Weapon/Tool Development/Anthropology... Formerly Blocking useless?

[jobo]

They both traded with countries that had significantly different technology and cultures as well. Their technology did not develop in a vacuum.

the inca had have,a very different culture to the pains natives, one your idea that should have helped the plain natives if not the inca

 

[Gerry Seymour]

apart from the end object being a,sphere , there is no comparison between leather and vinyl footballs in there qualities of flight, bounce curve or if they knock you out cold when you head one ,

could they have made one as bad out of vinyl , I'm not sure they could, they could never get vinyl to absorb 5times it own weight in water or if you waterproofed it 4times its own weight in dubbing

I've owned leather footballs that didn't absorb water at that rate, and had similar feel to vinyl.

 

[jobo]

Yes, exactly.

There was enough directly available resources to support tribal society with no need to develop technology to survive.

The Europeans, who had societal and environmental pushes to force development in agriculture and warfare took those advances with them, and all but wiped out the indigenous people.

Then they used that technology to exploit the rich new environment to a whole other level.

Take away farming and transport from the Americas and the population would rapidly reduce to (probably) pre-Columbian levels, and likely fall back to tribal communities.

??? So your saying that having access to raw material slows progress, rather than speed it up?

 

[pdg]

but huts are a major advance on hide tents, china has always been pretty big and more or less match with in its current borders

This as well - define "always".

If by "always" you mean that there are records of it, then yes - but for records to exist (that aren't legend) requires the development of some form of writing.

That doesn't develop by itself to a sufficient level within tribal societies, so it stands to reason that those developments were made in the slightly smaller coastal and/or mountain bordered regions and expansion occured, and it was then recorded that the people covered such a large range.

 

[jobo]

I've owned leather footballs that didn't absorb water at that rate, and had similar feel to vinyl.

well not round here we didn't, i still remember the flashing lights i had when i headed a goal for the under 12s in a monsoon , it was like heading a house brick

 

[jobo]

This as well - define "always".

If by "always" you mean that there are records of it, then yes - but for records to exist (that aren't legend) requires the development of some form of writing.

That doesn't develop by itself to a sufficient level within tribal societies, so it stands to reason that those developments were made in the slightly smaller coastal and/or mountain bordered regions and expansion occured, and it was then recorded that the people covered such a large range.

by always i mean all the time,china has existed its had very much the same borders, mongal uprising not withstanding

 

[pdg]

??? So your saying that having access to raw material slows progress, rather than speed it up?

Yes and no.

Unless you have a reason to use the raw materials you won't use them.

If your society can survive relatively well by chucking rocks at lizards then that red rock is as good or bad as that grey one.

If your society outgrows the food resources in an area and it's difficult to leave (because mountains/sea/desert) you'll look for ways to make your use of those resources more efficient - so suddenly that red rock becomes a source of iron.

 

[jobo]

A ball-peen hammer doesn't usually have a claw on the other end of the head.

no, I'm pretty sure i didn't say it did, ball peen hammers, are,quite,a late invention, they had to wait for the rivet to be invented before they had a use for them

 

[jobo]

Yes and no.

Unless you have a reason to use the raw materials you won't use them.

If your society can survive relatively well by chucking rocks at lizards then that red rock is as good or bad as that grey one.

If your society outgrows the food resources in an area and it's difficult to leave (because mountains/sea/desert) you'll look for ways to make your use of those resources more efficient - so suddenly that red rock becomes a source of iron.

but they had a reason, they wanted better tools to hunt fight and farm with, but they,still didn't use them

 

[pdg]

by always i mean all the time,china has existed its had very much the same borders, mongal uprising not withstanding

So in other words, in recorded history.

Before records began?

China as a people didn't just suddenly appear from nowhere and they certainly didn't suddenly appear occupying thousands upon thousands of square miles.

We know about things that happened in and around China because of Chinese records - if the Chinese didn't keep records we wouldn't know about the mongal uprising.

We also wouldn't know much, if anything, about Korea before the 15th century and the introduction of hangul (just about all previous records were in Chinese or hanja, which itself wouldn't exist without Chinese).

 

[pdg]

Anyway, a lot of these arguments/challenges are becoming extremely circular...

If there's anything else to challenge it (something that makes sense) then I'll continue the discussion, but unless that happens I'll be over there for a bit.

 

[JowGaWolf]

they could have traded with the,Aztec or the Inca, that they chose not to is because of their lack of abilities, not a cause of those lack of abilities

They traded with Aztec, it as already been found through research that there were Aztec influences in other Native American tribes found in what is now the U.S.

Also look at totem poles, and mound builders.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You think people are making excuses? You've missed the point. They're putting forth theories (which are attempts to explain, not attempts to excuse).

You're also looking at dates, but that ignores differential progression from population density, climactic factors, and ease of living. Disease probably factors in, as well.

And if you made the point that many weren't nomadic, I missed that. All I've seen you do is argue the relationship between nomadic lifestyle (and what leads to its end) and the development of metallurgy.

And just think the orginal discussion was about Stone vs Metal Axes and how Native Americans only used stone axes. (which is incorrect)lol

 

[jobo]

Do you have any idea how far the Navajo were from the Inca and Aztec? I think you underestimate the distance between, the natural barriers that exist in that direction, etc. Remember that travel and expansion first tend to follow the easier routes. Mainland NA has vast regions that are easy to traverse. When tribes came to barriers, there was little reason to cross them. And I don't recall there being a sea-faring culture (might just be my ignorance) among the NA aboriginals. Without that, there's little chance of interaction bleeding across larger distances. The northern Europeans (and others, I'd guess) provided a better early dispersion of ideas because of their sea travel.

You'd have to compare similar development levels, not similar dates, to get relevant comparison. So compare neolithic ground travel in Europe to the same in NA.

the arguments was they,didn't have,a,different culture to trade with, and they did, and if they had bothered to invent the wheels and the road and trainers buffalo to tow a cart they could have done so

 

[jobo]

They traded with Aztec, it as already been found through research that there were Aztec influences in other Native American tribes found in what is now the U.S.

Also look at totem poles, and mound builders.

so that your point amout of the window then, they did have,access to more developed cultures

 

[pdg]

so that your point amout of the window then, they did have,access to more developed cultures

Sporadic and difficult access, not constant and easy. As say a Navajo, you couldn't exactly pop down and visit the Aztecs for the weekend.

And no need to adopt much of the 'technology'. If hunting and gathering works well enough and fits, you don't need to farm.


Much like the sub Saharan Africans, or the Australian Aboriginals - who both had 'difficult' access to more developed cultures but didn't adopt the tech. They didn't need to adopt it to support their way of life.

 

[JowGaWolf]

That's,aside from the fact that the Vikings made it over and you could walk across the ice to Russia if you wanted to, in fact sailing to Russia is no distance

This did not result in a trade route. Were vikings were making repeated visits for the purpose of engaging in trade. Once again you have not given any examples of how the Vikings made a cultural impact on the Native American Culture.

 

[Martial D]

bur it's shape, its weight distribution and it's functionality are all dependent on the matterial used . If i build a house out of Lego, it requires a completely different design to if i use bricks, though the end result will have some,similarities, which as over,all dimensions and colour, if i use red lego, so that's the,aesthetic element

You are free to define whatever you wish however you wish.

 

[jobo]

This did not result in a trade route. Were vikings were making repeated visits for the purpose of engaging in trade. Once again you have not given any examples of how the Vikings made a cultural impact on the Native American Culture.

your both throwing up a,smoke screen and moving the goal posts

your claim was they were isolated, and they wernt, they had access to other cultures with in the,Americas AND they have f visitors from out side, both from Europe and Asia. America wasn't " discovered" in the 1500s, every one knew it was there, as Europeans had been before, just as they knew Australia was there when they set off to " discover " it.
what effect did that contact have,? We'll it must have had some, the Vikings were there for,500 years, perhaps the limit farming and metal work they did have arose from that. If the effect Was limited, that's the fault of the natives for not taking advantage of it, even more so for not making the return journey themselves,

your point seems to be they were backward as they didnt have contact with the rest of the world, when it's equal valid to suggest they didn't have contact or take advantage of that contact because they were backward

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the arguments was they,didn't have,a,different culture to trade with, and they did, and if they had bothered to invent the wheels and the road and trainers buffalo to tow a cart they could have done so

You say "if they had bothered". Early cultures rarely "bother" to make advances that don't meet a need. As someone pointed out earlier, at least one tribe did have "the wheel", but it amounted to a play toy for children. Why didn't it become a tool? Apparently they didn't find it all that useful in their way of living. Perhaps it was too rocky and steep in their area, or too sandy. Or perhaps they had another working method for hauling. But here's the kicker: they didn't have to, because someone brought wheeled carts to them (when the Europeans arrived). Would they eventually have developed wheels as tools? Probably, since (accepting your prior claim as true) everyone else did.

You're trying to compare them to other cultures of the same calendar dates and look at the difference in development. That's just not how cultures develop. You're ignoring all but the most obvious influences. There's a reason there are multiple sciences that study this stuff: it's complicated.