There was no Mayan empire. The Mayas were divided among city-states.

It's the problem of using an skewed system to make Europe the advanced civilization.

I read once that the first sign of civilization wasn't a weapon. It was a cured broken femur because that means someone took care of the person with the broken leg. So maybe that should be the guide to follow: medicine and healthcare.

The great Hopewell road and the earthworks videos that Milo Rossi did were absolutely wild, I knew they had magnificent knowledge of astronomy (I can only ever dream of how good their night sky looked, living out on forested plains) but seeing the precision of the earthworks is insane

If iron is the thing that rules the advancement of a culture, sub-Saharian culture were more advanced that European ones. They used iron when Europe was still using copper.

Where I live there are only two opinions about USA:

  1. USA is shiny utopia where everyone is rich, and no hardship can be found.

  2. USA is a dumpster fire no different from Russia or China.

American natives are just a funky idea from fantasy land for both sides.

What's "a dumpster fire" about China?

Their treatment of protestors or anyone deemed 'dissident'

Good solar and renewable energy policies though (and fastest developing fusion reactor experiments on the planet)

They didn't have large work animals.

That's the main thing I'm pretty sure.

It's interesting reading Cabeza de Vaca's account of living in Texas for a decade. All the natives living on the Texas coast weren't even hunter-gatherers. They were just gatherers and lived in lean-tos. Meanwhile, 1000 miles south of them was Tenochtitlan, and a bunch of other cities that Bernal Castillo described as grander than those in Europe.

Overwhelming percentage of your modern diet is due to precolumbian agricultural science.

Indigenous Australians didn't farm animals by building a fence and bringing the animals food. That's too inefficient.

Indigenous Australians farmed animals by using cold fire to terraform the landscape into an ideal habitat for grazing and hunting, and then just waited for animals to show up and prosper.

Australian agriculture can't compete with European agriculture on volume, but volume wasn't the point. The point was efficiency and sustainability. Australians before colonisation were some of the least busy people in the world. They were on their way to fully automated luxury communism.

Cold fire is such a cool name. It almost sounds like the Indigenous Australians discovered fusion.

Heh, I could have just said fire, but I wanted to pique the white people's curiosity and talk about how well the First Australians have mastered fire.

cold fire

The firefighting thing? (I know it is not, but I wanted to demonstrate I did a small amount of effort to learn and would like to know more. I googled it (used in the generic way).)

If you make fire in the hot and dry season, it's much more likely to transform into a raging uncontrollable wildfire. First Australians are very careful about when they use fire for terraforming. They choose a time of year and a time of day when the risk is low, and they examine the soil to check on the microbial conditions. An Elder who's experienced in traditional practices can look at a handful of dirt and tell you how hot the fire will burn.

When they light the fire under the right conditions, the temperature is very low, as fire goes. It's easy to control. It'll burn away the fallen leaves and the scrub, but it will leave the older trees untouched. Before they light the fire, they'll warn the animals and give them a chance to retreat. The insects will climb up the trees and be safe up there. See, western domestication is about controlling animals, but in Australia, the animals have evolved over tens of thousands of years to listen to the people. The insects know when to climb the trees to get away from the fire because the people tell them.

Until recently, Indigenous people near white cities were prevented from doing their traditional burning. So the scrub grew out of control, and when a fire happened by accident because of teenagers or lightning or shards of glass, the wildfires were out of control. Still are, in some places. So in recent years, white people have started listening to the First Australians about the traditional burnings. Because they don't want their houses to burn down.

But traditional burning is about much more than just stopping wildfires. It's a tool to shape the landscape. When the European invaders first arrived here, they wrote about how the land was like a garden estate. It was paradise. Grassy plains with scattered trees providing shade and fruit for humans and animals alike. That environment isn't an accident, it was engineered to be like that. Using fire. It's what an Indigenous farm looks like.

So you can imagine how angry the Indigenous people got when the whities showed up, built fences through their farms, banned traditional burning, and let their sheep and cattle poop in the water supplies.

Might wanna read up on the Budj Bim eel farms.

Those are the massive dams down in Victoria that produced so many eels, the people could build permanent houses, right? Super cool, I learned about them from watching The First Inventors.

Permanent / semi permanent houses are actually in a few places in Victoria. Budj Bim was so massive the term "industry" has been applied. This was literally a major industry not only farming, but smoke preserving and trading eels. This was commerce. Same deal with the quarries at Mount William. Seasonal, yes, but that was because the Kulin means of resource management was to keep in motion so as not to deplete, also moving with the seasons. Pretty much base camps that would be returned to in a certain pattern, permanent buildings, but semi-permanent habitation. If that makes sense.

Yeah, except what I've heard is, the seasonal migration isn't just about managing resource depletion, it's necessary to fulfill commitments to the land. You have to come back to the same locations each year to look after them. Also, it's good to be inland and uphill when the cold season comes, so you have an easier time staying warm and not getting flooded.

Native Americans were living in the Stone Age before Europeans arrived

Yeah, but at least they were living

Also the Old Copper Culture of the Great Lakes area! The area has a lot of natural workable copper deposits that are pure enough to be shaped with campfire level heat and stone, not requiring the intensive smelting techniques that were required for metalworking in much of the rest of the metalworking world.

NORTH 02 on YouTube has some great videos about the metallurgy of the pre-Columbian Americas; I literally just watched the one on the Old Copper Culture today, and have his video on the larger metallurgical traditions of the Americas saved to watch.

The Old Copper Culture: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0E0ueRnBLw

The Lost Metallurgy of the Ancient Americas: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tfwjM4e42cE

But I think non-bronze copper is not all that practical for tools?

They're really gorgeous too, some incredible artwork from the culture!

Even if. How does a different state of technological developement justifies colonialis, conquering and genocide?

It doesn't, unless you're a colonizing nation, then any justification will do.

There are two significant papal bulls around the time that "allowed" European nations to go and conquer the world to spread Christianity and created the Doctrine of Discovery, meaning that non-Christian civilisations were not actually civilized and should be civilized by force for their own good.

Yeah, but are the people OP is talking nowadays part of a nation currently colonizing native american peoples and do these people need a justification?

The colonisation of the 18th and 19th centuries hasn't stopped, it just gets dressed up in modern 20th/21st century finery.

Some thing that should be taught in all schools from year 1:

The difference between a descriptive and prescriptive proposition.

All of the above are true, right? They had advanced astronomy, agriculture, ceramics, economics, and systems of government while living in the Stone Age. Their tools and weapons were made of wood and stone, right? Not bronze?

As the person below mentioned, they very much had access to copper. We find quite a lot of copper artworks. We find surprisingly few copper tools. This makes sense. Pure copper kinda blows for tool making. Stone is harder and easier to get. And the problem lies with the purity. Other civilizations had to accidentally discover early metalworking and eventually stumbled upon bronze, being more durable than anything else at the time. North America, up near the great lakes actually has fairly pure raw copper deposits on the surface. A theory is that it led to the native people finding a "new" type of rock, but other than being distinct looking, it proved to be kinda useless.

Fun fact: The ancient Egyptian pyramids were built with copper tools, not bronze. Bronze hadn't been invented yet; the Egyptians hadn't established the international trade required to get tin.

They found that copper with arsenic impurities was harder and held its shape better than pure copper, so arsenical copper was cast into basic chisel shape and the edges were cold hammered to work harden them into something that will just about cut limestone for awhile I guess. They also used tube drills and flat saws. They would scatter a slurry of quartz sand and water on the stone to be cut, and then they would work a flat plate of copper back and forth over the sand or rotate a hollow cylinder of copper in place to make a straight cut or drill a hole respectively. In that way they could cut material as hard as granite.

Now as a woodworking tool, even copper is vastly superior to stone in one key way: Ease of repair. You make the bit of an axe out of stone, it's considerably harder than copper, but it's brittle. It's easy to just break, and if you do that you'll never get it back to the same shape because to re-sharpen that bit means napping more of the edge away. A copper axe bit might dull easily, but it can be honed in a minute or so. It bends, rather than breaks.

"Stumbling upon" bronze requires access to tin and knowledge of forging and casting technology. Tin and copper are seldom found near each other, and even if you've got tin it needs to have occurred to you to try melting copper. If you only ever cold work copper, you're not going to figure out bronze.

Hernan Cortes landed on the Yucatan, riding a horse wearing an iron breastplate and carrying a steel sword, and found the Maya and Aztecs living in societies not dissimilar to the Old Kingdom Egyptians. A dude on foot wearing a jaguar skin swinging a wooden club studded with bits of sharp obsidian is scary. A dude on horseback with a matchlock musket and a steel saber is scarier. Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu's Memphis. That's pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.

Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu’s Memphis. That’s pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.

This bears so little resemblance to what happened that it’s essentially 1500s Spanish propaganda. Archaeological remains from first contact show mass civil uprisings of peoples who had been conquered by the Aztecs prior to Spanish contact, not OP European kill bots plowing through thousands of Native zombies. You fire that musket once and then what are you doing for the next 30 seconds while the other 5000 screaming warriors are still headed over to kill you? That’s why they had to flee Tenochtitlan until the plague they brought with them did the work for them. Even then it still took them 3 months to retake the city; pretty poor performance all things considered.

any books or whatever you'd recommend to read up the the subject?

Actually, many weapons were made from copper (and wood, but even modern firearms nowadays and military firearms up to round about the 1960s are partially made of wood).

What a weird take. Yeah they had weapons made from metal, but they also had weapons made of wood, and some metal weapons in the west are also partially made of wood, therefore native americans had modern metallurgy somehow?

Whu?

"Therefore, A WIIITCH"?

No, the exact opposite. Weapon components made of wood is not a good indicator for a civilisation's technological developement.

We are a wood age civilisation.

TIL! Thanks!

Yeah copper axes et c were rare, metal utilities and weapons weren't super common (if we're talking around the time Columbus arrived and prior).

Consider that that was roughly some 500 years ago and copper axes were considered high tech about 5000 years ago around the time of Ötzi.

Then again civilization is not defined by its technology but by the quality of life it provides its people so YMMV.

The rarity of metal utilities is depending on location though. Meso- and South America are completely different beasts compared to North America in that regard.

"They were living in the stone age before we came and enslaved them!"

I mean, it is literally the stone age for North America. Even if you want to count Chalcolithic societies in Mesoamerica as out of the stone age, most of North America is still in the neolithic at the time of European discovery. Hell, one of the core features of the neolithic stone age is agriculture and plant domestication.

I'm still in the stoned age, brah

all societies have been advancing. there are no advanced and non-advanced societies. there are only societies who have advanced differently. europeans expected when they headed out into the world to find other societies doing things the same as them. when they did not, they took this to be a failure in who they found, not in their perspective. Native Americans, Africans, and Asians who bore the brunt of European colonization had knowledge and technology the Europeans couldn't imagine. so when they encountered it they assumed the "savage brutes" were underutilizing the miraculous resources around them rather the originators and keepers of those resources.

this lack of imagination has continued to stymie a neo-colonial world's understanding of the possibilities that are available to us

The main thing that native Americans lacked that made their conquest inevitable was being able to handle European germs.

Imagine if 300 million Americans died just cause and the ones who didn’t insisted you should convert to Christianity to be saved (germ theory was not really common knowledge).

Did colonists die of “new” germs that they caught from Native Americans? You always hear about Europeans bringing diseases to the Americas, but not the other way around.

You don't hear of American plagues decimating Europe because there basically were none. Syphilis is a new world disease, but there weren't "someone coughs, you catch the disease, it either kills you or you become immune" plagues like smallpox, measles or the bubonic plague, probably for the same reason Native Americans were pretty much neolithic while Europe was industrial: They had basically no animal husbandry.

Think of every plague you know. From the black death to Covid19. They all come from animals. To make a plague, you need to have old world style densely crowded unsanitary cities full of humans living in close proximity to animals. The animals need to have a virus, something like the cow common cold, that makes the cow mildly sick so that it sneezes on other cows to make them mildly sick, Then it needs to sneeze on a human, and the virus has to make the species switch. Patient zero of cowpox. It then spreads rapidly through the densely packed city, along the old Roman roads to other cities.

This didn't happen in the New World. They didn't have densely packed cities full of humans living alongside animals. You didn't have indians wandering through fields of sheep, goats or pigs getting covered in ungulate snot. No patient zeroes. No plagues.

they had plenty of dense cities...hence the cities decimated by old world plagues...

Yeah, Europeans caught syphilis from indigenous Americans, and without any existing immunity to it there was a genuinely terrifying pandemic in Europe with worse symptoms than present-day forms of the disease (and no penicillin to treat it).

But indigenous Americans caught smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus from Europeans, so it really wasn't a fair exchange.

That's where syphilis came from?? Man, I really do learn so much from this community.

Disease requires mass concentration of people which was less common in America. They did transfer syphilis to Europe though.

Basically, and I'm generalizing but still, all those diseases that Europeans brought over to the Americas came from domesticated European animals. On the other hand there weren't really domesticated animals in the Americas (lamas but barely). So there weren't really epidemic diseases in the Americas to infect Europeans.

This one fact basically explains the entirety of the history between these two hemispheres.

Europeans had more (and more exposure to) domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are a... great way to rapidly develop and pass along new and exciting pathogens to humans.

Hunting doesn't really compare in intensity and longevity of exposure to handling (and not washing one's hands) animals for grooming and shearing, and breathing in the same stinking air as a dozen livestock through the winter, and intermittently the rest of the year.

Domesticated animals are a... great way to rapidly develop and pass along new and exciting pathogens to humans.

Especially if you cram those humans into packed cities as well, with many and varied ways of contacting eachothers bodily fluids

It’s cause of how European agriculture worked and how they essentially helped create new pathogens.

European medieval peasants were just soooo filthy

Like they are "inferior" and "undeserving" even if all in the "stone age'.

Why didn’t they develop bronze or iron?

Typically, bronzeworking follows widespread metalworking of other, non-alloy metals. While Mesoamerica had traditions of metalworking, Native cultures north of Mesoamerica typically only cold-worked unrefined ores. If you aren't purifying the shiny stones you have to begin with, the notion of combining one shiny stone with another during purification is unlikely to occur. Tin (the other primary component of bronze) is also relatively uncommon compared to copper.

Iron is fairly difficult to heat hot enough to purify from ore, which is why it's a later development than bronze in most societies.

The Inca and related cultures in South America worked bronze, while the Aztecs and other Mesoamerican cultures were just discovering it when the Europeans arrived.

Why do you suppose their metallurgy was so far behind the ‘old world’? Lack of accessible tin deposits?

Copper and tin seldom occur close together.

The Mediterranean cultures were the first to the Bronze age. Civilization along the Nile or between the Tigris and Euphrates is on easy mode; the rivers give you water and fertile soil. Huge civilizations that require things like bookkeeping and logistics arise there first, then they start trading with each other. Galleys and sailing ships emerge on the Med, again a nice tutorial level as seafaring goes on this planet. Oh also: Horses exist. The large scale long distance trade needed to produce bronze happens fairly quickly, they beat China to it by hundreds of years.

Meanwhile in the Americas, the only civilization that rivals anything like Egypt in geographic scale are the Incas, whose empire spans the Andes...and they're nicely bottled up in the Southern hemisphere by the Darian gap. We still haven't paved a road through there. You can't drive from Texas to Peru because the bottom half of the Isthmus is some serious bullshit.

For the Aztecs in Tenochtitlan (present day Mexico City) to trade with, say, the Mississippi, they'd have to walk across Texas. There was no riding; they didn't have camels or horses. You don't get significant seafaring by Native Americans, partially because no American rivers or inland seas are as suitable for it as the Nile or Med. You get long distance trade here and there...but in trinkets carried by nomadic hunters, not bulk cargo hauled by merchant sailors.

Probably the closest are the copper deposits around the Great Lakes and tin deposits in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Carrying a backpack full of tin on foot across 800 miles of Midwestern prairie is why I suppose the New World didn't have significant metallurgy.

Ideas are really arbitrary things. Civilizations can go thousands of years without stumbling onto things that seem intuitive.

The 'Old World' had the advantage of being 'better-established', so to speak, as human habitation had been in most regions longer than in the 'New World', which was largely populated after ~10,000 BCE. But beyond that, I think, it's just that some ideas tend to snowball and spread, and that the rise of early states and empires speeds up that process to an incredible degree.

It took some ~7000 years for agriculture to spread from the Middle East to Northern Europe, in the slow, sluggish spread of a vital and useful idea before the organization of large polities. And yet, from the time of the arrival of the Roman Empire as a neighbor, it took hardly 100 years for Roman ironworking techniques to become widely adopted in Germania.

Sometimes, it's just the luck of who you have as a neighbor, and the Old World had a lot of well-developed neighbors passing ideas along like STDs by the 1st millennium BCE. Like I said, it just... snowballs after a point.

Humans were farming and building shelters for tens of thousands of years before metalworking, if anything it is more of a coincidence that they were discovering it within a couple thousand years of everyone else. Or maybe not a coincidence at all, there are "pre-columbian transoceanic contact theories".

Afaik its more of a "Europeans had a massive headstart" thing. Consensus is that humans have only been in the americas for 15-20 thousand years, where europe has been populated by humans for close to 50 thousand

They may not have had fires hot enough to discover they could melt metals, or did so and just didn't get the idea of replacing their stone tools that worked pretty well already.

Precolumbian bronze artifacts were found in Meso- and South America though. Also iron artifaczs, though iron wasn't smelted and only used as naturally occuring materials.

So they were actually in the early bronze age then?

I'd rather say that we shouldn't blindly use terms made for european developement to describe other, quite unrelated civilisations.

No 'early' about it in the case of the Inca in South America, who had well-refined bronze-working.

It's incredibly frustrating to read people confidently give wrong answers on a topic you know well.

Nearly everyone here gives an answer that is kinda right but misleading, or somewhat wrong, or plain wrong.

If you desire to provide corrections in response to any of these comments, I would love to see it.

Not sarcasm, I come here to learn.

midwest.social

Rules

  1. No porn.
  2. No bigotry, hate speech.
  3. No ads / spamming.
  4. No conspiracies / QAnon / antivaxx sentiment
  5. No zionists
  6. No fascists

Chat Room

Matrix chat room: https://matrix.to/#/#midwestsociallemmy:matrix.org

Communities

Communities from our friends:

Donations

LiberaPay link: https://liberapay.com/seahorse