I very strongly suggest that you check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. There are far too many factors relevant to this answer to detail here and his is the most exciting theory that I have read on the topic. Europe essentially profitted from a feedback loop that made energy production expontentially more efficient...It's all about the math. The truth is frustratingly simple, but difficult to realize: the primary factor that determines the rate that a civilization develops seems to be the ratio between the amount of energy required to produce food (primarily labor, including that required to build irrigation, tools, and crop shrinkage to feed the animals) and the amount of energy that the food provides. Nearly all of Europe's food products are high energy grains (wheat is king, baby!) that are easy to grow and actually originated in the Middle East and Africa. Tragically, a lack of agricultural knowledge, refined irrigation techniques, and perhaps climatic change allowed the overproduction of grain and animals in the Mideast and Africa, and apparently caused permanent damage to the ecosystem similar to what temporarily occured in the American midwest 75-125 years ago. Europe received the best (and most efficient, in genetic terms) plants and animals from ancient migrations escaping the depleted Mideast. Thus Europeans required less energy to grow their food and got more energy in return. This energy (and time) surplus allowed people to invest in the development of agrarian farming principles and crop selection, which in turn further increased energy efficiency. Since fewer people and resources were required to sustain the population more individuals could spend their time building better places to live and more creative things to do with their free time like making laws, forming a military, and codifying religion. Meanwhile, the people of Africa and the Middle East were still producing food at the same ratio as their ancient forbears. In an environment where so much energy is devoted to necessity certain luxuries just aren't worth the time. For example, although the Pacific islanders had no maps or scientific astronomy they were crossing the open ocean in canoes using starcharts to find resources before Europeans had crossed the Mediterranean! The Egyptians built the pyramids without the wheel. These powerful early developments seem to indicate that these cultures had a potent head start on the Europeans, and they did. If the answer relies solely on science and technology as proof of development then the Europeans were last on the list! Therefore the answer must be something else, something earlier or more basic...it's all about the math, man. Unfortunately, very advanced and developments in anthropology, genetics, botany, biology, archaeology, and geology were required before the truth could be separated from deeply held social and political issues that are now entenched rascist convention. Please, I mean no offence, but your question asks why did Africa "evolve slower" when you actually mean to ask "why did civilization develop slower in Africa than in Europe". Africans and Europeans are the same species and neither has "evolved" since Homo Sapiens replaced Homo Neanderthalis. It's a subtle difference but indicates the difficulty in answering the question objectively.

The Europeans did not discover more things in maths, astronomy etc., Even they learned maths from the people Egyptians and other people who had trades with European countries. Moreoverly "0" was discovered in India.. The Europeans made updates in the discoveries and inventions.. for Ex: the chinese invented the gun powders.. but the europeans used it for their needs.. so they grew more faster than anyothers. it is proved that man originated in india, china, and other places in asia before in Europe. so it is totally understood that the europeans invented more things which the discoverer had left. so european nations are more powerful

The use of the word 'evolve' in what is the dicredited meaning of progression reveals the serious loading of this question. Clearly we are intended to understand that Africans (which does not apparently include Egyptians, Algerians, Morroccans etc.) were (and are?) more primitive and undeveloped than us enlightened Europeans not merely different. The truth of course is that these peoples had a very sophisticated social structure but most of our science was then (as in many places it still is) utterly useless - what need is there of a wheel in environments where camels, or other domesticated animals, are far better suited to the landscape, for example? James Burke's continuing Connections writings are a salutary reminder that most of our inventions are the result of needs that never existed until we ourselves created them! It is also wise to heed the results of Terry Jones's brilliant exploration of the Mediaeval period which prove our belief that we have progressed or changed things for the better to be mere delusion!

Stillcrazy is pretty much right. Inventions come about with the needs of the people. Let's see how good you can pull a wagon on the sand of Africa's deserts. Also, the massively and unnecessaryly huge Sahara Desert cuts so much of Africa from the rest of the would, they don't have access to the new inventions of Europe and Asia. And the only thing that Europe has more knowlegde of than Africa and Asia is military. Most of what Europe knows they learned from conquering, being conquered, and from traveling. The Europeans conquer other lands or travel to them. Then they see new inventions that they didn't have before and bring them back to Europe. Or they may be conquered, and their new rulers bring their inventions to them. Europe wouldn't have achieved anything much without the inventions from other lands. The wheel came from what is now arabia, as did the first language, the numerical system(except for zero, which came from India), the first iron weapons, and many others. Gun powder came from China, and paper was invented in Egypt. So Europe is not that great. Europe just traveled more and conquered more than any other people, so they found more inventions from others. The same thing happened with China as with Africa. China is cut off from the rest of the world by the highest mountains in the world, so the couldn't travel. Africa and China learned things when things were brought to them. Factoid #4- Africans below the Sahara Desert were the first to come up with scales, the measuring device. They used it to sell things. They would put the gold of the buyer on one side, and the thing he was buying on the other side. When it weighed the same, then the gold and the item were exchange. African's weren't so "primitive".

I am not sure where you got the idea that the Africans did not have the wheel and that the Europeans did. Further, to clarify, a "few centuries ago" puts us at around 1500 or 1600 AD, America had been colonised by then. Perhaps you meant to go back further than that. Africa had civilizations that had been constructing irrigation systems, monuments and chariots (intially from the Mideast) before the last remnants of the last ice age had fled. Dynastys had come and gone, while Europeans were still living in small family groups of 8-10 people per village (and these villages were very rudimentary). During the Byzantine period of history, Africa and the mideast (also called the Near East) had been so succesful that the grains and timber were over harvested to supply the Europeans that now began to rise in the Mediterranean. The hills became unstable due to the depleted timber and the landscape we see today would have looked drastically different. Rome specifically, relied so heavily on the African grains that Roman garrisons could not be spared in Alexandria when Romes northern borders were being challanged ca. 40 AD. To retain control of the port town Alexandria (next to Egypt) was to rule the world. The idea that all the grain came from Europe is perhaps a myth sprung from the fact that a hybrid of grain was produced in Italy (later on) that was softer making it easier to process and easier on the teeth, which otherwise were worn down. As for the utilization of the wheel, I am confused about the vast amount of misinformation floating around about the European's bringing the wheel to the shores. The wheel is the metaphore for the age of man extending beyond our records and our memories. It has always been used as far as any archaeological research will ever show and to try and say who had it first is conjecture. All the elements of the main question are wholly incorrect: mathematics, astronomy, cartography and ingenius agricultural know how was in Africa and the Mideast, long before it spread to anywhere else. Any advances that were made were done so by adding on to previous knowledge, what we know today could never have been known 300 years ago because we have taken baby steps to get to where we are. Could a nuclear reactor have ever been created in Galileo's time? Of course not, because you can not get to "c" without first going through "a" and "b." If the lack of civilization you are referring to is with the small nomadic tribes in mind, these are not a regionalized occurance, every continent has their nomads, it is whether or not the surrounding civilizations allow them to exist. These tribes of nomads are considered by most cultures to be pariahs benefiting off the hard work of others. In America the early European settlers that refused to settle down and conform were called free grazers and were often harrassed or murdered (there is a Kevin Costner movie about this). In Eastern Europe they are now branded Gypsies. Because the most recent cultures come from Europe doesn't mean that they are more civilized or were the first. That is not only short sighted but is the exact opposite of the truth. History, or more accurately, prehistory goes back further in time than many are aware.

First of all, it's incorrect to ask a question like that about Africa in general, because it is too huge and diverse. It is impossible to speak of "Africa evolving" just as it is impossible to speak of "African culture" or "the African language," as Africa is a mosaic of cultures, languages, and ethnic groups. For instance, some areas in N and E Africa had had advanced civilizations predating European civilizations, while other areas of Africa, particuarly W and Central Africa, were certainly primative by European standards and did not develop advanced civilizations until modern times. I would also like to point out that many of the responses to this question that have already been posted go off on tangents about the Mideast, China, India, etc, which have nothing to do with this question. These areas are known to have civilizations much older than Europe's, but these areas are separate from Africa and so they should not be addressed in conjunction with this question.

The question merely asks about Africa, not sub-Saharan Africa. Further, Sub-Saharan Africa did in fact possess many of the same technological advances, like the wheel. The rulers of North Africa kingdoms wasted no time in moving southward along the Nile and beyond; this directly benefited everyone that they came into contact with as they left their skill sets behind. Also there is an interesting book, called Germs, Guns, and Steal, that speaks about some of the problems facing regions of the world that retain hunter gatherer life styles for many millennia. This has much to do with their ability to advance agriculturally, which regions that lacks high protein foods like grain, (which are naturally prevalent in Europe and the Middle East, as is rice from Asia) are unable to do. The book talks mostly about specific regions of South America, but does touch on parts of Africa, furthest from the Fertile Crescent, a bit too.

When the live in a area that food takes most of your time to acquire. There is less time to discuss or experiment with making things faster. Knowledge is not enough, you need time. If for some reason the modern infrastructure disappeared, rebuilding will begin with food related stuff for a while, everyone would begin in some food related matter. This is based on the first answer reference.

We think today of Africans suffering from hunger and poverty etc. The Africans of the past did not require the so called advancements of our Western World. The jungle tribes were in harmony with nature. The West have been on a trail of destruction for thousands of years. Eventually they will have destroyed all life on this planet,- if they continue on their present track. The African history have not had a horror like the American civil war or all the tragedies of worker concentration camps of Russia, and Central Europe. The have not wiped out entire races of people like the Tasmanians, not to mention many other aborigional people. They have not had the pains of religious inquisitions. In comparison with the evils of our great evolution a mud hut in the rain forest sounds OK. The atrocities of modern Africa are the fruits of so called civilisation.

You cannot say that Africa evolved slower than Europe, because we see they first signs of civilized peoples, in history, were recorded in Asia and in Africa..NOT IN EUROPE. Look at the Sumerians and the Egyptians. These were the civilizations who developed banking systems and cuneiform. So definitely don't say europe evolved faster than Africa....Oh and by the way Africans used the wheel before Europeans did..

I know one thing,the Chinese may have invented pasta and given it to marco polo....but it was the Italians who invented the damn fork. A classic case of building onto something. After we invented the fork, we taught the French how to cook, make wine, and make love.

The only thing that evolve technly faster in europe was maybe the sewer system and weaponry.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Once humans started living in regions that weren't their natural habitats they had to create things or die. Warmer clothing and shelters were needed, and that slowly but surely escalated.

It has a lot to do with resources. There aren't many domesticable animals in Africa (you can't domesticate zebras, for example), and staple crops have a hard time in much of Africa...and there's a lot of hostile Earth. Don't forget, though, that Africa definitely had its share of empires. Egypt comes to mind, but there are others. . If you are genuinely interested in this topic I would recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel."

fair Q - points for you

Because it's too hot to screw around with nuts and bolts. They had to put all their energy into hunting and gathering. Can you imagine smelting iron in that heat? It would be enough to kill someone with the heat exposure.

Neccesity is the mother of invention. The vikings - as the original "technological" Europeans - developed ship-building technology and seafaring skills because the harsh environment they lived in forced them to seek food and supplies further afield. In Africa where food was plentiful and the weather fine it was not neccessary to travel far afield and develop technology.

Probably, because Africa did not have the best environment for developing advanced technology. Most advanced Civilisations in Ancient times were in a belt stretching from the Mediterranean and China. At these latttidudes, there is more good agricultural land, a wide variety of species suitable for domestication and it is possible to traverse this region without having to cross deserts or huge ocesns.Good farmland allowed a large population and this meant more people to have ideas about improving technology. Most Western Technology did not originate in Europe. Rather, it came from China, India or the Middle East, but Europeans did the best job of making use of it. You might find this book intresting: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=guns+germs+and+steel

because europe has more money

You cannot deny that Africa is a modern day shithole. The truth is no one will ever really know where life orignated, though there are many hypothesis. And much research that that identifies africans as less evolved and lacking in I.Q. is supressed.

Africa being as big as she is, makes this avery general question. So many lies have been told throughout all time, probably as many truths. They're still trying to figure out how they built the pyramids with a new theory of cooperation, instead of enslavement, as is the norm in what we are taught. Many things Native to Africa, like philosphy, etc., were later used by other people. Conqueror has hidden many truths, so what has been passed down is quite a lot of political propoganda, which continues to this day, even in places like South Africa, where things are supposed to be fairer now.