of speculation for why Europe surpassed China in technological development in the post-Enlightenment era. Why did the industrial revolution occur in Britain instead of Beijing? I suspect there were specific demands that needed to be met in Britain that didn't need to be met in China at the time, that China could better sustain itself with existing systems of trade and production. What those were or why they emerged, though, is not something I know. I doubt it has anything to do with a specific gene or meme present in westerners or their culture that was absent elsewhere.

[outmywindow]

...OMW makes a good point...
Don't mind me, just quoting this for posterity.

[Psy-goat]

So what is so great about tecnology anyways? We've only ever used it to take advantage of each other. Ever get closer to fatherhood because you had a remote control?

We can go on and on about the latest TV, the fastest car, the latest panty technology. I grow when I interact with other minds, I'd rather complement nature than overcome her.

Technology has only ever been used for the sake of accumulating capital of one sort or another. Does technology give you hope that problems that you have will be overcome? Are your present problems caused by technology? eg obesity? cancer? loneliness?

Personally I think we should revive Greek culture, they spent 500 years philosophising over the purpose of life, I'd like to spend some time examining that!

[Ptah]

So what is so great about tecnology anyways? We've only ever used it to take advantage of each other.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


I'd rather complement nature than overcome her.

Then get to it. I expect we won't be seeing any future posts from you if you'll actually implement your convictions.


Technology has only ever been used for the sake of accumulating capital of one sort or another.

And so?


Does technology give you hope that problems that you have will be overcome? Are your present problems caused by technology? eg obesity? cancer? loneliness?

It's not technology's role to give hope.


Personally I think we should revive Greek culture, they spent 500 years philosophising over the purpose of life, I'd like to spend some time examining that!

See ya. I suspect you'll find that technology is a necessity for life. Now, like other things that have a proper necessity, it can and will be abused. Like weapons. Or philosophies. The problem isn't with them, its with the abusers.

[Hustler]

So what is so great about tecnology anyways? We've only ever used it to take advantage of each other. Ever get closer to fatherhood because you had a remote control?
What's so great about fatherhood?


We can go on and on about the latest TV, the fastest car, the latest panty technology. I grow when I interact with other minds, I'd rather complement nature than overcome her.
Spoken like a child of the 20th century. If you were in the middle of a hurricane 200 years ago, about to drown in the floodwaters, you might wish there had been a weather forecast that told you of your impending doom and let you get out of the way. Technology is the only thing that can save humanity from being crushed by nature. It is a statistical fact that the Earth will eventually be hit by an asteroid. When it does, it could spell the end of virtually all life on Earth. What if that were going to happen next year, or ten years from now? Wouldn't you want some way to defend yourself? Nature isn't here to complement you. It doesn't care about you. Stars are born and die over the course of billions of years, taking with them all of the lesser entities to whose existence they give rise. Biological organisms are tiny and fragile compared to the forces of the cosmos. The only way we can hope to survive well into the future is through technological innovation, not through being yet another father in a long line of fathers. Without technology, you can be sure some father will be the last when an extinction event on Earth wipes us out down to the tiniest bacteria.


Technology has only ever been used for the sake of accumulating capital of one sort or another. Does technology give you hope that problems that you have will be overcome? Are your present problems caused by technology? eg obesity? cancer? loneliness?
Technology solves some problems but, in doing so, gives rise to others. A thousand years ago, a bacterial infection could have been fatal. Surviving until you were old enough to get cancer was unlikely when simply falling down the stone stairs outside your peasant hovel and getting a gash in your knee could spell the end of your life. Obesity is a far better alternative than starving to death because some blight wiped out your entire year's crop, leaving you with nothing.


Personally I think we should revive Greek culture, they spent 500 years philosophising over the purpose of life, I'd like to spend some time examining that!
Uh, yeah, so long as you aren't a slave or a woman, in which case you can spend your short life pondering your illiteracy and servitude toward others, if, that is, you can snatch a second away from your endless menial tasks to engage in the luxury of introspection. Fortunately, there was this invention called the printing press. A piece of technology. Because of it, I've read books, and I am aware that we have, in fact, progressed as a people since the time of the Ancient Greeks, so I know better than to long for such days of iniquity, ignorance and illness. For every Socrates there were hundreds of disenfranchised women and slaves, who lived short, grueling lives, whose stories we'll never know. At least in the civilized world today, a woman born into a modest household gets the opportunity to learn to read and have an opinion, and can expect to be treated like a human being. She can also expect not to die in childbirth and to live into her 70s or 80s.

[eyebyte_atWork]

...
It's pretty well understood why the west so easily dominated the Americas (see Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond)...


Very good book - recommended reading.

[meanlittlechimp]

I forgot how great that book was, when I first read it (Guns, Germs...). Definitely want to read that one again - but I can't remember who I lent it out too...

For the people that read it recently, was his claim re: the rise of the West based more on the accident of geography more than anything else?

I read it almost 10 years ago when it first came out and can't remember the details. I vaguely recall most of his arguments based on access to major staple crops (wheat, rice, corn etc), domestication of animals, and other things I'm forgetting. I remember thinking they had all these great," I never knew that before" moments. Like Africa not being predominantly black until after the Bantu expansions, the origins of various food crops, and other interesting nuggets.

[Hustler]

For the people that read it recently, was his claim re: the rise of the West based more on the accident of geography more than anything else?

I read it almost 10 years ago when it first came out and can't remember the details. I vaguely recall most of his arguments based on access to major staple crops (wheat, rice, corn etc), domestication of animals, and other things I'm forgetting. I remember thinking they had all these great," I never knew that before" moments. Like Africa not being predominantly black until after the Bantu expansions, the origins of various food crops, and other interesting nuggets.

Yeah, that's pretty much it: geographical happenstance. This doesn't explain the divergent paths of China and Europe starting at the time of the industrial revolution, which were roughly on par with each other technologically, but it does explain why the Americas were so easily dominated, and why densely populated, agrarian societies were always able to overcome hunter-gather societies.

The Africa bit is that calling Africans "black" is a little misleading, because Africa has more genetic diversity among its several races than you see in the rest of the world combined (even though they all have dark skin). The Bantu expansion represented the explosion of agriculture in Africa, and the domination of agrarian-based civilization over the various hunter-gatherer groups throughout the continent.

[Ponderous]

I grow when I interact with other minds
And what are you doing here, with this thread?


Technology has only ever been used for the sake of accumulating capital of one sort or another.
It's (still) a free forum!

[joft]

I liek this and tink it's improtant because westerners are all fruoght with misconceptino about how great their own culture is (it's not). also, you fuckward you probably didn't nothing to advance this culture anyway so why do yuo have pride for it/?

[outmywindow]

I liek this and tink it's improtant because westerners are all fruoght with misconceptino about how great their own culture is (it's not). also, you fuckward you probably didn't nothing to advance this culture anyway so why do yuo have pride for it/?
Great. First [from space], now :joft:

[joft]

what's [from space]?

[trapstar]

I'm kinda interested in African technology. How far along were they before we came?

[meanlittlechimp]

The Africa bit is that calling Africans "black" is a little misleading, because Africa has more genetic diversity among its several races than you see in the rest of the world combined (even though they all have dark skin). The Bantu expansion represented the explosion of agriculture in Africa, and the domination of agrarian-based civilization over the various hunter-gatherer groups throughout the continent.

True, west africa is more diverse than anywhere else from the tallest to the shortest. I read in some article that 90% of the sprinters in modern olympics are descended specifically from that region, because they have the highest incidence of fast twitch, higher placed more spherical calves, where wrestlers and other sports are benefits by the longer meatier lower hung calves.

The thing that shocked me about the Bantu expansion was that there was this whole other group that dominated Southern Africa, the Khosian people (who are less dark and look more aboriginal - like Australian aboriginals) - who were the ones that lost most of their territory, and the dominant populace, to the Bantus.

[meanlittlechimp]

I'm kinda interested in African technology. How far along were they before we came?

Egypt apparently had some tricks up their sleeves. The North African Muslim world in more recent times, were probably ahead of Europe during the Dark Ages, but kind of got set back from the collapse of Muslim power after the Mongol invasions.

But I actually don't know much about the specifics, which is why I started this thread in the first place. I was hoping a bunch of INTP, history of technology, geeks would come out of the woodwork - with pictures and references to fill in my gaps.

[Hustler]

I'm kinda interested in African technology. How far along were they before we came?

Most of the earliest examples of human technology are from Africa, such as the first tools, weapons, calendar, fishing hooks, ropes, and so on, but that's obviously just because Africa is where people were first (though I guess the oldest musical instrument was found in Europe, and was of Neanderthal origin, not human). As for where Africa was when Europe emerged out of the Dark Ages and started empire-building, exploring, and colonizing, I think the technology level was equivalent to Iron Age (at least). It's arguable that the first examples of iron smelting were actually in Africa, not the Levant or Europe, though I don't know if iron ages in various places emerged separately or from disseminated knowledge.

[kuranes]

Something I've been reading about lately that relates to this -

http://www.meshrep.com/PicOfDay/mummies/mummies.htm

[trapstar]

Egypt apparently had some tricks up their sleeves. The North African Muslim world in more recent times, were probably ahead of Europe during the Dark Ages, but kind of got set back from the collapse of Muslim power after the Mongol invasions.


Yeah north africans technology is rather well documented. Maybe should have clarified that I meant sub-saharan Africa :)




As for where Africa was when Europe emerged out of the Dark Ages and started empire-building, exploring, and colonizing, I think the technology level was equivalent to Iron Age (at least). It's arguable that the first examples of iron smelting were actually in Africa, not the Levant or Europe, though I don't know if iron ages in various places emerged separately or from disseminated knowledge.

That's really cool. Do you know of any african empires or nations? As I understand it they only had rather shortlived city states.

In school you'll learn about the history of (western) Europe for several years like it's the only thing that matters. Never mind Asia was at least 500 years ahead of us in most matters.

[meanlittlechimp]

Something I've been reading about lately that relates to this -

http://www.meshrep.com/PicOfDay/mummies/mummies.htm

Oh yeah, saw a documentary about this, just last week on National Geographic Explorer.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3094/Overview#tab-Overview

[lowtech redneck]

That's really cool. Do you know of any african empires or nations? As I understand it they only had rather shortlived city states.


Check out the Ghana, Mali, and Songhay empires; with the exception of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and Cush, most African polities never advanced beyond the level of a city-state before Islamic or European penetration due to the lack of a written language (the Saharan desert was a major technological barrier).

[meanlittlechimp]

Just watched a pretty interesting doc last night on the first Chinese Emperor (Chin Dynasty).
He was also the guy who created the Terra Cotta warriors. Took something like 700,000 workers decades to create his tomb and he had them all put to death when they were done, so people wouldn't locate it.
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=338808

The technologically interesting thing, was that when they unearthed the weapons, they were in perfect shape (with no corrosion) after more than 2,000 years - because the Chin invented chrome plating by at least 200 BC (an American got the patent for it in the 1930's). The patent for the process was awarded in the 1930s to some American or German, after it was "re-invented". It was proven that they used a sophisticated assembly line process with interchangeable standardized parts (credited to Ford) to manufacture all the weapons and sculptures placed in the tomb.