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

[Danny T]

after the Spanish arrived you mean ? European axes are NOT hawks, they are European axes

Sorry I should have stated 'Iron' hawks. There were stone, brass, and copper war hawks well before that.

The Iron hawks were smaller than the European axe though designs were influenced by them. The Pipe Hawk was designed and made by the European traders specifically to trade with the indigenous people.

Either way the term tomahawk derived from the Algonquian words “tamahak” or “tamahakan" meaning 'cutting off tool'.
When the French began trading they brought the 'Francisca' that was adapted by some of the tribes they traded with.

Hawks were used by the military in WWll, the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War.

Today there are still metal versions of the tomahawk made by both American and European manufactures.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and as good opinions they may be. Just because they are your opinions doesn't make them correct.

 

[jobo]

Villisca axe murders - Wikipedia

that say axe murders, we are talking about tomahawks

 

[jobo]

Sorry I should have stated 'Iron' hawks. There were stone, brass, and copper war hawks well before that.

The Iron hawks were smaller than the European axe though designs were influenced by them. The Pipe Hawk was designed and made by the European traders specifically to trade with the indigenous people.

Either way the term tomahawk derived from the Algonquian words “tamahak” or “tamahakan" meaning 'cutting off tool'.
When the French began trading they brought the 'Francisca' that was adapted by some of the tribes they traded with.

Hawks were used by the military in WWll, the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War.

Today there are still metal versions of the tomahawk made by both American and European manufactures.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and as good opinions they may be. Just because they are your opinions doesn't make them correct.

that's interesting, the native American were a stone,aged people in the,1500s, that's not that they couldnt do limited casting of metals, just that , that casting was very limited and only involved low melting point metals, gold, silver and copper, and mostly for decoration purposes, even the more advanced southern and central American peoples were,stone aged in technology, that being the vast majority of their tools and equipment were made of stone, with metal being the exception.

that said I'm wondering how you have decieded that the northern tribes had managed to perfect brass for use in tomahawks, not that it would have been of much use for chopping, its not much harder than copper and quite probably inferior to stone

 

[JowGaWolf]

that's interesting, the native American were a stone,aged people in the,1500s,

This is not accurate. It's already historical fact that they worked with and used metals long before the 1500's and long before any European contact.

 

[jobo]

This is not accurate. It's already historical fact that they worked with and used metals long before the 1500's and long before any European contact.

and i admitted as much above BUT, if you haven't reached a state of development to be bronze aged, then you are stone aged, there wasn't a copper age, or a gold age or even a brass age

 

[JowGaWolf]

Native American Metal Works
Here's what gets me. We have historical records about Europeans coming to the Americas and seeing gold. If they actually saw that much gold then it would mean that Native Americans were working metal long before the arrival of Europeans. The only thing that hasn't been proven is the use of blacksmith technology that was found on other cultures. But they definitely worked with metals.

 

[JowGaWolf]

and i admitted as much above BUT, if you haven't reached a state of development to be bronze aged, then you are stone aged, there wasn't a copper age, or a gold age or even a brass age

There actually is a Copper Age
"The Chalcolithic period, or Copper Age, was an era of transition between the stone tool-using farmers of the Neolithic and the metal-obsessed civilizations of the Bronze Age."

 

[jobo]

Native American Metal Works
Here's what gets me. We have historical records about Europeans coming to the Americas and seeing gold. If they actually saw that much gold then it would mean that Native Americans were working metal long before the arrival of Europeans. The only thing that hasn't been proven is the use of blacksmith technology that was found on other cultures. But they definitely worked with metals.

yes but not bronze, so they were stone aged, all stone aged peoples work metal to some extent, that doesn't stop them being stoned aged

 

[lklawson]

and i admitted as much above BUT, if you haven't reached a state of development to be bronze aged, then you are stone aged, there wasn't a copper age, or a gold age or even a brass age

There was a "Copper Age," most artists I know consider any Copper alloy, including "brass" (Copper-Zinc) to be a form of "Bronze," and it looks like "Brass" (Copper-Zinc) might have actually predated "Bronze" (Copper-Tin):

Brass before bronze? Early copper-alloy metallurgy in China - Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry (RSC Publishing)

 

[JowGaWolf]

yes but not bronze, so they were stone aged, all stone aged peoples work metal to some extent, that doesn't stop them being stoned aged

Stone Age only refers to the tools, weapons, and crafts that only used stone as the main material. Stone age is a classification of non-metal tools of what were used, before the use of metal. Based on what I was able to find, Europeans entered the scene during the transition stage that would have eventually taken Native Americans into a "Bronze Age"

The slow pace of metal advancement is probably due to the location of the Americas (on the other side of the world). In Europe and Asia the many cultures were able to share trade and science, in this case dealing with metals. The Americas did not have that advantage so metallurgy developed with limited influence from other foreign cultures.

Native American (North America) metal use is referred to as Old Copper Culture.
Quote from the link Old Copper Culture website. above.

"The most conclusive evidence suggests that native copper was utilized to produce a wide variety of tools beginning in the Middle Archaic period circa 4,000 BC. The vast majority of this evidence comes from dense concentrations of Old Copper finds in eastern Wisconsin. These copper tools cover a broad range of artifact types: axes, adzes, various forms of projectile points, knives, perforators, fishhooks, and harpoons."

Native American Copper Axe Heads from that period

Knives. Notice how the knife handle have that similar shape found other cultures. Also take note of the curved blades in the picture

Tang Points. The interesting thing is that you can find this same pattern of Metallurgy development across many different cultures. Stone Age -> Copper Age-> Bronze Age-> Iron Age? The weapon design also takes a similar development path as other cultures. A lot of knowledge has been about their use of metals, as Europeans didn't exactly try to preserve native American knowledge, accomplishments, and history. It was quite the opposite, and as a result, much of what people know about Native American Culture, Pre-European, comes from old assumptions and incorrect information that has been passed down from generation to generation. Before today I knew nothing about Native American Metallurgy. The only thing I knew and understood is that ancient people weren't as primitive as past historians once stated them as.

 

[drop bear]

Just my humble opinion, but I would guess you would probably be expert on that. It seems demonstrated often in your answers. Could you try to make more sense in your replies? Please?

It is all the boring content and not enough trolling isn't it?

I should just attack the poster constantly instead of defending my position with logic.

 

[drop bear]

<sigh> Well, your lazy (or trolling?) ways continue. I've stated any number of time her on MT that I focus on mid-to-late 19th C. Western martial arts, straying occasionally into very early 20th C.

I'm not sure what you have convinced yourself that you've "proven," but the fact is that studying 19th Century martial pursuits while wearing 19th Century footwear, particularly for tomahawk, is pretty standard.

But is different to modern axe fighting. So this link you are now making to relevant martial arts you have already broken.

Different footwear different system.

Same argument Jojo made. Old timey axe is not modern axe.

Old timey boxing is not modern boxing.

It is nice that you are saving a bit of history for people to enjoy. But it is not relevant from a practical perspective.

Quite simply if you get more people collaborating in an activity they get better at it. There is more people striking. And more people wrestling. And more capacity to be good at it.

The idea that old timey boxing has some sort of relevance is just clever marketing from the people who are invested in selling old timey boxing.

 

[lklawson]

But is different to modern axe fighting. So this link you are now making to relevant martial arts you have already broken.

Different footwear different system.

Same argument Jojo made. Old timey axe is not modern axe.

Old timey boxing is not modern boxing.

It is nice that you are saving a bit of history for people to enjoy. But it is not relevant from a practical perspective.

Quite simply if you get more people collaborating in an activity they get better at it. There is more people striking. And more people wrestling. And more capacity to be good at it.

The idea that old timey boxing has some sort of relevance is just clever marketing from the people who are invested in selling old timey boxing.

Poor Trolling. Not bothering.

 

[drop bear]

Poor Trolling. Not bothering.

Ha!

Predictable response when you don't have an answer.

 

[jobo]

Stone Age only refers to the tools, weapons, and crafts that only used stone as the main material. Stone age is a classification of non-metal tools of what were used, before the use of metal. Based on what I was able to find, Europeans entered the scene during the transition stage that would have eventually taken Native Americans into a "Bronze Age"

The slow pace of metal advancement is probably due to the location of the Americas (on the other side of the world). In Europe and Asia the many cultures were able to share trade and science, in this case dealing with metals. The Americas did not have that advantage so metallurgy developed with limited influence from other foreign cultures.

Native American (North America) metal use is referred to as Old Copper Culture.
Quote from the link Old Copper Culture website. above.

"The most conclusive evidence suggests that native copper was utilized to produce a wide variety of tools beginning in the Middle Archaic period circa 4,000 BC. The vast majority of this evidence comes from dense concentrations of Old Copper finds in eastern Wisconsin. These copper tools cover a broad range of artifact types: axes, adzes, various forms of projectile points, knives, perforators, fishhooks, and harpoons."

Native American Copper Axe Heads from that period

Knives. Notice how the knife handle have that similar shape found other cultures. Also take note of the curved blades in the picture

Tang Points. The interesting thing is that you can find this same pattern of Metallurgy development across many different cultures. Stone Age -> Copper Age-> Bronze Age-> Iron Age? The weapon design also takes a similar development path as other cultures. A lot of knowledge has been about their use of metals, as Europeans didn't exactly try to preserve native American knowledge, accomplishments, and history. It was quite the opposite, and as a result, much of what people know about Native American Culture, Pre-European, comes from old assumptions and incorrect information that has been passed down from generation to generation. Before today I knew nothing about Native American Metallurgy. The only thing I knew and understood is that ancient people weren't as primitive as past historians once stated them as.

if you don't like the term stone aged, then we will settle for Neolithic . Neolithic also know as the stone age, ended with the bronze age, ergo, any culture that didn't have wide spread use of bronze is stone,aged or neolithic.

there a move to try and portray the native Americans as far more advanced than they were. All neolithic cultures worked metals, the difference is the rest of the world starting the wide spread use of bronze four and a half thousand years before the Europeans introduce it into the America, finding and working copper is easy, mining tin and making alloys is not. It's possible they would have had a bronze age on their own, if they had had another 500 years or so

the Americas are also note able as the only culture that did not invent the wheel,or the plough or the road

 

[JowGaWolf]

if you don't like the term stone aged, then we will settle for Neolithic . Neolithic also know as the stone age, ended with the bronze age, ergo, any culture that didn't have wide spread use of bronze is stone,aged or neolithic.

there a move to try and portray the native Americans as far more advanced than they were. All neolithic cultures worked metals, the difference is the rest of the world starting the wide spread use of bronze four and a half thousand years before the Europeans introduce it into the America, finding and working copper is easy, mining tin and making alloys is not. It's possible they would have had a bronze age on their own, if they had had another 500 years or so

the Americas are also note able as the only culture that did not invent the wheel,or the plough or the road

My purpose of posting the information was not directed in proving that they used bronze. The information I posted only verified that the used and made copper weapons and that there was actually a Copper Age.

As I stated the only reason they didn't reach the bronze age was due to the limited exposure to a variety of cultures. For example, when you fight a battle against another village you can learn from the weapons that were used. During peace black smith's could share knowledge of working metal. But this opportunity doesnt exist when their is isolation. The technology development on some pacific islands suffered the same disadvantages. Countries and people that are isolated will always have a slower technology development. The temples and city building in the Americas showed their level of advancement.

If you want to debate the use of bronze by native Americans then you'll be by yourself. The initial argument was Stone vs Metal. It wasn't about Stone vs Bronze. The discussion about bronze has nothing to do with copper metal weapons.

 

[oftheherd1]

It is all the boring content and not enough trolling isn't it?

I should just attack the poster constantly instead of defending my position with logic.

That doesn't make any sense to me. But forget it. Trying to discuss things with you is like trying to shout at a strong wind.

 

[oftheherd1]

if you don't like the term stone aged, then we will settle for Neolithic . Neolithic also know as the stone age, ended with the bronze age, ergo, any culture that didn't have wide spread use of bronze is stone,aged or neolithic.

there a move to try and portray the native Americans as far more advanced than they were. All neolithic cultures worked metals, the difference is the rest of the world starting the wide spread use of bronze four and a half thousand years before the Europeans introduce it into the America, finding and working copper is easy, mining tin and making alloys is not. It's possible they would have had a bronze age on their own, if they had had another 500 years or so

the Americas are also note able as the only culture that did not invent the wheel,or the plough or the road

Are you just down of the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas? The Incas did have the wheel but apparently it was used more as a child toy. Makes some sense considering where they lived.

Plough? Most were hunter gatherers. Even those who had begun farming, mostly in the east, didn't do so to the extent that poking holes in the ground wouldn't suffice. And who was going to be the lucky one who was going to pull the plough, or tame buffalo to pull it?

 

[pdg]

Seeing as the thread has gone anthropological, I'm going to ponder... There'll probably be disagreement, and that's fine.

Advancement from stone to iron isn't/wasn't about collaboration with other peoples - it's about conflict and what that leads to.

To get to sufficient conflict requires a certain set of conditions, mainly land topography and population size (into density).

So, you have small (family) groups of people which tend to naturally grow in numbers until they become a tribe - hunting and gathering is sufficient, but there's going to be small scale conflict with neighbouring tribes over resources (food, women, etc.).

These small conflicts can be utterly devastating for the losing tribe, but the winning side isn't 'safe' because the tribes on their other 6 (say) sides are still going to be competing...

If the land available is restricted (an island, bordered by mountains, that sort of thing) then eventually you'll get one overriding winning tribe.

If there's enough land (Africa, the Americas, mid/west Asia, Australia) you won't. There'll always be another neighbour, or a nomadic tribe coming in.

In the restricted areas, you'll get relative peace. People will breed without constant invasion, population will grow. Tribal chiefs become kings. You'll then get the divergence of fighters and feeders. There's always a chance of an invasion force coming over the mountains, but because it's less likely you get people develop into being farmers and the technology in that area increases - but only if hunting and gathering can't sustain your population.

Once you get to a certain density you look to expand even more, so you send out scouting parties over the mountains or over the water to see what others have. If you want what they have you can trade, or invade.

With the Americas, the Europeans went to explore, then they traded for a while - once they decided that the indigenous peoples weren't much of a military threat (and they could ship sufficient numbers) they brought superior weaponry and tactics and invaded.

It's the expansion that drives weapon and tactic development, and the following peace that drives farming and cultural development.

 

[Tez3]

Seeing as the thread has gone anthropological, I'm going to ponder... There'll probably be disagreement, and that's fine.

Advancement from stone to iron isn't/wasn't about collaboration with other peoples - it's about conflict and what that leads to.

To get to sufficient conflict requires a certain set of conditions, mainly land topography and population size (into density).

So, you have small (family) groups of people which tend to naturally grow in numbers until they become a tribe - hunting and gathering is sufficient, but there's going to be small scale conflict with neighbouring tribes over resources (food, women, etc.).

These small conflicts can be utterly devastating for the losing tribe, but the winning side isn't 'safe' because the tribes on their other 6 (say) sides are still going to be competing...

If the land available is restricted (an island, bordered by mountains, that sort of thing) then eventually you'll get one overriding winning tribe.

If there's enough land (Africa, the Americas, mid/west Asia, Australia) you won't. There'll always be another neighbour, or a nomadic tribe coming in.

In the restricted areas, you'll get relative peace. People will breed without constant invasion, population will grow. Tribal chiefs become kings. You'll then get the divergence of fighters and feeders. There's always a chance of an invasion force coming over the mountains, but because it's less likely you get people develop into being farmers and the technology in that area increases - but only if hunting and gathering can't sustain your population.

Once you get to a certain density you look to expand even more, so you send out scouting parties over the mountains or over the water to see what others have. If you want what they have you can trade, or invade.

With the Americas, the Europeans went to explore, then they traded for a while - once they decided that the indigenous peoples weren't much of a military threat (and they could ship sufficient numbers) they brought superior weaponry and tactics and invaded.

It's the expansion that drives weapon and tactic development, and the following peace that drives farming and cultural development.

Is this your theory or do you have academic citations for this?