Mesoamerican civilizations such as the Aztecs and the Maya seem to have been much more advanced to me than the Neolithic civilizations of the Fertile Crescent (I don't know anything about the neolithic civilizations of India or China). Mesopotamia didn't have a city as large as Tenochtitlan until Babylon well into the Bronze Age. Teotihuacan and Tikal were also larger (depending on the estimates perhaps significantly so) than any of the cities of Sumer.
Am I just being influenced by the fact that we have lot more information on the comparatively recent Mesoamerican civilizations, or was there a significant gap in technology and social complexity? If so, why? The Americas were lacking in a lot resources that the Old World had, which is why the neolithic civilizations of the Old World eventually transitioned to the Bronze Age and beyond. Why were the Mesoamericans able to build much larger polities? Alternately, why couldn't the Mesopotamian cities grow as large?
Well one Sumer was a much smaller geographical area. Secondly didn't Pre-Columbian American lack the sorts of diseases the Old World civilizations had to deal with?
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2012, 08:33:16 AM
Well one Sumer was a much smaller geographical area. Secondly didn't Pre-Columbian American lack the sorts of diseases the Old World civilizations had to deal with?
One swallow does not a Sumer make?
The Aztecs and Mayan really weren't "Neolithic". They had stone cities and metal working.
:rolleyes: The shared "Meso" doesn't mean the civilizations share stuff on some deeper level. Differences between things thousands of years and thousands of miles apart are perfectly normal.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
The Aztecs and Mayan really weren't "Neolithic". They had stone cities and metal working.
They were Chalcolithic at best, almost all of their tools were made from stone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
The Aztecs and Mayan really weren't "Neolithic". They had stone cities and metal working.
They were Chalcolithic at best, almost all of their tools were made from stone.
They fucked chcildren?
I stumbled upon a wiki article on the Pyramid of Cholula recently, read like 10 other linked articles on the Aztecs.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2012, 08:58:27 AM
:rolleyes: The shared "Meso" doesn't mean the civilizations share stuff on some deeper level. Differences between things thousands of years and thousands of miles apart are perfectly normal.
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2012, 09:05:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
They were Chalcolithic at best, almost all of their tools were made from stone.
They fucked chcildren?
Your responses are always the best. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic
This really comes down to definitions of "advanced", but unless those are dependant on degrees of urbanization, I think it is tough to argue for mesoamerica. Mesoamerica lacked the wheel and most animal husbandry. The writing system of Mesopotamia seems to have developed from practical applications in basic accounting, but in Mesoamerica was mostly ceremonial and not so applicable to everyday use.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:17:06 AM
This really comes down to definitions of "advanced", but unless those are dependant on degrees of urbanization, I think it is tough to argue for mesoamerica. Mesoamerica lacked the wheel and most animal husbandry. The writing system of Mesopotamia seems to have developed from practical applications in basic accounting, but in Mesoamerica was mostly ceremonial and not so applicable to everyday use.
Mesoamerica didn't have any convenient animals to domesticate. One can hardly penalize them for that. Not surprising they didn't use the wheel for anything other than toys without draft animals.
It is my understanding that the Aztecs and Maya had plenty of written records, but the Spanish burned them all, leaving the impression that they just wrote in ceremonial stone.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
It is my understanding that the Aztecs and Maya had plenty of written records, but the Spanish burned them all, leaving the impression that they just wrote in ceremonial stone.
Really? They burned them all? Not one single record of any sort survived? That is some impressive efficiency by the Spanish. Surely we have some.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:04:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 08:55:13 AM
The Aztecs and Mayan really weren't "Neolithic". They had stone cities and metal working.
They were Chalcolithic at best, almost all of their tools were made from stone.
The 3 age system doesn't really work that well in Meso-America, and really isn't used. Most tools in Ancient Sumer were also stone (or clay). They were technology on par with the ancient Egyptians. They had planned urban areas, mathematics, writing, calenders, metal-working, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2012, 09:24:58 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
It is my understanding that the Aztecs and Maya had plenty of written records, but the Spanish burned them all, leaving the impression that they just wrote in ceremonial stone.
Really? They burned them all? Not one single record of any sort survived? That is some impressive efficiency by the Spanish. Surely we have some.
Not quite all, but very, very close.
The crystal skull aliens destroyed those written records.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
Not quite all, but very, very close.
If only they could have put down the Dutch with that sort of thoroughness.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2012, 09:24:58 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
It is my understanding that the Aztecs and Maya had plenty of written records, but the Spanish burned them all, leaving the impression that they just wrote in ceremonial stone.
Really? They burned them all? Not one single record of any sort survived? That is some impressive efficiency by the Spanish. Surely we have some.
A few do survive, but not many.
http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=ZseasJq3WzEC&dq=burnings&pg=PA265&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Mesoamerica didn't have any convenient animals to domesticate. One can hardly penalize them for that. Not surprising they didn't use the wheel for anything other than toys without draft animals.
Is this a competition with scoring adjusted for a handicap? I was assuming not, and mesoamerica lacked some very critical attributes that Mesopotamia had.
Quote
It is my understanding that the Aztecs and Maya had plenty of written records, but the Spanish burned them all, leaving the impression that they just wrote in ceremonial stone.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is correct. In Mesopotamia I understand that proto writing and early writing in business type settings are found everywhere because they were so commonly used.
Quote from: Valmy on September 04, 2012, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2012, 09:27:28 AM
Not quite all, but very, very close.
If only they could have put down the Dutch with that sort of thoroughness.
It's a general problem with civilizations that write on perishable materials and live in a damp climate. Unless deliberate and continual attempts are made to preserve their writings, they get destroyed. The Sumerians wrote on clay, so much of what they wrote got preserved; The egyptians wrote on papyrus, but they lived in a desert.
Another unlucky civilization in this regard was the Indus Valley civilization - they most likely had writing (their seal-stones carved out of jemstones and rocks had what look like writing on them) but they mostly wrote (we assume) on persihable materals and no examples, seals aside, survived.
In the case of the Aztecs and Maya, not only did they live in a climate not condusive to survival, the authorities actively sought out and destroyed the writings. The examples that survived did so as ciuriousities in European collections.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is correct. In Mesopotamia I understand that proto writing and early writing in business type settings are found everywhere because they were so commonly used.
They are found everywhere because they were written on clay tablets. When a city burns down, clay tablets tend to survive the process ... indeed they are remarkably resistant to decay.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 08:24:33 AM
Mesoamerican civilizations such as the Aztecs and the Maya seem to have been much more advanced to me than the Neolithic civilizations of the Fertile Crescent (I don't know anything about the neolithic civilizations of India or China). Mesopotamia didn't have a city as large as Tenochtitlan until Babylon well into the Bronze Age. Teotihuacan and Tikal were also larger (depending on the estimates perhaps significantly so) than any of the cities of Sumer.
Am I just being influenced by the fact that we have lot more information on the comparatively recent Mesoamerican civilizations, or was there a significant gap in technology and social complexity? If so, why? The Americas were lacking in a lot resources that the Old World had, which is why the neolithic civilizations of the Old World eventually transitioned to the Bronze Age and beyond. Why were the Mesoamericans able to build much larger polities? Alternately, why couldn't the Mesopotamian cities grow as large?
Show that you have dealt with the issues raised here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280
and we can talk about this.
and of course this...
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm
which has Memphis at 30k in 3100 BC and Ur at 65k in 2030 BC compared to Tikal with between 60k and 90k. Four and Three thousand years earlier it must be mentioned. The same source has Babylon reaching the size of Tenochtitlan 300 years after Ur was at 65k.
I think the real issue here is scope of power of the polity building the city both in catchment area and in bureaucratic efficiency. Egypt famously didn't voluntarily do technological innovation but managed to build monster cities with neolithic farming technology.
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is correct. In Mesopotamia I understand that proto writing and early writing in business type settings are found everywhere because they were so commonly used.
They are found everywhere because they were written on clay tablets. When a city burns down, clay tablets tend to survive the process ... indeed they are remarkably resistant to decay.
I haven't read up on this stuff recently, but the writing systems are quite structurally different. There is a clear evolutionary path in Mesopotamia of business type transactions with a utilitarian proto writing system developing into a full writing system. The structure of mesoamerican systems seems to have been more symbolic from the start.
Also, the aztecs collapsed less than 500 years ago. Mesoamerican indian culture lived on much longer (arguably to the present day). For more than a century academics have been quite interested in this type of information. If this stuff was being produced to record day to day life, we should have lots of examples. The Indus Valley Civilization is thousands of years older.
Not directly relatable to the Mesoamerican thing, but in an attempt to help kick-start my son's interest in history & whatnot, I took him to Serpent Mound this weekend. It's a big serpent effigy ("largest serpent effigy in the world") containing large numbers of dead Indians. I had mentioned it many times to Tommy, and thought I made it clear that it wasn't a *real* snake. Apparently I failed to drive that point home. Look how pissed he was:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8315%2F7930177374_5af7dab46b.jpg&hash=1c1b3e7e0faa7df07449ac897b4c53d6b1e95bb1)
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:03:14 AM
Daddy Promised me a Snake
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8315%2F7930177374_5af7dab46b.jpg&hash=1c1b3e7e0faa7df07449ac897b4c53d6b1e95bb1)
Now I'm voting Democrat
?
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
and we can talk about this.
and of course this...
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm
which has Memphis at 30k in 3100 BC and Ur at 65k in 2030 BC compared to Tikal with between 60k and 90k. Four and Three thousand years earlier it must be mentioned. The same source has Babylon reaching the size of Tenochtitlan 300 years after Ur was at 65k.
I think the real issue here is scope of power of the polity building the city both in catchment area and in bureaucratic efficiency. Egypt famously didn't voluntarily do technological innovation but managed to build monster cities with neolithic farming technology.
Memphis in 3100BC is comparable, but Ur in 2000BC was in the middle of the Bronze Age.
It took the Native Americans longer to get to that level of development, but their neolithic cities were substantially bigger than Mesopotamia's neolithic cities.
I don't see how Diamond's thesis has anything to do with it. You'd think with all the advantages he posits the Old World as having their cities would be bigger. We don't know much about the disease burden of the time, many diseases likely hadn't evolved yet. IIRC we don't have evidence for small pox before 1500 BC. Measles had yet to evolve as well.
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:03:14 AM
Daddy Promised me a Snake
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8315%2F7930177374_5af7dab46b.jpg&hash=1c1b3e7e0faa7df07449ac897b4c53d6b1e95bb1)
Now I'm voting Democrat
?
I got him the damned Indian whistle. What else does he want from me??
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is correct. In Mesopotamia I understand that proto writing and early writing in business type settings are found everywhere because they were so commonly used.
They are found everywhere because they were written on clay tablets. When a city burns down, clay tablets tend to survive the process ... indeed they are remarkably resistant to decay.
I haven't read up on this stuff recently, but the writing systems are quite structurally different. There is a clear evolutionary path in Mesopotamia of business type transactions with a utilitarian proto writing system developing into a full writing system. The structure of mesoamerican systems seems to have been more symbolic from the start.
Also, the aztecs collapsed less than 500 years ago. Mesoamerican indian culture lived on much longer (arguably to the present day). For more than a century academics have been quite interested in this type of information. If this stuff was being produced to record day to day life, we should have lots of examples. The Indus Valley Civilization is thousands of years older.
Mesoamerican writing does seem entirely used by the priests to record religious and state records, true.
I don't know if that means that mesopotamian writing is "better" or "more advanced".
And it is true that the Spanish burned almost all of their books. Since they were held only by the priests, and since they were written in very flamable materials, it was easy to destroy almost every single copy in existence.
He wanted a giant indian snake, dammit.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:08:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:03:14 AM
Daddy Promised me a Snake
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8315%2F7930177374_5af7dab46b.jpg&hash=1c1b3e7e0faa7df07449ac897b4c53d6b1e95bb1)
Now I'm voting Democrat
?
I got him the damned Indian whistle. What else does he want from me??
Universal Single Payer Health Care presumably.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:56:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:38:07 AM
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this is correct. In Mesopotamia I understand that proto writing and early writing in business type settings are found everywhere because they were so commonly used.
They are found everywhere because they were written on clay tablets. When a city burns down, clay tablets tend to survive the process ... indeed they are remarkably resistant to decay.
I haven't read up on this stuff recently, but the writing systems are quite structurally different. There is a clear evolutionary path in Mesopotamia of business type transactions with a utilitarian proto writing system developing into a full writing system. The structure of mesoamerican systems seems to have been more symbolic from the start.
Also, the aztecs collapsed less than 500 years ago. Mesoamerican indian culture lived on much longer (arguably to the present day). For more than a century academics have been quite interested in this type of information. If this stuff was being produced to record day to day life, we should have lots of examples. The Indus Valley Civilization is thousands of years older.
The Indus Valley civilization is the same ase as Sumerian (they were in contact - Indus seals have been found in Sumerian sites). From one we have countless examples of writing; from the other, pretty well nothing. It is unlikely that we have found nothing because none were produced ...
What you are overlooking is that if stuff cannot survive neglect, and it is neglected, you will find
none - not one. If neglected, or abandoned (in a trove or buried) it will simply rot. We know there *was* lots, because the Spanish in fact recorded in detail making bonfires of piles of the stuff. There are in fact a few isolated examples (exactly three), saved as curiousities, but clearly the Spanish had no interest in saving (say) the tax records (if there were any).
Of the Maya, which were still using writing in the 17th century (1697 to be exact), only
three codexs survive from the whole civilization! (All named for the european cities in which they were preserved).
QuoteThere were many such books in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest of Yucatán in the 16th century, but they were destroyed in bulk by the Conquistadors and priests soon after. In particular, all those in Yucatán were ordered destroyed by Bishop Diego de Landa in July of 1562. De Landa wrote: "We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they (the Maya) regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction." Such codices were primary written records of Maya civilization, together with the many inscriptions on stone monuments and stelae that survived. However, their range of subject matter in all likelihood embraced more topics than those recorded in stone and buildings, and was more like what is found on painted ceramics (the so-called 'ceramic codex'). Alonso de Zorita wrote that in 1540 he saw numerous such books in the Guatemalan highlands that "...recorded their history for more than eight hundred years back, and that were interpreted for me by very ancient Indians." (Zorita 1963, 271-2). Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas lamented that when found, such books were destroyed: "These books were seen by our clergy, and even I saw part of those that were burned by the monks, apparently because they thought [they] might harm the Indians in matters concerning religion, since at that time they were at the beginning of their conversion." The last codices destroyed were those of Tayasal, Guatemala in 1697, the last city conquered in America.[3] With their destruction, the opportunity for insight into some key areas of Maya life has been greatly diminished.
The three survivals:
QuoteThere are only three codices whose authenticity is beyond doubt. These are:
The Madrid Codex, also known as the Tro-Cortesianus Codex (112 pages, 6.82 metres (22.4 feet));
The Dresden Codex also known as the Codex Dresdensis (74 pages, 3.56 metres (11.7 feet));
The Paris Codex, also known as the Peresianus Codex (22 pages, 1.45 metres (4.8 feet)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_codices
Again, with Babylonian, it is just luck that they recorded business-type transactions and historical documents in permanent form.
Now, it
may be the case that the Maya and Aztecs never wrote business stuff. But proof either way lacks. Three surviving records simply isn't enough to base such a notion on.
This is a classic case where sweeping generalizions are made on the basis of survivals (another is the notion that prehistoric people generally lived in caves - "cave men" - because remains are found in caves. In fact, people only rarely lived in caves - caves are dank and not usually in the right places - but river-bank settlements, which were in fact much more common as we now know from more sophisticated achaeo;ogical analysis, are also less suceptible to survival. Hence, "cave-man".
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 10:14:26 AM
Universal Single Payer Health Care presumably.
As long as he doesn't become a Steelers fan, I won't disown him.
Quote from: derspiess on September 04, 2012, 10:08:28 AM
As long as he doesn't become a Steelers fan, I won't disown him.
Daddy Promised me a Snake
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8315%2F7930177374_5af7dab46b.jpg&hash=1c1b3e7e0faa7df07449ac897b4c53d6b1e95bb1)
Now Ben Rothlisberger is my Hero
n.b. I'm not trying to be creepy or anything, but the look on his face is priceless.
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 10:11:54 AM
Mesoamerican writing does seem entirely used by the priests to record religious and state records, true.
I don't know if that means that mesopotamian writing is "better" or "more advanced".
And it is true that the Spanish burned almost all of their books. Since they were held only by the priests, and since they were written in very flamable materials, it was easy to destroy almost every single copy in existence.
This is based on a bunch of unknowns. We do not know that records were all held by priests. For example, we know that the Aztecs had very sophisticated trade (and spying) guilds known as
pochteca, but we do not know if they had records. It would make sense if they did, given that they allegedly specialized in long-distance relaying of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pochteca
QuotePochteca (sing. pochtecatl) were professional, long-distance traveling merchants in the Aztec Empire. They were a small, but important class as they not only facilitated commerce, but also communicated vital information across the empire and beyond its borders. The trade or commerce was referred to as pochtecayotl. The pochteca also traveled outside the empire to trade with neighboring lands throughout Mesoamerica. Because of their extensive travel and knowledge of the empire, pochteca were often employed as spies.
The issue isn't simply flammbility, it is decay-ability. The Spanish could not possibly have burnt every copy, what with people hiding stuff. However, records hidden in mesoamerica would not survive a generation of neglect.
Malthus, I would like to discuss this, and I used to know a decent amount, but I have forgotten too much.
My understanding is that the nature of the writing system is such that it wasn't practical for ordinary business.
Meanwhile, over at Paradox, they are arguing about whether the Aztec and Inca civilisations were as advanced as 16th century Europe :
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?629364-Petition-to-make-New-World-nations-actually-playable.
QuoteI hate how such nations can't even reach their historical size because they can't colonize. How nations that had the largest, wealthiest cities on earth don't even get the tech levels to build a freaking temple. Isn't it ridiculous that a nation like the Inca who had the administrative abilities to govern the Andes Mountains and the medical knowledge to do some brain surgery is apparently given the technology level of an entire nation of retarded inbreeds?
What of the Aztec and Maya with their great understanding of engineering and astronomy that was light years ahead of Europe. Just because Europeans were disease ridden doesn't mean they were light years ahead of the Native Empires in technology. It was only in metalworking and sailing that they were ahead of the world in at this point (1500).
The EU community recognizes that this game is about Europe first and foremost, but the conquest of the New World was one of the most important events in world history. Surely the conquest of the Americas is light years more relevant to Europeans than unique decisions for Japan/China/Korea. New World is relevant from 1492+ while East Asia is not even discovered until 1550 by Portugal and is not even relevant to being conquered until the Dutch start to establish trading posts in 1602.
Oh, Paradox forums, you never fail to entertain. :D
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2012, 11:23:03 AM
QuoteI hate how such nations can't even reach their historical size because they can't colonize. How nations that had the largest, wealthiest cities on earth don't even get the tech levels to build a freaking temple. Isn't it ridiculous that a nation like the Inca who had the administrative abilities to govern the Andes Mountains and the medical knowledge to do some brain surgery is apparently given the technology level of an entire nation of retarded inbreeds?
What of the Aztec and Maya with their great understanding of engineering and astronomy that was light years ahead of Europe. Just because Europeans were disease ridden doesn't mean they were light years ahead of the Native Empires in technology. It was only in metalworking and sailing that they were ahead of the world in at this point (1500).
The EU community recognizes that this game is about Europe first and foremost, but the conquest of the New World was one of the most important events in world history. Surely the conquest of the Americas is light years more relevant to Europeans than unique decisions for Japan/China/Korea. New World is relevant from 1492+ while East Asia is not even discovered until 1550 by Portugal and is not even relevant to being conquered until the Dutch start to establish trading posts in 1602.
Oh, Paradox forums, you never fail to entertain. :D
Europeans were also ahead in Ruff and codpiece technology.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
and we can talk about this.
and of course this...
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm
which has Memphis at 30k in 3100 BC and Ur at 65k in 2030 BC compared to Tikal with between 60k and 90k. Four and Three thousand years earlier it must be mentioned. The same source has Babylon reaching the size of Tenochtitlan 300 years after Ur was at 65k.
I think the real issue here is scope of power of the polity building the city both in catchment area and in bureaucratic efficiency. Egypt famously didn't voluntarily do technological innovation but managed to build monster cities with neolithic farming technology.
Memphis in 3100BC is comparable, but Ur in 2000BC was in the middle of the Bronze Age.
It took the Native Americans longer to get to that level of development, but their neolithic cities were substantially bigger than Mesopotamia's neolithic cities.
I don't see how Diamond's thesis has anything to do with it. You'd think with all the advantages he posits the Old World as having their cities would be bigger. We don't know much about the disease burden of the time, many diseases likely hadn't evolved yet. IIRC we don't have evidence for small pox before 1500 BC. Measles had yet to evolve as well.
I don't know that mere population can really indicate how advanced a technological or cultural level a given society has obtained. Sure, a hunter-gather society is only going to be able to support a limited population, but once you have even primative agriculture, things change. If your whole society is almost entirely farmers practicing subsistance farming, and you have very fertile land, you can support a LOT of people in a relatively small area. Take Bangladesh--almost it's entire land area is a very fertile delta, so it has a huge population, even though it's also one of the more impoverished nations on Earth. Or look at China--it's probably been the most populous nation on Earth thoughout human history (at least at the times it was actually a unified nation) but only at times has it been the most advanced.
Quote from: dps on September 04, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 04, 2012, 09:45:02 AM
and we can talk about this.
and of course this...
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm
which has Memphis at 30k in 3100 BC and Ur at 65k in 2030 BC compared to Tikal with between 60k and 90k. Four and Three thousand years earlier it must be mentioned. The same source has Babylon reaching the size of Tenochtitlan 300 years after Ur was at 65k.
I think the real issue here is scope of power of the polity building the city both in catchment area and in bureaucratic efficiency. Egypt famously didn't voluntarily do technological innovation but managed to build monster cities with neolithic farming technology.
Memphis in 3100BC is comparable, but Ur in 2000BC was in the middle of the Bronze Age.
It took the Native Americans longer to get to that level of development, but their neolithic cities were substantially bigger than Mesopotamia's neolithic cities.
I don't see how Diamond's thesis has anything to do with it. You'd think with all the advantages he posits the Old World as having their cities would be bigger. We don't know much about the disease burden of the time, many diseases likely hadn't evolved yet. IIRC we don't have evidence for small pox before 1500 BC. Measles had yet to evolve as well.
I don't know that mere population can really indicate how advanced a technological or cultural level a given society has obtained. Sure, a hunter-gather society is only going to be able to support a limited population, but once you have even primative agriculture, things change. If your whole society is almost entirely farmers practicing subsistance farming, and you have very fertile land, you can support a LOT of people in a relatively small area. Take Bangladesh--almost it's entire land area is a very fertile delta, so it has a huge population, even though it's also one of the more impoverished nations on Earth. Or look at China--it's probably been the most populous nation on Earth thoughout human history (at least at the times it was actually a unified nation) but only at times has it been the most advanced.
China has been the most advanced nation on earth for a good portion of human history. It's only the last 200 years or so that's been the exception.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 11:15:12 AM
Malthus, I would like to discuss this, and I used to know a decent amount, but I have forgotten too much.
My understanding is that the nature of the writing system is such that it wasn't practical for ordinary business.
Certainly some language systems are better for business than others, but that doesn't mean transacting business was impossible in other languages.
Take for example Roman numerals as opposed to Arabic. Roman numerals suck heavily for doing basic business or engineering calculations, as opposed to Arabic. That did not stop the Romans from doing business and engineering using them, though.
There is nothing whatsoever in Mayan that would prevent its use in accounting or transactional work ... they clearly had the ability to transcribe complicated numbers (they were big in calendrics, for example) and had no problems writing down dynsatic histories.
Damn it Malthus, I want to discuss this but I just don't remember enough. :(
These dynsaties, were they destroyed by smallbox?
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2012, 03:05:49 PM
These dynsaties, were they destroyed by smallbox?
:hmm:
And no, they were destroyed by ancient aliens.
I knew a lady with smallbox.
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 04, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 04, 2012, 03:05:49 PM
These dynsaties, were they destroyed by smallbox?
:hmm:
And no, they were destroyed by ancient aliens.
I heard that they were destroyed by ancient alien diseases.
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2012, 01:32:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 11:15:12 AM
Malthus, I would like to discuss this, and I used to know a decent amount, but I have forgotten too much.
My understanding is that the nature of the writing system is such that it wasn't practical for ordinary business.
Certainly some language systems are better for business than others, but that doesn't mean transacting business was impossible in other languages.
Take for example Roman numerals as opposed to Arabic. Roman numerals suck heavily for doing basic business or engineering calculations, as opposed to Arabic. That did not stop the Romans from doing business and engineering using them, though.
There is nothing whatsoever in Mayan that would prevent its use in accounting or transactional work ... they clearly had the ability to transcribe complicated numbers (they were big in calendrics, for example) and had no problems writing down dynsatic histories.
I think Romans used Greek numbers for their engineering.
:hmm:
I thought that a couple of different writing systems from the Indus civilization ARE known, but nobody has ever been able to actually decipher them?
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2012, 12:42:08 PM
China has been the most advanced nation on earth for a good portion of human history. It's only the last 200 years or so that's been the exception.
Well, there was that mongol thingy back in 13th century. China and India both had huge populations because of wet rice cultivations which produced large yields and were more reliable then say wheat. The Europeans never really caught up with them in population despite being having a greater material culture. The single biggest factor in population is food production which has historically been more dependent on climate and crop then technology. You can build a huge city in the pre-modern world though importation of food, but you need reliable trade networks to support it. Ancient Rome is grew to immense size due to Egyptian Grain (which produced huge yields because of the annual flooding of the Nile).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:17:06 AM
This really comes down to definitions of "advanced", but unless those are dependant on degrees of urbanization, I think it is tough to argue for mesoamerica. Mesoamerica lacked the wheel and most animal husbandry. The writing system of Mesopotamia seems to have developed from practical applications in basic accounting, but in Mesoamerica was mostly ceremonial and not so applicable to everyday use.
Mesoamerica didn't have any convenient animals to domesticate. One can hardly penalize them for that. Not surprising they didn't use the wheel for anything other than toys without draft animals.
Wheelbarrow doesn't need draft animals.
There is no excuse for not using the wheel.
Romans didn't figure out the wheelbarrow either. Neither did the ancient Israelis.
Quote from: Siege on September 04, 2012, 07:59:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2012, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 04, 2012, 09:17:06 AM
This really comes down to definitions of "advanced", but unless those are dependant on degrees of urbanization, I think it is tough to argue for mesoamerica. Mesoamerica lacked the wheel and most animal husbandry. The writing system of Mesopotamia seems to have developed from practical applications in basic accounting, but in Mesoamerica was mostly ceremonial and not so applicable to everyday use.
Mesoamerica didn't have any convenient animals to domesticate. One can hardly penalize them for that. Not surprising they didn't use the wheel for anything other than toys without draft animals.
Wheelbarrow doesn't need draft animals.
There is no excuse for not using the wheel.
It's not clear to me that using a wheelbarrow is any better off than carrying a large load on your back. I know from reading on the goldrush Indians could carry 100lb packs up the mountains (and made quite the fortune doing so from all the cheechakos).
Didn't you learn about simple machines in school? :huh:
They would have had decent draft animals if their ancestors hadn't eaten all of them :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
I knew a lady with smallbox.
Luckily you had a small thing that fit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IA_aHsER6c
:P
Quote from: Octavian on September 05, 2012, 07:17:34 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
I knew a lady with smallbox.
Luckily you had a small thing that fit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IA_aHsER6c
:P
I didn't see any indication in his post that it worked out.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 12:30:58 AM
Didn't you learn about simple machines in school? :huh:
Yeah, and there are other considerations that would make a wheel barrow more useful, though set against the reduced cross-country performance vs backpacking a load.
Quote from: Caliga on September 04, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
:hmm:
I thought that a couple of different writing systems from the Indus civilization ARE known, but nobody has ever been able to actually decipher them?
They know they exist (or strongly suspect they do) because carved inscriptions were found on seal stones (and pot sherds and an alleged "signboard"). What they don't have are any long examples, because (presumably) they were written on perishable materials that do not survive. Hence, it is effectively impossible to decipher their language, since the examples are simply too short and probably mostly consist of proper names & titles.
It would be like attempting to decipher English if all you had of that language were people's Walmart Greeter nametags. "Hi, my name is John", "Hi, my name is Cathy", and an "Exit this way" sign. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Writing_system
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 04, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
:hmm:
I thought that a couple of different writing systems from the Indus civilization ARE known, but nobody has ever been able to actually decipher them?
They know they exist (or strongly suspect they do) because carved inscriptions were found on seal stones (and pot sherds and an alleged "signboard"). What they don't have are any long examples, because (presumably) they were written on perishable materials that do not survive. Hence, it is effectively impossible to decipher their language, since the examples are simply too short and probably mostly consist of proper names & titles.
It would be like attempting to decipher English if all you had of that language were people's Walmart Greeter nametags. "Hi, my name is John", "Hi, my name is Cathy", and an "Exit this way" sign. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Writing_system
Cheers, interesting stuff.
Amusing that the academic debate about interpreting those symbols appears to have gotten rather heated at times. :)
Quote from: mongers on September 05, 2012, 08:11:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 12:30:58 AM
Didn't you learn about simple machines in school? :huh:
Yeah, and there are other considerations that would make a wheel barrow more useful, though set against the reduced cross-country performance vs backpacking a load.
I had to memorize (and later totally forget), a bunch of equations that showed how levers and wheels require less force to move things then just picking them up.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 05, 2012, 08:11:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 12:30:58 AM
Didn't you learn about simple machines in school? :huh:
Yeah, and there are other considerations that would make a wheel barrow more useful, though set against the reduced cross-country performance vs backpacking a load.
I had to memorize (and later totally forget), a bunch of equations that showed how levers and wheels require less force to move things then just picking them up.
And google is one's friend on this won, I knew something about the Chinese using wheelbarrow, but google throw out this, to me, rather informative article:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html)
Quote from: Malthus on September 05, 2012, 08:19:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 04, 2012, 07:21:07 PM
:hmm:
I thought that a couple of different writing systems from the Indus civilization ARE known, but nobody has ever been able to actually decipher them?
They know they exist (or strongly suspect they do) because carved inscriptions were found on seal stones (and pot sherds and an alleged "signboard"). What they don't have are any long examples, because (presumably) they were written on perishable materials that do not survive. Hence, it is effectively impossible to decipher their language, since the examples are simply too short and probably mostly consist of proper names & titles.
It would be like attempting to decipher English if all you had of that language were people's Walmart Greeter nametags. "Hi, my name is John", "Hi, my name is Cathy", and an "Exit this way" sign. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Writing_system
There is a one slight possibility. If they discovered what the language the people there spoke, similar to the way they figured out how to read Mycenaean Greek, they could decipher it. This is unfortunately not very likely either.
Some kind of proto-Vedic Sanskrit is likely isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit
Quote from: Barrister on September 05, 2012, 12:16:15 AM
It's not clear to me that using a wheelbarrow is any better off than carrying a large load on your back. I know from reading on the goldrush Indians could carry 100lb packs up the mountains (and made quite the fortune doing so from all the cheechakos).
Because of the tripodal nature of the wheelbarrow, any resistance in forward movement transforms into a sideways movement unbalancing the load. You are correct in that I would much rather have carried 100 lb over that pass than tried to push it in a wheelbarrow. As for the Mesoamericans, with stone-paved roads and a large enough wheel, the wheelbarrow could have worked, but it's far from an obvious idea.
Quote from: mongers on September 05, 2012, 08:33:21 AM
And google is one's friend on this won, I knew something about the Chinese using wheelbarrow, but google throw out this, to me, rather informative article:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html)
Interesting, but somewhat confusing on two fronts...First, in this world of disappearing magazines, one called "low tech magazine" is surviving. On the internet. With articles on ancient chinese wheelbarrows.
Second, the article mentions that wheelbarrows in europe appeared in the 13th century, 2000 years after wagons. Didn't wagons appear long before that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2012, 10:16:21 AM
Some kind of proto-Vedic Sanskrit is likely isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit
Proably not. The Indus Valley Civilization was probably founded by inhabitants who pre-dated the arrival of Indo-European groups to the area.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 05, 2012, 10:16:21 AM
Some kind of proto-Vedic Sanskrit is likely isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit
It's controversial (that is, totally unknown). Likely guesses include some sort of Dravidic or Indo-European.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_language
It would not be proto-Vedic, because as dps points out, Vedic arrived with the Aryans who were non-indiginous invaders.
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Why did the Romans not build wind mills? Sometimes ideas just don't occur to people.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Why did the Romans not build wind mills? Sometimes ideas just don't occur to people.
Slave labor was plentiful and cheap enough that innovation like that wouldn't be cost effective.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 08:27:30 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 05, 2012, 08:11:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2012, 12:30:58 AM
Didn't you learn about simple machines in school? :huh:
Yeah, and there are other considerations that would make a wheel barrow more useful, though set against the reduced cross-country performance vs backpacking a load.
I had to memorize (and later totally forget), a bunch of equations that showed how levers and wheels require less force to move things then just picking them up.
Less force doesn't mean less energy in the physics sense, although human physiology can come into play.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
A culture doesn't just say "Hey look! If we put these things together they are better! Let's replace our ways and stonework with an entire new system of metalworking and smithing overnight!"
Societal and technological change throughout history didn't work this way, instead it was a long and slow (sometimes painful) process to replace one technology with another. Look at the slow adaptation of the heavy plow in the Middle Ages, for example, or the 2-field to 3-field change process during that era.
The fact that the people in Mexico knew about bronze (for instance) does not preclude that they would simple start using it right away. That is an overy simplistic argument that disregards such things as culture and society, and how they might view such things. Impetus for change, desire to change, and why they are doing things as they are in the first place often are/were the reasons for such things. Do not project the technological rate of change in the past 150 years as the human societal norm.
The Mesopotamian civilizations, for all the changes they saw, took incredibly long periods to adopt technologies, to adapt to new ways of metalworking, and to societally evolve. We are talking thousands of years, sometimes only aided by outside intervention.
Listen to the PeeDeeACHE. He is a Professor.
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
We are talking thousands of years, sometimes only aided by outside intervention.
:area52:, :pope:, or :cthulu:?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Why did the Romans not build wind mills? Sometimes ideas just don't occur to people.
Replacing a flint ax head with a bronze one is a much simpler idea than building wind mills, not really comparable.
EDIT: ^^^ PDH - Good points.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 06, 2012, 09:13:15 AM
Listen to the PeeDeeACHE. He is a Professor.
I am not a professor, I am a lecturer. I work for a living.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2012, 09:39:01 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
We are talking thousands of years, sometimes only aided by outside intervention.
:area52:, :pope:, or :cthulu:?
All three.
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
A culture doesn't just say "Hey look! If we put these things together they are better! Let's replace our ways and stonework with an entire new system of metalworking and smithing overnight!"
Societal and technological change throughout history didn't work this way, instead it was a long and slow (sometimes painful) process to replace one technology with another. Look at the slow adaptation of the heavy plow in the Middle Ages, for example, or the 2-field to 3-field change process during that era.
The fact that the people in Mexico knew about bronze (for instance) does not preclude that they would simple start using it right away. That is an overy simplistic argument that disregards such things as culture and society, and how they might view such things. Impetus for change, desire to change, and why they are doing things as they are in the first place often are/were the reasons for such things. Do not project the technological rate of change in the past 150 years as the human societal norm.
The Mesopotamian civilizations, for all the changes they saw, took incredibly long periods to adopt technologies, to adapt to new ways of metalworking, and to societally evolve. We are talking thousands of years, sometimes only aided by outside intervention.
As significantly - just how relatively
expensive was bronze to mesoamericans?
In the ancient world, we know bronze was very expensive, because supplies of accessible tin were rare. They may have been even rarer in mesoamerica.
There may be a good raeson it was used only for jewelry. A bronze axe may be better than a flint one, but that matters little if it costs as much as an axe made of solid gold!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Why did the Romans not build wind mills? Sometimes ideas just don't occur to people.
Replacing a flint ax head with a bronze one is a much simpler idea than building wind mills, not really comparable.
EDIT: ^^^ PDH - Good points.
Actually it is not. Metallurgy is difficult. It requires many prerequisite technology that I'm not sure these people had. On the other hand, Romans knew about water mills and gears. They had all the required knowledge to build them. They just didn't do it. They developed wind mills in the Middle East much later, and those guys were awash in slaves. Why did this not occur to the Romans? Who knows? Sometimes revolutionary ideas are very simple, but nobody thinks of them.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the winds in large parts of the med arent that conducive to windmills. Something about weather patterns. Could be BS I guess.
Why haven't we yet invented the ksuygctgbj? We have all the raw materials. I guess.
Quote from: Malthus on September 06, 2012, 10:45:12 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
A culture doesn't just say "Hey look! If we put these things together they are better! Let's replace our ways and stonework with an entire new system of metalworking and smithing overnight!"
Societal and technological change throughout history didn't work this way, instead it was a long and slow (sometimes painful) process to replace one technology with another. Look at the slow adaptation of the heavy plow in the Middle Ages, for example, or the 2-field to 3-field change process during that era.
The fact that the people in Mexico knew about bronze (for instance) does not preclude that they would simple start using it right away. That is an overy simplistic argument that disregards such things as culture and society, and how they might view such things. Impetus for change, desire to change, and why they are doing things as they are in the first place often are/were the reasons for such things. Do not project the technological rate of change in the past 150 years as the human societal norm.
The Mesopotamian civilizations, for all the changes they saw, took incredibly long periods to adopt technologies, to adapt to new ways of metalworking, and to societally evolve. We are talking thousands of years, sometimes only aided by outside intervention.
As significantly - just how relatively expensive was bronze to mesoamericans?
In the ancient world, we know bronze was very expensive, because supplies of accessible tin were rare. They may have been even rarer in mesoamerica.
There may be a good raeson it was used only for jewelry. A bronze axe may be better than a flint one, but that matters little if it costs as much as an axe made of solid gold!
Yes. I believe Hittites had access to easy deposites, thus their early use of bronze. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaking of bronze.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ15vUjgqvw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ15vUjgqvw)
Are primitive windmills really that useful? I get their use when you are using them like in the Netherlands, but I would guess they lack the consistency and power to be all that great for industry.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2012, 04:26:41 PM
Are primitive windmills really that useful? I get their use when you are using them like in the Netherlands, but I would guess they lack the consistency and power to be all that great for industry.
They were primarily used for milling wheat and pumping water. In both applications I think it'd be okay if it was only working intermittently, as long as it worked enough.
You guys know PDH teaches underwater basket weaving right?
Quote from: katmai on September 06, 2012, 04:48:28 PM
You guys know PDH teaches underwater basket weaving right?
That's a base and foul slander. :mad:
He lectures on the topic of underwater macramé
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 11:20:41 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 09:58:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 06:44:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2012, 02:37:11 AM
So, were surface deposits of copper, tin, zinc and arsenic rare in Mesoamerica?
If not, why didn't they make more use copper alloys? We know they knew how to make bronze/brass, but mostly used them for decorative pieces.
Why did the Romans not build wind mills? Sometimes ideas just don't occur to people.
Replacing a flint ax head with a bronze one is a much simpler idea than building wind mills, not really comparable.
EDIT: ^^^ PDH - Good points.
Actually it is not. Metallurgy is difficult. It requires many prerequisite technology that I'm not sure these people had.
They knew how to make bronze. Making a bronze ax head would be simpler than many of the things they did make.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 06, 2012, 12:34:56 PMYes. I believe Hittites had access to easy deposites, thus their early use of bronze. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancient_times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_mining
Quote from: katmai on September 06, 2012, 04:48:28 PM
You guys know PDH teaches underwater basket weaving right?
Foul slander! I am a worthy adjunct now, teaching Western Civ I and II.
I still have to do real work, but I get to flunk 120 students each semester.
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2012, 05:48:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 06, 2012, 04:48:28 PM
You guys know PDH teaches underwater basket weaving right?
Foul slander! I am a worthy adjunct now, teaching Western Civ I and II.
I still have to do real work, but I get to flunk 120 students each semester.
out of 125 students? :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2012, 04:26:41 PM
Are primitive windmills really that useful? I get their use when you are using them like in the Netherlands, but I would guess they lack the consistency and power to be all that great for industry.
They have windmills in Italy now, so they must be of some use. Besides, the Romans ended up owning the Netherlands.
So, wasn't there a Copper Age before the Bronze Age?
Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
So, wasn't there a Copper Age before the Bronze Age?
No, copper is inferior to stone for almost all tool using purposes. Copper is soft and highly malleable and has a relatively low melting point. That's why it is used in your anti tank explosives, easy to shape and melts quickly enough to be a high temp fluid when it penetrates armor.
Quote from: Viking on September 06, 2012, 07:14:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
So, wasn't there a Copper Age before the Bronze Age?
No, copper is inferior to stone for almost all tool using purposes. Copper is soft and highly malleable and has a relatively low melting point. That's why it is used in your anti tank explosives, easy to shape and melts quickly enough to be a high temp fluid when it penetrates armor.
Well there was usually a transitional period where people started smelting copper for jewelry and such before they learned how to make bronze. Copper axes were common as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic
Don't listen to Viking. Metal is much more versatile and less fragile then stone. Even a fairly soft metal like Copper.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Don't listen to Viking. Metal is much more versatile and less fragile then stone. Even a fairly soft metal like Copper.
and a lot less time consuming than making stone tools. Once you figure out how to smelt, that is.
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 08:11:06 AM
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
I saw the Iceman in Bolzano. :punk:
It was a cool little museum.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 08:11:06 AM
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
I saw the Iceman in Bolzano. :punk:
It was a cool little museum.
:envy:
I'd love to go there. Someday, I will.
I know we've had threads on him before, but the fact that he was murdered creates a whole new level of interest - the ultimate "cold case" as it were! :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 08:11:06 AM
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
I saw the Iceman in Bolzano. :punk:
It was a cool little museum.
:envy:
I'd love to go there. Someday, I will.
It was pretty much by accident. We had landed in Frankfurt, were going to Cortina the next day, and booked a hotel that was just across the Italian border, in what turned out to be the small town of Vilpiano, Italy, just to the north of Bolzano. We pretty much had the day free, so we wandered around and found the museum. The showpiece was the iceman and all his artifacts, of course, but they had frozen / mummified bodies of all sorts of things.
Also a cool little region of Italy that would be fun to spend more time in. It had been part of Austria till WWI I think, and the german influence was very strong.
Looks cool
http://www.iceman.it/en/node/277
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 08:11:06 AM
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
I saw the Iceman in Bolzano. :punk:
It was a cool little museum.
They completely redid it a year or two ago, based on the latest research. There was an interesting article in a magazine.
Quote from: Barrister on September 07, 2012, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 07, 2012, 08:11:06 AM
A famous "copper age" find was the body of Otzi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
He was carrying a flint knife ... and a copper axe.
I saw the Iceman in Bolzano. :punk:
It was a cool little museum.
I thought the Crown was above this shit?
Tomb of a powerful Mayan queen was just discovered. :cool:
http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/10/tomb-of-maya-queen-kabel-discovered-in-guatemala/