5 8

This may not be news to American members, but it should be interesting to the rest of us, Did America have a Bronze Age.

By Fernapple8
Actions Follow Post Like
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Such "Ages" have more to do with archaeological taxonomy than socially emically recognisable shifts in behaviours or social structure. Fact is people of any age do not know they are part of "an age". It was possibly Vere Gordon Childe that was responsible for this emphasis on economic materialism. And most Americans would be horrified to find they were so interested in Marxism.
Picking up on some of the comments below. It betrays a false understanding of progressionism to suggest that an age was "skipped", since there is not necessary sequence from stone to bronze to iron. Such a sequence is firmly based on the particularities of European, especially peri-Mediterranean metal technological development . For some areas show a distinct chalcolithic period, whilst others do not. Ancient writers also talk about a gold and silver age too. But there would be nothing of necessity that would prevent a "jump" from stone to steel, depending on the circumstances.

Source:

Six years an archaeologist

chazwin Level 6 Apr 5, 2019

Yes that is very true, though as I read it, it is the main issue which the video attempts to address. One of the reasons that the idea of ages, is so deeply rooted in education and popular culture, is of course because, the ages idea, dates right back into the nineteenth century, (If you disregard the classical ages of the ancient Greek Roman world ) when the understanding of history was in its infancy, and people were just begining to grope their way through the mists using the evidence of early archaeology, to try and find some structure in the past. Structure perhaps being a nineteenth century obsession, and much of modern scientific history has been about adding nuance to that and exploring how messy history really is, which I find endlessly fascinating.

And of course, education tends to reflect the historical narrative of discovery, to use as its structure for teaching children, so that for many people who never progress very far into the sciences, that early schooling becomes their framework for understanding. That may not be a good thing for the popular understanding of history, but in biology in many countries it has proved disastrous, with many people being schooled in plant classification and anatomy (early developments ), yet never reaching evolutionary theory, which was usually only taught to advanced classes, yet which is of course at the core of the subject, and the main source of even begining to understanding it at all. And sadly I am sure that the churches had a hand in making sure the teaching was framed that way.

Thank you for your comment and hope I have not gone on too long, but I find the history of science itself a very interesting subject.

1

Interesting video. Always enjoy learning about societal shifts.

MisterBart Level 4 Mar 9, 2019
1

American Indians never got beyond making things out of copper. If they had been given a few hundred years' respite from European colonization, they might have begun making bronze.

davknight Level 7 Mar 9, 2019

History is cruel, and always writen by the winners.

2

Well, the narrator was barking up the wrong tree when he stated that Australia did NOT have copper or tin.
100% WRONG, we have large deposits of both BUT the Australian Aboriginals never truly advanced beyond the level/point of being stone age based, seasonal nomadic tribes/clans, THAT is why, mainly, there was no historical period of the Bronze Age in Australia.

Triphid Level 8 Mar 9, 2019

Yes, he also I felt failed to spot the point when talking about the Americas and saying that they "preffered" silver and gold, that the same thing appied in the old world at the begining of the bronze age. And that the Americas perhaps just did not have time to make it beyond the early stages. He did that possibly to sell the idea of Bronze Age, rather than just the begining of a Bronze Age, which is spinning it a bit.

Not 100% wrong. He simply said "they couldn't get it" - so Australia skipped that age. Pretty reasonable, logical, and accurate.

@Robecology But the Natives could get at it and they did use it except they used it and ochres for paints instead of smelting it into utensils and weapons.

@Triphid Evidence? Links? facts please?

@Robecology Would you like to help the expenses of me going all over Australia photographing EVERY sacred site, every piece of rock painting, interviewing EVERY Elder of EVERY Tribe and Clan or, as one who not only has Australian Native Genetic Heritage and has been recognized by a number of tribes/clans as an Elder, would you prefer to take my word for it?

@Triphid I have no idea what travels you've been on.

Simple evidence, documentation, pictures, would suffice.

I'm glad you allegedly have evidence that the ancients of Australia had a "bronze" age...now be a big boy scientist and show us that evidence.

@Robecology Firstly, define 'bronze age' as in relation to the lifestyles of the Australian Native Peoples please.
Since my earlier reply/comment was that they knew of and utilized copper and tin deposits found in Australia NOT as means for smelting into tools/artifacts BUT as tints just as they did with earth based ochres in their tribal art, etc.

2

What an interesting thought. Nice link, thx smile001.gif

ipdg77 Level 8 Mar 9, 2019
Write Comment