How come some societies just couldn't into metalworking?

File: central american metallurgy.jpg (64KB, 576x501px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 576x501px

>>302940
What's more surprising is that mesoamerica, the andine area and even central america (the less developed of the three) had metalworking. And a pretty nice one, actually.

But they just used it to make jewelry and ornaments of gold, silver, copper. I think that the andines actually even had bronze. Yet they all used stone weapons.

>>302981
Is there a lot of tin in the Americas?

File: Hopewell_culture_falcon.jpg (13KB, 380x239px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 380x239px

>>302940

The Hopewell and the Adena cultures were fine craftsmen of ores and metals before they faded into history. It was probably a very niche profession within those societies until they collapsed. Knowledge of how to gather, obtain, and create metals may have been lost during the collapse of those cultures.

>>302940
It's extremely difficult to discover that metal exists.

>>303534

Europeans, Arabs, and Asians all seemed to discover it without issue.

This is a result of IQ.

>>303571
You think they just discovered it instantly? No they fucked around in the stone age for thousands of years like everyone else.

Oh, and Africans, black Africans, had metal working too. So there goes your theory.

>>303534
No it isn't.

>>303595
Explain to me please, how primitive man discovers metal.

Bear in mind that humanity spent 90,000 years in the stone age.

>>303601
He's walking one day and sees some in a rock. Metal is naturally occurring, you know.

And the "stone age" doesn't mean that no metal existed or was used, it means that it wasn't widely processed and used in tools.

>>303624
Seeing a shinier rock than usual doesn't mean they've discovered metal and metal working. If you're taking "discovering metal" to literally meaning having your eyes pass small amounts of naturally occurring metal then you're just trying to turn this into a silly semantics debate, because we all know we're talking about discovering actual workable metal and metallurgy.

Why the hell would stone age mean metal didn't exist? It did, but in small forms, and often meteorites, but this was insignificant and very rare and not true metal working like we're discussing here.

So no it is not easy to discover metal and make the transition from stone age to metal age.

>>303635
Gold is always workable. Other metals can be found in workable nuggets on occasion too.

>>303640
I don't think they've found any worked gold from before the bronze age.

>>303571
Europeans, Arabs, and Asians also all lived on continents with animals practically begging to be domesticated, what do you have in the new world other than the Llama? Even then, that was only in South America, and the reason as to why the biggest cities in the new world were in South America.

You can't really build a complex society without animals that you can domesticate, and as a result you're not going to get to a stage to carry out metalworking.

>>303511
Fuck me if I know

>>303658
Africans had metallurgy and domesticated animals.

>>303658
Why would you need a complex society for metalworking? What do you understand as complex society? Metallurgy starts in America in an age were they were barely sedentarized.

>>303677
> Domesticated animals

Which?

>>303685
Cattle, horses, dogs

>>303685
Bovines.

>>303685
Guineafowl?
Horses?
Camels?

You people really have absolutely no education on Africa do you.

>>303681
> What do you understand as complex society?

A society in which there is at least an extent of division of labour and labour specialisation, which is regulated by laws and/or customs; and within which there is concentrated population growth.

> Why would you need a complex society for metalworking?

Well how are you going to independently develop the knowledge and the means to carry out metalworking if you're stuck at the bottom of societal development?

>>303685
>>303701
Oh and Cattle, but that goes without saying, well it should.

>>303695
> Dogs
Originated in Europe

> Horses
Originated in the Asian Steppe

> Cattle
North Africa, yes; but not past the Sahara.

>>303701
> Camels
Originated in Arabia

> Guineafowl
They were, but they're not a work animal.

>>303715
>Cattle
>North Africa, yes; but not past the Sahara.
what

>>303715
>not past the Sahara
Literally how fucking stupid are you

>>303624
>And the "stone age" doesn't mean that no metal existed or was used, it means that it wasn't widely processed and used in tools.
pfffffffffahahah, look at this guy
No anon, there wasn't any metal working during the stone age. Every time a metal working epicenter happened, it spread like wildfire (relatively speaking).

>>303715
Wait what? So fucking what if they originated somewhere else. All we said was that Africa had domesticated Animals, why are you bringing up where they were domesticated?

Which means nothing by the way, i guess it's pretty obvious you're trying to angle that they're racially inferior because they didn't domesticate X but that basically means Europeans are inferior for not domesticating horses or cattle or camels so your argument is pointless.

Africans had domesticated animals. The one they domesticated themselves, is a food, as valid as cattle, being a work animal doesn't matter.

>>303715
>North Africa, yes; but not past the Sahara.

Totally false. Can't you even use google? For the others, it doesn't matter the origin, but that they arrived. And they did.

>>303715
>Originated in Europe
lolno, central Asia
literally the only domesticated animal indigenous to Europe is the fucking rabbit

>>302940
>inb4 jared diamond
I like this. I would like to look past that lense but ya gotta give me at least one specific fault.

>>303715
>North Africa, yes; but not past the Sahara.
There is literally an agriculutral term for cattle found exclusively in Sub-Saharan Africa. "Sanga".

>>303715
You are fucking stupid. And don't forget, you are stupid.

>>303729
>i guess it's pretty obvious you're trying to angle that they're racially inferior because they didn't domesticate X but that basically means Europeans are inferior for not domesticating horses or cattle or camels so your argument is pointless.
Yeah making it a racial argument is really silly, considering Europeans didn't domesticate anything until the late middle ages.

File: ZIF093SE0003.jpg (215KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1000x665px

>not knowing about those crazy longhorns from Sudan
top pleb

>>303624
That has to be a crazily creative stone-age man to go from seeing a differently colored rock, to shaping metallic tools:
>See rock
>It's shinier/darker/whatever color than usual
>Immediately think, shit if I melt this rock and get rid of all impurities, I bet I can get a moldable material, granted I can make a furnace that can heat up to a few hundred degrees celsius, something I never actually needed because I just hit rocks together till they were in a useful shape and then used them as tools. Then maybe once I get said inferno oven, I can turn this oddly colored rock I found into a practically liquid substance, hammer it with my rocks till it forms into a tool shaped object, then wait till it cools because I apparently know before hand that rocks that turn liquid/moldable will return to being solid.
>Gee I hope I find more of this weird rock shit

>>303762
Jesus Christ I'd carry an AK if I had to herd those things too.

>>303756
I'm not making it, it's obvious he was of that persuasion in fact he said it at the start, that they didn't have metal because they were racially inferior.

>>303766
This. I mean, i didn't even know how to respond to that guy, his comment was so dumb.

You know when you just get taken aback by the stupidity.

>>303768
The AK isn't for the cows. It's for the rustlers. So are the horns.

>>303762
Why the fuck do horns grow that big and in such an angle?

At some point you'd expect the animal to go "fuck this" and collapse until the horns get smaller generation after generation

Maybe there wasn't much motivation to use metal weapons because they didn't have to worry about fucking mounted troops trampling them? IDK.

File: ZIF093SE0001.jpg (251KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1000x665px

I like this one, looks like a still from a movie or something

File: Tin-ancient-sources.svg.png (169KB, 1280x650px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1280x650px

>>303511

>>303778
The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is
merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant
animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of
hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It
eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the
special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will
be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups
of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and
therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another,
and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are
not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling
group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make
or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society
intact. The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would
probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to
exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the
Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been
replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same
if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree
to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For
in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever
from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly
permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast
majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the
inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

File: Aztec-Macuahuitl.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

The Aztec used cacuahuitls, cricket bats covered in ebony chips. Shit was sharper than any metal blade. Early metal weapons might have seemed like a downgrade.

File: inca star shaped mace head.jpg (21KB, 421x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 421x500px

>>303792
Well now we know why andeans were the only ones with bronze

>>303715
You really need to take off the /pol/vision goggles m8

>>303661
do you know and just want a fuck or genuinely dont know?

>>303792
Fuck. Was all the tin in the Middle East mined up?

>>303658
Either a high school student who just read Guns, Germs, and Steel or Jared Diamond's shilling again.

File: Cattle_of_the_Dinka_people,_Juba,_South_Sudan_-_20101230-04.jpg (2MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3872x2592px

>>303778
>>303778
They breed them to get big horns, it helps to keep them cool and they can make stuff out of them or sell them.

Pastoral Africans who live higher up generally have shorthorn cattle, since temperature isn't as much of an issue.

>>303797
No because metal weapons are way more reliable an durable.

Mesoamerica never had a native developed metallurgical tradition, they had to import it from the andes and central america.

>>303813
Did Diamond even talk about domesticated animals when explaining why sub-Saharan Africa was below the rest of Afro-Eurasia? I thought that was just an explanation for the Americas.

>>303810
You're gonna need to discover this for yourself

File: flintsword.jpg (46KB, 460x650px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 460x650px

>>303819
>No because metal weapons are way more reliable an durable.
Copper is usually, or always, the first metal discovered and used, and it's not very durable, it's soft, and needs to be constantly resharpened. Bronze is better but not hugely. If you've already got neat ass glass swords copper/bronze won't feel like its worth the effort.

Whereas in the old world these things developed when you still only had stone spears.

Unless you're the absolute madman who made this flint sword.

>>303658

You think all of the domesticated animals of the old world were just letting humans tame them willy-nilly? Wild horses are mean.

The new world has plenty of animals able to be tamed, they just needed to be properly bred for centuries.

>dogs domesticated from wolves
>cattle domesticated from bison
>ridable/pack animals from deer

If you don't believe deer could be domesticated, then check out tame reindeer in Asia.

>>303831
>Bronze is better but not hugely
>not hugely
I don't think you've ever actually used copper or bronze if you think that. Copper is a fuckton more bendy. There's a reason nobody's ever heard of the copper age and we only see it in ornamentation.

Necessity is the mother of invention, the truest response to Jared Diamond, likely a man with absolutely no conception of the "selection" factor of evolution.

Wanna know why the west is great? Because the west earned it. Wanna know why the ME is in turmoil and east Asia is lagging? Because they have a lot more maturing to do.

>>303834
Actually mesoamericans had dogs. Pretty small though.

No bisons near their lands as far as I know.

>>303819
>No because metal weapons are way more reliable an durable.
Maybe that level of durability wasn't that important to pre-Columbian American warfare. Maybe they had more then enough ebony chips to satisfy their lust for war.

I'm just thinking that shit doesn't just get invented unless there is a strong demand for it. Sufficient alternatives could have cooled the desire for metals.

Besides, mining is hard. It requires a lot of slaves. Better to just sacrifice them to Quetzalcoatl.

>>303837
Egyptians used copper for ages, they had to have constant smithies working to reshape and sharpen the edges in the quarries where stone was being cut constantly for the monuments.

Bronze is obviously better but still shit compared to iron.

>>303841
>Wanna know why the ME is in turmoil and east Asia is lagging? Because they have a lot more maturing to do.
Or because other people fucked their shit up.

File: mongol swag swag.jpg (55KB, 490x313px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 490x313px

>>303854

>>303845
I insist that we shouldn't be examining why mesoamericans didn't develop steel or just widespread metal weaponry, because mesoamerica imported metallurgy from outside.

It's the andean area where we should be looking. Those are the ones who discovered metallurgy and had more sophisticated techniques. he ones that used more kinds of metals and actually did what appear to be some tools and even weapons, not just flashy ornaments. They were the ones to discover metal smelting, as "soon" as 200 BC with the Moche culture.

>>303854
At the time that Europe transitioned from bronze to iron, their bronze was superior to the iron that they could produce. Steels have the potential to greatly exceed bronze, but it's not an inherent trait.

>>303854
You're talking about what western powers did after the ottoman empire collapsed, aren't you? Exactly what did you expect? How would you have fixed the power vacuum? Even to this day ME nations can't into democratic republic's too well.

And don't blame the west for China and Japan lagging, that shit happens when you become isolationist and they did that to themselves. As it turns out technology improves fastest with a free exchange of ideas, crazy huh?

No, the west (slowly) worked out its problems, found a few systems that work for westerners, rebuilt other nations with those ideas, learned a little more, had one last war (with an interim) and found peace. The west is a story continuously being slandered by people utterly offended by the success of others, they are cultural tall poppy syndrome.

>>303843

Well sure, not mesoamerica. There were plenty of tribes in North America though that could have utilized bison.

>>303883
The ones that managed to not be some savage nomads all died from apocalyptic plague though. And it seems that they were always underdeveloped compared to other areas to the continent.

The aztecs and other nahuatl speaking peoples were invaders from the north, not different from the germanic kings that settled into the more advanced mediterranean civilization.

>>303841
>historical determinism
please stop

>>303905
>reverse great man theory
>ie "all evil comes from westerns" theory
Sorry, who is more ridiculous?

>>303822
One of the biggest points that people make fun of is that he asserts that zebras are untamable; as it would turn out, they can and have been.

>>303834
>dogs domesticated from wolves
certainly not
>cattle domesticated from bison
not really
>ridable/pack animals from deer
not even sure what you're on

No anon, domesticating a species require a certain animal psychology there to begin with.
You don't domesticate a species by taming them for a long time. Case in points: elephants.
Also it's cheap to say "hurr just try harder and do more selection!", but you're not gonna do any selection with a species that doesn't reproduce in captivity.

>>303922
>he asserts that zebras are untamable
You sure about that? I'm pretty sure the point is about zebras not being domesticable.

>>303922
So are bison, but that doesn't make it easy.

>>303571
No its the result of copper just lying around on the ground in the fertile crecent and Greece

>>303928
If you tame enough of something long enough you domesticate it.

The point is moot as it is of little more than semantics. Diamond asserts that the Zebra is unfit for use as livestock. This is patently not the case. If wild zebra can be tamed, they can be domesticated. While there are obviously going to be issues with this, Mesopotamians domesticated warthogs and aurochs. Proto-Indo-Europeans domesticated horses. The Chinese domesticated silk moths. Early humans domesticated wolves. Central and South Americans domesticated all sorts of llamas and alpacas. The Russians set the pathway for domestication of foxes.

Domesticating temperamental or downright unruly animals is by no means a great feat when given enough time. Obviously Rothschild couldn't domesticate his zebras in a life time, he did not have the thousands of years to do the process. But African in some form or another did.

>>303958
>If you tame enough of something long enough you domesticate it.
Wrong.
You're wrong.
Please stop saying things that are wrong.
see >>303927

>the zebra meme again

>>303964
Yes, because wolves, aurochs, wild horses, warthogs, and silk moths had the "right temperament". It's not that 16,000-45,000 years were spent breeding them to our needs.

>>303983
dogs are not descended from wolves, please stop

>>303958
Domesticating cattle makes sense because they are a great source of meat, but why were horses domesticated? Did the first Mongolians hunt horses?

Also weren't sub-Saharan Africans mostly pastoralists? What animals did they "pastoralize"?

>>303991
>dogs are not descended from wolves
Yes, they are descended from koalas.

>>304002
They are descended from another canis species, you're pretty late.

>>303991
Yes, they are. There is a wealth of genetic analysis of both mitochrondrial and cellular DNA that shows a close relationship between dogs and wolves.

>>304014
Anon, the genetic sequencing showed they are closer to their ancestor species than they are to wolves.

>>303797
they were designed to maim and wound, not to kill

File: tumblr_inline_nveurqkHhk1rad5gy_500.jpg (44KB, 460x307px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x307px

>>304023
>Implying Aztecs would use 5.56

>>303927

>certainly not
So yellow labs evolved naturally?
>not really
Tell me why a bull or buffalo could be domesticated but a bison could not be.
>not even sure what you're on
So Mongolians can ride and milk reindeer but a mule deer is out of the question?
Not to mention the Inuit peoples would have had access to reindeer.

>>304023
So? If someone is maimed and wounded they're already out of the fight, no point in killing them.
In fact, from an Aztec point of view it was probably better to not kill them so that you can sacrifice theme later.

File: civilization-caption-Montezuma-war.png (111KB, 368x432px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 368x432px

>>304023
For sacrifices for Quetzalcoatl?

Because their way of life was different. There was no agricultural revolution so the wars were organized or in mass-scales so there were no need for amazing new weaponry. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

>>304001
Mongols used horses for milk (in fact they greatly preferred female horses because of this; their horse could carry them to war and feed them in times of need)

>>304031
>So yellow labs evolved naturally?
Yes, kind of. Modern day dogs are not descended from wolves, they are descended from ancient dogs who shared a common ancestor with wolves, naturally and not via human selection.
>Tell me why a bull or buffalo could be domesticated but a bison could not be.
Buffalo are passive animals by nature, a Bison is the exact opposite.
>So Mongolians can ride and milk reindeer but a mule deer is out of the question?
>Not to mention the Inuit peoples would have had access to reindeer.
Reindeer aren't fully domesticated even today.

>>304053
So yeah, they probably hunted them for food initially.

File: 98952473.jpg (174KB, 467x365px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 467x365px

>>304001
Horses were first domesticated for pulling shit. It was a big, somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) docile animal. Horse riding didn't come till much later, as you can see by the Egyptian Charioteers who dominated the battlefield in the early periods.

pic somewhat related. In this relief you can see either the artist sucks or they really had no idea how to ride horses effectively and that was reflected in their art. He's sitting way too far back.

File: auroch.jpg (165KB, 900x579px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 900x579px

>>303658
>animals practically begging to be domesticated
The Auroch disagrees

>>304066
>Horses were first domesticated for pulling shit
I doubt that. You don't keep a wild animal around to pull shit. You keep them around for food.

>>304074
Domesticated animals have more than one use, anon.

Didn't it take Eurasia 5000 years after the agricultural revolution to figure out bronze?
Nuff said.

>>304079
Hunter gatherers didn't know that.

>>303983
They did.
Elephants have been tamed for a very long time now, and they show no sign of domestication whatsoever.
Also, how long had circus artists been taming lions and bears? If they could domesticate them, it would certainly make things easier for them, unfortunately it just doesn't happen.

>>304034
>Sacrifice
>to one of the few gods they didn't sacrifice to

>>304105
hunter gatherers didn't domesticate horses early farmers did

>>304119
I just like saying Quetzalcoatl.

>>304121
There were no farms in Mongolia.

>>304105
People weren't stupid even back then, anon. They looked at horses and saw not only a source of food (horse meat is very tasty too), but also a potential source of labour.

Keep in mind that these people already had cattle, the idea of using animals for work isn't completely foreign.

>>304125
I was personally wondering if horseback riding reached Mongolia around the same time horses did. I've heard it said that horseback riding likely originated somewhere in the hungarian steppe.

>>304122
Well too bad. Say Huitzilopochtli instead.

File: CNAf0348Elephant2.jpg (103KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 720x576px

>>303927
>elephants
m8 India domesticated them a long time ago

>>303852
>shit compared to iron

Pro-tip: RuneScape is not a reliable source for knowledge on metallurgy.

>>304125
Horses weren't domesticated in Mongolia, they were domesticated somewhere around Kazakhstan, maybe even as far west as Crimea.

>>304141
Indian elephants are not domesticated, merely tamed. Almost all the animals are captured from the wild and then tamed, because breeding elephants in captivity is extremely hard, both because of long gestation period but also because elephants just don't seem to want to fuck with people around.

>>304126
>People weren't stupid even back then, anon
It's not a matter of intelligence. I'ts a matter of hindsight. It's a wild animal that will sooner kick you in the face than look at you. The idea that it would pull shit you want it to pull is retarded... unless you've already know it happens.

If humans just immediately could peace together shit like domestication without any prior knowledge of the topic then it wouldn't have taken two hundred fucking thousand years to figure out agriculture. Ya feel me?

>>304139
I can't pronounce that.

>>304158
Like I said, they already had cattle. Using animals for labour wasn't a novel idea.

>>304141
no they didn't

>>304162
Hweet
zeel
oh
poked
lee

File: Wapiti.png (61KB, 1255x625px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1255x625px

if people could domesticate the auroch and the caribou, why couldn't we do an Elk?

>>304146
Horses were native to steppes. There were no farms on the steppes. Wild horses were caught for hankerings, not harnesses.

>>303792
Why is there no tin in the middle east?

>>304166
I think there were people on the steppes before any animal was domesticated anywhere.

>>304093
the americas were discovered recently, not invented recently.

>>304190
Maybe the greedy humans mind up all the prime deposits?

>>304180
Elk can jump?

>>303715
t. Reddit

File: IMG_3511.jpg (104KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x768px

>>303571
African peoples made extensive use of metal. Aren't they lower on your totem pole?

File: civilization-screenshot-babylon-chicken_pizza-01.jpg (194KB, 1443x900px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1443x900px

>>304175
For sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli.

>>304206
so can caribou

>>304222
Also rabbits.

>>304225
okay, this is our /his/tory homework
We domesticate the Elk

>>304198
It says "ancient sources" however, it would seem it was still be a bit of time before the bronze age collapse.

>>303739

What about sheep?
Goats?

>>304217
Quet-zali-coa-til
Hui-zee-la-poch-li
Shi-lam Ba-lam
Why do I love pronouncing these names? It's like a tonguegasm, maybe it's because I'm hispanic.

>>304248
>Other minor sources of tin have been suggested in Iran, Syria, and Egypt, but the archaeological evidence is inconclusive.
I guess it was aliens.

>>304265
Aztec words are real fun. I like Tenochtitlan too.

>>304259
Both middle east.
Sheeps in Mesopotamia and goats in the Zagros mountains.
Europe wasn't really cutting edge in the neolithic.

>>303739
Aurochs are Eurasian. They existed in Europe and were domesticated twice. Once for European cattle and the other for Zebu cattle in India.

File: neolithic-Europe.jpg (39KB, 468x286px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 468x286px

>>304295
We wuz kings.

>>302940
Indigenous Americans did develop metalworking.

>>303883
Many breeds of bison make for poor domestication.

>>303571
Bye /pol/

>>304311
Fucking barbaric snow niggers.

>>304265
>dropping the t from Huitzilopochtli
>adding extra i to Quetzalcoatl
>both twice
I don't know why you like it, and I'm not sure you've ever actually done so.

>>303715
Hooooly shit

What is it about Africa that makes complete idiots think they're experts?

>>304325
Actually, the t is pretty much silent if the i is hard enough, guess you just don't have any aztec blood like I do.

>>304382
>pretty much
But not actually. De-emphasized and silent aren't the same thing.

So, uh, this apparent lack of tin around the fertile crescent has really got me perplexed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancient_times

>>303852
>Bronze is obviously better but still shit compared to iron.
bronze is technically "better" than iron at certain carbon contents
iron is more durable but bronze ends up attaining a better edge and hardness than iron does, but again that depends on the carbon content of the iron

>>304456
Bronze is easier to keep sharp too, regardless of carbon content. Just some heat and a hammer and you can make it as good as new.

>>302940
It's harder for nomads to develop metal smelting, which requires a semi permanent location in which to set up a smelter and shit.

Huns and Mongols had notoriously shit metal until they set up/conquered proper cities.

>>304531
Technically you could smelt with clay or sand. I think the only thing you really need to stick around in one place for is the actual mining.

>>303891
>northern invaders
I want saurce.

File: Aztlan_codex_boturini.jpg (379KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 800x800px

>>304571
Where do you think aztlan refers to?

>>304587
I am off to read codexes.

All the Indian myths I am familiar with have reverse-migration from the south.

>>304571
what I remember from history class is that mexicas came from the north as "pilgrims", when they arrived to the valley of mexico they settle on the lake and ganged up with other tribes against the dominant tribe and replaced them

File: Sorraia.jpg (140KB, 1169x395px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1169x395px

>>304181
Horses are natives of a lot of parts of the world, from America until they were exterminated, and from Europe to Siberia. Heck, in Spain you have the Sorraya (it's named sometimes Zebro) breed than some still have the primitive zebra marks.

>>304600
Nah, the Aztecs say in they chronicles than they were originally from the North, a times of much sodomy and ignorance, then they tried to establish themselves in Meso-America and had a hard one with the Tepanecs, copy-cating a lot of them and even marrying with they royal families to get legitimace. Then they started as mercs, and later one made the city of Tenochtitlan, and only in the 15th century they started to expand so much (after teh Tepanecs were in a long decadence).

>>303891
That's fucking bluepilled bullshit. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Mesopotamians *were* germanic Aryans.

>>305044
The Greeks and Romans weren't, they were races that no longer exist. The mesopotamians weren't germanic, and they're just as aryan now as they used to be.

>>305044
>Germanic.
They wer Indo-European, but that doesn't mean they were Germanics.

>>305044
>Historical revisionism

Truly you are as bad as Afro-centrics

>>305065
>Germanics don't exist
Stop being such a retard. Holy shit.
>>305069
They were germanic because they were, look at any art and you'll see they were white skinned and white raced. Don't believe everything you read in your books mate.

>>305077
"germanic" doesn't mean "white". Germanics are a specific white race.

>>305081
They were still germanic. Look at the haplogroups.

>>305084
Haplogroups have nothing to do with it. Do you even know what a germanic is?

>>305084
"White" Germanics are mainly I-1 or I-2, the Germanic culture tough is part of the invasive steppe people than were the R1, Helladic Greeks were an admixture of I2, E1b1b, T and G2a, the Helladic were the Pre-Minoan people than habitated ancient Greece, the Minoans themselves were J-2, with some E1b1b, while the conquering Myceneans were Mainly R1b and R1a (they mixed heavily with the what will become the Thracians than were mainly I2), while the later Dorians were another r1b wave (some people believe them to be part of the Sea People). The Romans were another heavily R1b people, while the other Italians were a mix of pre-invasion I2a1a, G2a and E1b1b and invasive R1b with a sizable minority of G2a3b1 and J2b2 lineages.
Tl:DR. My autism is stronger than yours, than is be the way very wrong.

>>303658
>CGP Grey/Jared Diamond shill

>>304142
>RuneScape is not a reliable source for knowledge on metallurgy.
Fuck off it got me through year 8 Chemistry class.

>>305344
Dorf Fortress is better for that.

>>303658
Yeah bro cave bears and wolves were soooo cute and cuddly!

It's because a society that evolves where winter is present has to be more crafty. The stupid die and those with the capacity to plan ahead and have a certain degree of inventiveness survive and breed.

It's a matter of evolution. Some subspecies got stuck on the evolutionary ladder because it was too easy for them to survive and breed. Take Africans, Africa was a food forest when Europe and Asia were frozen over in the ice age struggling to survive in barren icelands. All they did was wake up, eat, and fuck while people up north worked their asses off hunting and tinkering with things to better their weapons and thus their odds of survival.

>>305463
Nice oversimplification.

Africa might not have winter but it has heat, less water, and a lot more dangerous animals. It's not some garden of Eden, it's not a particularly fertile place.

>>305033
Who's north?

>>305471
It WAS very temperate when the northern lands were frozen over and barren. This evolution happened in the past, during the WAS, we're obviously not talking about yesterday.

>>305536
Temperate doesn't mean fertile.

>>305540
Are you really resorting to hair splitting semantics or are you just trying to get the last word?

>>302981
What you are refering as Central America, is actually the Interamerican cultural area (CR+Panama+Colombia and a few other regions).

>>305720
It didn't seem like mere semantics to me. Just because something is temperate doesn't mean you can grow anything of use there. Nothing really grew in Sub-Saharan Africa until corn and potatoes were introduced.

>>304301
Ok, but both domestications happened outside Europe. One in the middle east and one in India.

>>303624

I read some entry level economic history book, which said that flint and copper are occasionally found on the same rock. Since flint cracks more easily if it's heated, metalworking probably began when someone wanted flintstone for an arrowhead, melted some copper by accident and discovered that the shit is actually pretty sturdy when it cools off.
Since Ur (or another major Sumerian city, can't recall for sure) had neither suitable stone nor metal for tools in it's vicinity, the materials had to be imported and this favored the use of metal (namely copper), since you could melt and reshape you shit if it broke. This effectively gave the economic incentive to develop metalworking.

>>303797
Try using that to hit metal armor.

>>306970
I once put a cricket bat through a metal garage door, and it broke through like it was nothing, and that was an accident. Metal ain't that strong.

File: 1441414313196.jpg (309KB, 822x796px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 822x796px

>>306970
Anon, we are pre-Columbian Aztecs. No one has metal armor.

>>307009
your cheap garage door aint strong,

>>303831
Mother
Fucking
Flint
Sword

>>307399
Did it have a wooden backing?

>>303852
>Bronze is obviously better but still shit compared to iron.
no it's not. only real advantage with iron is that it's far more common material than tin+bronze. either you meant carbon steel or you're just retard who hasn't any idea what you're talking about.

>>307627

Don't you also need a hotter forge to smelt iron?

>>307648
yeah, you can BTW also just re-cast bronze weapon/tool even into it's original mold if it breaks or dulls too much, but when iron sword breaks, it's broken and stays broken.