Another theme related to a book I am trying to write (fiction AH).
Say about 11000 years ago a civilisation on the Sunda Plain (now under water - north of Java) was destroyed and a group of survivors sailed westward via the Indian and Arabian coasts and down the east coast of Africa to settle approximately where Great Zimbabwe existed in real history. The survivors founded a new replacement civilisation which grew annd spread along the entire length of east Africa (from cape to cape) and then along the southern and eastern coasts of Arabia. This would be a 3000 year period before further expansion that I don't have to go into at this point.
They would have come from the equatorial region (post glacial) to roughly equivalent latitudes.
Would they have been more resistent to disease than Europeans?
Just how restricting was the tsetse fly for cattle farming / horse breeding, etc and thus on growth and spread of such a civilisation?
I assume that South Africa would be relavtively safe. I understand that Zimbabwe / Zambia / Tanzania / Kenya (to use current names) are more favourable to agriculture and growth than say Mozambique and certainly the Congo rainforest area. Is this true?
Just as background I have read the following books:
- Plagues and Peoples (William McNeill)
- Africa in History (Basil Davidson).
Neither provide sufficient information to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Anyone got any ideas, especially people with detailed knowledge of the tsetse fly and other diseases that have plagued African development. Also local knowledge of the areas mentioned.
Say about 11000 years ago a civilisation on the Sunda Plain (now under water - north of Java) was destroyed and a group of survivors sailed westward via the Indian and Arabian coasts and down the east coast of Africa to settle approximately where Great Zimbabwe existed in real history. The survivors founded a new replacement civilisation which grew annd spread along the entire length of east Africa (from cape to cape) and then along the southern and eastern coasts of Arabia. This would be a 3000 year period before further expansion that I don't have to go into at this point.
They would have come from the equatorial region (post glacial) to roughly equivalent latitudes.
Would they have been more resistent to disease than Europeans?
Just how restricting was the tsetse fly for cattle farming / horse breeding, etc and thus on growth and spread of such a civilisation?
I assume that South Africa would be relavtively safe. I understand that Zimbabwe / Zambia / Tanzania / Kenya (to use current names) are more favourable to agriculture and growth than say Mozambique and certainly the Congo rainforest area. Is this true?
Just as background I have read the following books:
- Plagues and Peoples (William McNeill)
- Africa in History (Basil Davidson).
Neither provide sufficient information to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Anyone got any ideas, especially people with detailed knowledge of the tsetse fly and other diseases that have plagued African development. Also local knowledge of the areas mentioned.