Is metallurgy the most important sign of civilization development of the pre-industrial era?

Is metallurgy the most important sign of civilization development of the pre-industrial era?

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Urban planning. The only reason Europeans don't like this is because of the dark ages.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you can easily quantify the sophistication of metal tools for a civilization. doing that for "urban planning" would be arbitrary at best. are you gonna claim that american cities are better than european cities because they have more neat box designs ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >doing that for "urban planning" would be arbitrary at best.
        Anon, really?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mexico had Teotihuacan in 500AD, before the region had any metallurgy, and it was in the top 15 to 10 largest cities in the world by both population (~100,000 people) and especially physical area (~20 sqkm urban grid, total 37 sqkm if you include suburbs), and with exceptionally good living conditions, most of the inhabitants lived in what were basically palace or villa compounds with dozens of rooms, big open air courtyards, painted murals, etc.

        El Mirador and a few others might have been in the top 20 to top 15 range too before metallurgy pops up.

        You can have advanced metallurgy without civilization. There have been rural and nomadic groups with superior metallurgy to far more advanced civilizations. Ruralchads dgaf.

        >The only reason
        It's not the only reason. Urbanism was universally disgusting until about 1840 with rare exception, Hellenic and Roman civilization among those exceptions.

        I don't know a lot about Roman urbanism, but weren't peopled stuffed into super cramped apartments?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you can easily quantify the sophistication of metal tools for a civilization. doing that for "urban planning" would be arbitrary at best. are you gonna claim that american cities are better than european cities because they have more neat box designs ?

          and an aerial 3d reconstruction

          Keep in mind only key landmarks, and the villa compounds within a row or two of the central avenue of the dead are 1:1 with the city map as seen at the bottom of , the other villas are sort of arranged randomly, though still in a way which looks about right at a glance. The render also lacks the canalized rivers that were recoursed through the city's grid layout and gets a few other things off, but it's mostly pretty good

          It also needs to be stressed here just how big each villa compound/building here is: They look small in full city maps and overhead views like this, but each one, again, had dozens of rooms and are quite likely bigger then your own home even if you live in a full house with a yard and shit. The actual "small" houses, with only 1-3 rooms and typical for ancient and medieval commoners, peasants, etc, are so small they only take up like 1-2 pixels in the map in and you can only see them if you zoom way the frick in around the less dense suburbs: Again, most of the city was a giant grid of big palaces/villas

          If this sounds sort of nuts, it is, but to be fair this is extremely unusual even by Mesoamerican standards: Most Mesoamerican cities didn't have a grid around a central road, but rather temples and palaces arranged around open plazas to align ritualistically and for communal activities/viewing, and then suburbs of smaller commoner homes radiating out with gradual decreasing density over a wider area (vs Teotihuacan here were that urban core is, again, a giant ass grid and the suburbs are comparatively smaller then the core is), this: https://arch-img.b4k.co/v/1579575084818.png is an example of that, though the core should probably be a bit bigger and the suburbs a bit less dense, but obviously it depends on the city, town, etc. (and this would be a larger, tho not frickhuge city, not merely a town or a village)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Litetally starved from a single frost

          Not very "advanced", my Spanish friend.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >weren't peopled stuffed into super cramped apartments?
          It depends on your definition of cramped. People didn't all have separate bedrooms the way most people do these days, but in terms of actual floor space they were quite large by modern standards. Also people tended to spend less time at home back then.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >sqkm urban grid, total 37 sqkm if you include suburbs), and with exceptionally good living conditions
          For those who weren't boiled and eaten off the floor. Aztecs were cannibal pajeets essentially.

          [...]

          True but no cities or hints of civilization in their original part of the world until the Viking Age. OP is full of shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >True but no cities or hints of civilization in their original part of the world until the Viking Age
            What? We literally have massive cities spanning acres from Ireland all the way to the Baltics that were present since the bronze age and possibly beforehand. Manching, Heunburg are two of the most famous for the Germanics and are semi-reconstructed so you can actually see what they looked like.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can have advanced metallurgy without civilization. There have been rural and nomadic groups with superior metallurgy to far more advanced civilizations. Ruralchads dgaf.

      >The only reason
      It's not the only reason. Urbanism was universally disgusting until about 1840 with rare exception, Hellenic and Roman civilization among those exceptions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes.

      Europeans had the biggest neolithic cities. Oops!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How do we even know if there weren't large cities and civilizations before metal and stone buildings?

      People figured out tents, mud huts and wooden houses before building stone houese. There probably were already cities made of wooden buildings and tents long before the famous ones like Catal Huyuk and Uruk, we just cannot find them because wood decomposes and leaves no archeological records.

      European explorers reported massive Native American settlements built from wood, so we have a precedent of civilizations without metal tools building non-stone cities.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We dont even know how big Ancient European cities were because modern European cities were built on top of them, but it's proven that the oldest continuously inhabited cities on Earth are all in Europe.

        It is easy to study the ruins of dead civilizations like Sumeria and Mayan civs precisely because they are dead ruins and nothing valuable was built on top of them.

        This is why metallurgical technology is a superior estimate of development. It is also clear that steel beats bronze beats ceramics and stone age bows. Therefore we have an objective and scientific measure of superioty.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are completely historically illiterate. Stop posting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Everything in that post is 100% factually correct.

            I am a professional historian.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We dont even know how big Ancient European cities were because modern European cities were built on top of them, but it's proven that the oldest continuously inhabited cities on Earth are all in Europe.

            It is easy to study the ruins of dead civilizations like Sumeria and Mayan civs precisely because they are dead ruins and nothing valuable was built on top of them.

            This is why metallurgical technology is a superior estimate of development. It is also clear that steel beats bronze beats ceramics and stone age bows. Therefore we have an objective and scientific measure of superioty.

            You are completely historically illiterate. Stop posting

            I think those are really good points.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's more like there wasn't even one correct thing in the post

            >We dont even know how big Ancient European cities were
            Is false
            >but it's proven that the oldest continuously inhabited cities on Earth are all in Europe
            Is false
            >It is easy to study the ruins of dead civilizations like Sumeria
            Is false
            >This is why metallurgical technology is a superior estimate of development
            Is false
            >Therefore we have an objective and scientific measure of superioty
            Is false

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Source: my brown ass!

            Here is a page that instantly proves the entire post:
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities

            You may proceed to cope now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm whiter than you, mutt. Even if we accept that Europe has the oldest continuously inhabited city, how does it prove any of the other points in the post, you dumbass lmao. Also, Jericho is considered continuously inhabited since pretty much the beginning of the Holocene

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even if we accept that Europe has the oldest continuously inhabited city, how does it prove any of the other points in the post, you dumbass lmao.
            >"I saw the evidence that you were right and my hecking old brown civ memes turned out to be bullshit, but now let me move the goal posts to show off my YouTube expertise! D-did you know know about Jericho tho! Surely I'm the only one who listens to le epic Semetic tales about j-Jericho!"

            As for the other points, everyone working in history, archaeology or the fricking bricklayers in the building industry is aware of this. Do you really want me to go fetch you articles about how difficult building permits are because of how much shit is buried in Europe? Or can you apply some critical thinking and realise that maybe trying to dig under an 800 year old 100+m tall Cathedral which has service every Sunday is a little more difficult than sweeping sand off an uninhabited desert ruin?

            Metallurgical artifacts being an objective scientific measure is also trivial: we are able to literally measure advancement by quantitaive quality of material properties such as tensile strength of the composition, brittleness, the number of artifacts found etc.

            Tensile strength is the perfect example of an objective number e.g. annealled 304 steel is superior to wrought iron > normal iron > bronze > cast iron > pure copper etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>"I saw the evidence that you were right and my hecking old brown civ memes turned out to be bullshit, but now let me move the goal posts to show off my YouTube expertise! D-did you know know about Jericho tho! Surely I'm the only one who listens to le epic Semetic tales about j-Jericho!"
            You're either being disingenuous to avoid actually addressing the point, or your IQ is actually in the 70s. I'm arguing a fortiori and saying continual habituation says absolutely nothing about the other points and that it doesn't matter which particular geographic region can claim the longest continuum, while also saying that it was, in fact, not in Europe. Jericho has been continuously inhabited since the dawn of agriculture, but it seems you didn't want to address that so we can move on I guess 🙂

            >Or can you apply some critical thinking and realise that maybe trying to dig under an 800 year old 100+m tall Cathedral which has service every Sunday is a little more difficult than sweeping sand off an uninhabited desert ruin?
            The difference here is that, while it is difficult, European cities ARE at all excavated. There are probably small scale buildings here and there whose existence we aren't aware of yet, but large parts have in fact been unearthed, and your points are proving the opposite of what you're intending them to. Compare it to even famous Sumerians sites like Uruk where less than 5% of it has been excavated because it's in a wartorn shithole

            >Metallurgical artifacts being an objective scientific measure is also trivial
            Could you show me the part where anyone denied that? You're right, it's trivial, so trivial that I have no idea why anyone would think they are sounding smart as they explain something as basic as that. What I rejected is that it overrules all other factors when assessing the level of civilisational development

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh urbanite hivemind
      Monastic eudal life could be peaceful and enjoyable too. Much harder after industrialization, but before that it was likely healthier and better than life in your Mexican metropolis.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, that's how black folx pioneered first steel blooms and then cheaper steel.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn't say that since metallurgy was often started by small mountain tribes that came across native copper or gold

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    that and ship building

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ship building is a much more niche area of expertise, the need of that is not obviously apparent besides fishing and trade for most civilizations, and your ships need to be only so good before they can reach well known ports so there is a technological limit where society doesn’t deem any improvements to it necessary. A nation in the Mediterranean would have no incentives to develop ocean-faring ships if their current tech was enough for trade. With metal, the needs for tool/weapon efficacy and durability are much more apparent and therefore incremental progression of this technology was quite consistent in most civilized places

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No I would focus more on economical development of agriculture. You can flourish without metallurgy or writing but not without agriculture (and husbandry).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You can flourish without metallurgy
      Until the deep winter or any real scarcity sets in, then the big oof-ACK comes. Ask your local Cucuteni anon if you can find one. In that the first urban models were all failed. Modern Western models are an obvious failure, if for nothing else than their financial unsustainability due to the money systems they cannot reform.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Ask your local Cucuteni anon if you can find one.
        Huh? Cucuteni had copper metallurgy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Enough copper to get ACK'd by men who had bronze.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yamnaya did not have tin bronze.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant, anon. Some have alleged the use of arsenic in bronze is where the pattern of forge gods in IE pantheons being cripples came from.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >irrelevant
            It's not irrelevant at all. Both the use of tin bronze and arsenical copper are attested in the EEF Balkans way before than in any of the Yamnaya lands. Yamnadaya didn't have better metallurgy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > use of tin bronze and arsenical copper are attested in the EEF Balkans way before than in any of the Yamnaya lands
            Possible idk about that, like I said it's irrelevant as it's beyond dispute that Yammaya had better and/or more bronze than Cucuteni.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's beyond dispute that Yammaya had better and/or more bronze than Cucuteni.
            By who? They only had copper axe heads and a few copper clubs, their metallurgy was very primitive, no better than that of its neighbours, it couldn't give any possible edge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Largely from recovered grave goods, more axes and weapons in the Kurgan burials than anything Cucuteni left behind. This isn't disputed by anyone anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Irrelevant, anon. Some have alleged the use of arsenic in bronze is where the pattern of forge gods in IE pantheons being cripples came from.

            They didn't have arsenic bronze Yamnaya had copper and CWC had nothing, dumbasses.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Both had copper alloy items in burials moron.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Native Americans built huge advanced civilizations without metallurgy. You can manage without it but having a bronze or iron plow helps you populate certain areas more easily.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This is an excellent example of both points really. The Native Americans and not just mesoAmericans built incredible cities and large civilizations with a neolithic level of technology. It certainly can be done. But the sheer complexity of cultures with more advanced metallurgy, their concepts and even the germs they carried spelled the end for those Native American civilizations.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, it is quite ridiculous to suggest that, for example, copper age eurasian cavemen were somehow more advanced than the likes of the Teotihuacan and Classic Maya civilizations, which had zero metallurgy whatsoever.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Will you stop coping for dead stone age rats? That "advanced" civilization died of drought and top soil erosion due to their stupidity. The second iteration of it was conquered by literally only 1000 high medieval knights. Pathetic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And the central religious rite of Judaism for the first 400 years of its history was throwing babies into a fire, what's your point?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Teotihuacan collapsed due to what was likely a civil war or peasant revolt, and calling the Aztecs its second iteration is makes about as much sense as calling 16th century Austria the "second iteration of the Roman Empire"

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Metallurgy was one of the sciences taught by the fallen angels to humankind. In post flood history, the nephilim that escaped inside the Earth taught it again to the post flood civilizations.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hydrology is far more important, but because hydrologic engineering would require good tools, you would expect a lot of overlap seen in the metallurgy and the engineering of the advanced civilizations.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *