Weapon/Tool Development/Anthropology... Formerly Blocking useless?

[jobo]

Seeing as the thread has gone anthropological, I'm going to ponder... There'll probably be disagreement, and that's fine.

Advancement from stone to iron isn't/wasn't about collaboration with other peoples - it's about conflict and what that leads to.

To get to sufficient conflict requires a certain set of conditions, mainly land topography and population size (into density).

So, you have small (family) groups of people which tend to naturally grow in numbers until they become a tribe - hunting and gathering is sufficient, but there's going to be small scale conflict with neighbouring tribes over resources (food, women, etc.).

These small conflicts can be utterly devastating for the losing tribe, but the winning side isn't 'safe' because the tribes on their other 6 (say) sides are still going to be competing...

If the land available is restricted (an island, bordered by mountains, that sort of thing) then eventually you'll get one overriding winning tribe.

If there's enough land (Africa, the Americas, mid/west Asia, Australia) you won't. There'll always be another neighbour, or a nomadic tribe coming in.

In the restricted areas, you'll get relative peace. People will breed without constant invasion, population will grow. Tribal chiefs become kings. You'll then get the divergence of fighters and feeders. There's always a chance of an invasion force coming over the mountains, but because it's less likely you get people develop into being farmers and the technology in that area increases - but only if hunting and gathering can't sustain your population.

Once you get to a certain density you look to expand even more, so you send out scouting parties over the mountains or over the water to see what others have. If you want what they have you can trade, or invade.

With the Americas, the Europeans went to explore, then they traded for a while - once they decided that the indigenous peoples weren't much of a military threat (and they could ship sufficient numbers) they brought superior weaponry and tactics and invaded.

It's the expansion that drives weapon and tactic development, and the following peace that drives farming and cultural development.

these are all good points, some of which like progress through war I've made myself.

but the technology first has to be feasible, that is you have,set up an infrastructure o support it, you can use bronze for war or farming, but you first have to set up a way to mine cooper and more importantly tin and then the process for making alloys and a way to work the mettle which is a lit more difficult that copper, there is a whole level of technological development that has to be reached before you can even use war as a driver to progress.

the ancient Egyptian, who were very advanced for their time, struggled to be come a bronze age people, as they had lots of copper but no tin. They did however have the,ability to buy tin, which requires a medium of exchange, ie money or gold and be ale to drag it thousand of miles, which required ships and wheels, they were shipping it in from England amongst other places, they also had a real problem if having no tree to make things like ships and wheels out of, so they shipped those in as well.

with out the ability to build an infra structure those pyramids should still be sand stone
the Inca's and the,aztecs had a real problem with trade, as they kept murdering every one, including millions of their own people. They quite likely murdered the mother of the guy who would invent Bronze

 

[Gerry Seymour]

these are all good points, some of which like progress through war I've made myself.

but the technology first has to be feasible, that is you have,set up an infrastructure o support it, you can use bronze for war or farming, but you first have to set up a way to mine cooper and more importantly tin and then the process for making alloys and a way to work the mettle which is a lit more difficult that copper, there is a whole level of technological development that has to be reached before you can even use war as a driver to progress.

the ancient Egyptian, who were very advanced for their time, struggled to be come a bronze age people, as they had lots of copper but no tin. They did however have the,ability to buy tin, which requires a medium of exchange, ie money or gold and be ale to drag it thousand of miles, which required ships and wheels, they were shipping it in from England amongst other places, they also had a real problem if having no tree to make things like ships and wheels out of, so they shipped those in as well.

with out the ability to build an infra structure those pyramids should still be sand stone

I think one of the defining points has to be staying in one place. A society will not mine, smelt, or smith while nomadic. They also have no need for things like plows. And nomadic groups can only carry so much, so they tend to have less "stuff" in general. They tend to work with what's available as they move from place to place (often revolving among places over and over).

IIRC, many of the tribes in North America were still relatively nomadic, which puts them right out of developing metal technology. That, combined with the progression @pdg noted above probably explains the lack of widespread use of metals in indigenous weapons. Once they got metal (trading with Europeans, etc.), they quickly adopted it into their weapons.

(No citations for this - just general observations.)

 

[jobo]

Are you just down of the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas? The Incas did have the wheel but apparently it was used more as a child toy. Makes some sense considering where they lived.

Plough? Most were hunter gatherers. Even those who had begun farming, mostly in the east, didn't do so to the extent that poking holes in the ground wouldn't suffice. And who was going to be the lucky one who was going to pull the plough, or tame buffalo to pull it?

well yes taming wild beasts to pull ploughs is what the rest of the world did, the south Americans only had llamas, so that a bit of an issue, inventing a wheels ie a circle of wood, is easy, chop a bit off a tree, the issue was inventing an axel,to bolt it to, to turn your circle of wood into a wheel.

 

[pdg]

Is this your theory or do you have academic citations for this?

It's "my" theory.

I can't claim it as fully mine because some of it is based on things I've learned about history from a variety of sources, some is based on speculation.

Some of the speculation may very well be stuff that I've heard/read but forgotten that I'd heard/read and therefore thought I'd thought it

As a whole, it makes sense in my tiny mind.

 

[lklawson]

Ha!

Predictable response when you don't have an answer.

 

[jobo]

I think one of the defining points has to be staying in one place. A society will not mine, smelt, or smith while nomadic. They also have no need for things like plows. And nomadic groups can only carry so much, so they tend to have less "stuff" in general. They tend to work with what's available as they move from place to place (often revolving among places over and over).

IIRC, many of the tribes in North America were still relatively nomadic, which puts them right out of developing metal technology. That, combined with the progression @pdg noted above probably explains the lack of widespread use of metals in indigenous weapons. Once they got metal (trading with Europeans, etc.), they quickly adopted it into their weapons.

(No citations for this - just general observations.)

but that's a chicken ir egg argument, true, technology takes off, when you stop chasing your food all over the place .

but its developing the technology to control nature, ie farming that puts you in one place to develop further technology,

there are places in the world were farming is more difficult, hence the nomadic life style lasted thousands of years longer, the great plains are,NOT one if those places

 

[pdg]

Further pondering...

A population can stay in one place but retain nomadic tendencies if the environment can support them there.

If you can hunt while animals are present (either during migration or animals that just stay put too) and gather the rest, the only reason to move is threat from other tribes.

If your tribe has wiped out the competition you stay put.

Then you develop farming to support your population that grows because it's not being hunted.

The longer you stay there, the more you become fixed, but also your opportunity to develop in other areas (science as an extreme) increases. You might discover how to work base metals (copper, iron, gold, etc.) but you need the stability of peace to experiment.

Because the areas I mentioned above are so vast, and a nomadic lifestyle is possible, that stability doesn't present itself.

So, my (kind of) summary is that while places like the Americas/Africa/Australasia may very well have had their own mini iron age if left to their own devices, they probably wouldn't have developed much past that - because they didn't need to and they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

 

[pdg]

but its developing the technology to control nature, ie farming that puts you in one place to develop further technology,

there are places in the world were farming is more difficult, hence the nomadic life style lasted thousands of years longer, the great plains are,NOT one if those places

That fits with "my" theory.

Farming may not have been difficult on the great plains due to the land, but it was difficult due to the tribal natures I've described.

Until you are able to settle in one place, you can't develop farming.

But, if you have 'peace' (by being the tribe who has wiped out or assimilated all others in the region) you can get to the "fighter and feeder" stage of civilisation, then that stability allows farming to develop.

The only chicken and egg is whether your farming was facilitated or necessitated by your lack of migration.

 

[jobo]

My purpose of posting the information was not directed in proving that they used bronze. The information I posted only verified that the used and made copper weapons and that there was actually a Copper Age.

As I stated the only reason they didn't reach the bronze age was due to the limited exposure to a variety of cultures. For example, when you fight a battle against another village you can learn from the weapons that were used. During peace black smith's could share knowledge of working metal. But this opportunity doesnt exist when their is isolation. The technology development on some pacific islands suffered the same disadvantages. Countries and people that are isolated will always have a slower technology development. The temples and city building in the Americas showed their level of advancement.

If you want to debate the use of bronze by native Americans then you'll be by yourself. The initial argument was Stone vs Metal. It wasn't about Stone vs Bronze. The discussion about bronze has nothing to do with copper metal weapons.

yes isolation can hold you back if its a few thousand people and your stuck on Easter island etal.
but the Americas were not in isolation, there were million of people on two continents, that much the same as saying Europe and,Asia were isolated, because they didn't have contact with the Americas and Australia

 

[oftheherd1]

Ha!

Predictable response when you don't have an answer.

Sadly, as is yours for the same apparent reason.

 

[pdg]

yes isolation can hold you back if its a few thousand people and your stuck on Easter island etal.
but the Americas were not in isolation, there were million of people on two continents, that much the same as saying Europe and,Asia were isolated, because they didn't have contact with the Americas and Australia

This point as well, furthers "my" theory.

Easter island is small, too small for the necessary competition. Many tribes couldn't be supported by the environment. Also, not really big enough for mass scale farming to evolve.

In isolation, the UK might be just big enough. Without the proximity to mainland Europe (and subsequent threat of invasion) it may have developed, just slowly - a thought borne out by the comparison of development with say the far east if taken at the same points in history, we had gone past tents and caves, but didn't have houses as other places did.

The great plains (well, the Americas as a whole) are too big.

 

[jobo]

That fits with "my" theory.

Farming may not have been difficult on the great plains due to the land, but it was difficult due to the tribal natures I've described.

Until you are able to settle in one place, you can't develop farming.

But, if you have 'peace' (by being the tribe who has wiped out or assimilated all others in the region) you can get to the "fighter and feeder" stage of civilisation, then that stability allows farming to develop.

The only chicken and egg is whether your farming was facilitated or necessitated by your lack of migration.

i don't see that Neolithic America, was any different to Neolithic Europe, when it came to tribal wars etc,

you could put forward the opposite view, that there was so much land and so few people to contest ownership of that land that there was no necessity to develop farming, and why keep cattle when a buffalo keeps walking through you front garden

 

[pdg]

Oh, another thing.

It was mentioned about things like making alloys of metals were due to cultural mixing - I don't believe that's the case, although it didn't hurt.

To experiment enough to discover how to alloy metals requires stability (staying in one place), free time (not spending all your time hunting and gathering) and security (not being invaded 3 times a day).

So, a stable society discovers iron and how to use it, another society discovers a different way to use it - when they meet (through trade or conflict) the people who do that work can then collaborate and further the development.

But they can't collaborate without relative peace and stability - which is brought about by either a societal agreement, or one 'race' assimilating the other by force.

 

[pdg]

i don't see that Neolithic America, was any different to Neolithic Europe, when it came to tribal wars etc,

you could put forward the opposite view, that there was so much land and so few people to contest ownership of that land that there was no necessity to develop farming, and why keep cattle when a buffalo keeps walking through you front garden

That's essentially part what I've been saying...

The European neolithics were hemmed in to a space that allowed a tribe to become big enough to settle and ward off invaders while either assimilating or annihilating the competition, but not a space big enough to make farming unnecessary.

The American neolithics weren't.

 

[pdg]

To continue the above.

That's where size comes in.

You need enough space to provide enough resources to grow your population to such an extent that it 'fills' that space so that farming becomes necessary.

Not enough space means you don't grow to that point.

Too much space means you'll never fill it...

 

[Martial D]

Are you guys really getting fired up over stone axes and the level of technology the people that made them had?

Just lol.


Btw tomahawk tends to refer to the design not the material, and they are still in use in militaries today.

 

[jobo]

That's essentially part what I've been saying...

The European neolithics were hemmed in to a space that allowed a tribe to become big enough to settle and ward off invaders while either assimilating or annihilating the competition, but not a space big enough to make farming unnecessary.

The American neolithics weren't.

no the European neolithics had the whole of Europe ,Asian and a,short boat ride away Africa, they wernt by any means hemmed in

 

[pdg]

Are you guys really getting fired up over stone axes and the level of technology the people that made them had?

Just lol.

Well, I'm not fired up about it - I'm just helping with the drift

 

[jobo]

To continue the above.

That's where size comes in.

You need enough space to provide enough resources to grow your population to such an extent that it 'fills' that space so that farming becomes necessary.

Not enough space means you don't grow to that point.

Too much space means you'll never fill it...

but again Europe and,Asia has at least the same land mass as the,Americas

some of the north American tribes did farm, the issue is they lagged behivd the,Europe, north Africa, Asian development by thousands of years or

the south American tribe who were fairly advanced in farming and building were three thousand thousand years behind, they were about par with ancient Egyptians. The north American tribes were more like five thousand years out of date

 

[lklawson]

Are you guys really getting fired up over stone axes and the level of technology the people that made them had?

No. Jobo is arguing about it, well, more like trolling. The others, myself for a while, were trying to correct his (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

Btw tomahawk tends to refer to the design not the material,

To a certain degree. But at the same time there is a great variability of design ranging from broad heads and curved bits to narrow heads and straight bits, with pols that could range from plain curved, to hammer-pol, to spikes, to pipes. It's harder to nail down the actual definition of a Tomahawk than it is to define a saber. But don't tell that to jobo; for reasons clear only to him, he's arguing that it only covers stone heads - which he's expanded into a bizarre argument about whether or not pre-contact American natives were Stone Age, Copper Age, or Bronze age.

and they are still in use in militaries today.

As has been pointed out to jobo several times now.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk