It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did protecting access to bronze drive imperialism?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Obsidian cleave bronze? I would not think so. The Aztecs and others found to their displeasure that obidian, while a good cutter of flesh and textile, shattered on metal armour




posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The difference being that Conquistador armour was made from iron, often plate iron (which is far stronger than normal iron).

Bronze is a very soft metal and many types of stone make exceedingly short work of it (try it for yourself with a scrap of bronze). What i am really getting at is why was bronze so important? That is the one aspect that has always baffled me (apart from the fact they could make shiny, pretty things with it).



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Made pots that wouldn't break, longer swords that wouldn't shatter and were better at going thru armour, it was probably considered cool too

I haven't looked at the production time but I would suspect that you can make 100 bronze spear heads faster than 100 stone ones



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


[doing the walk of shame] I hadn't really considered it like that before! The Stone Age and Iron Age always made sense to me but the Bronze Age just seemed a little odd. Makes much more sense now, particularly for everyday items, as you say, like pots / jars, etc.

Probably also why meteorites were still so prized in this time then - weapons made from meteorites (rarely, but there are tales) would go through even the strongest bronze without a pause - a bit like a knife through butter.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Flavian
 


Made pots that wouldn't break, longer swords that wouldn't shatter and were better at going thru armour, it was probably considered cool too

I haven't looked at the production time but I would suspect that you can make 100 bronze spear heads faster than 100 stone ones


I can imagine beating or casting bronze is less skilled man hours than making stone weapons. But would bronze be more total man hours if you include the labor to prepare the ingots from the raw ore, feeding wood into a furnace, etc? Also it seems like there would be more mining because I imagine there might be more bulk ore to produce a bronze ingot compared to a piece of flint.

Also I think I remember reading that many bronze items seemed to be decorative replicas of the real stone items as opposed to actual tools.
edit on 14-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


I don't know, obsidian and flint mining can be difficult too

Unfortunately I don't know if anyone has worked those numbers

Yes bronze and copper pieces were first produced to look like the stone version - which caused problems as it delayed the creations of the tang which allowed for longer weapons. Broken rivets holding blades to handles was common place (I recovered a lot of those) until they stopped making bronze blade look like stone ones and created the tang



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Has anyone ever compared the mines against the known bronze goods to see how closely they match in various ways such as total weight of the goods versus the amount of bronze produced from the mine? I'm assuming they can examine the bronze to determine its origins. There must have been a lot of recycling.

It would be interesting to know how many bronze goods are still buried somewhere.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Ah mined out to on hand studies, no, not to my knowledge, some work was done on estimating norther America use of native copper. There has been extensive work done on the Cypriote mines but most of that is for pay to view status or thru a University.

Bronze does get recycled, the roof of the Roman Pantheon became a doohicky in Saint Pauls; and large number of earlier bronze works got made into 16-19th century cannon.



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Are there any signs that the stone mines such as flint and obsidian were used up? Maybe the switch to bronze was partly due to scarcity of stone. I suppose a flint weapon could not be repaired or recycled after it was worn or damaged. Or did they simply break the larger flint weapons into smaller tools. It seems like stone tools might be more useful archaeologically by landing in the trash more often. (Our modern society should be an archaeologist's dream. Imagine in the distant future as they sift through our landfills for plastic bottle caps and shopping bags.)
edit on 14-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
Are there any signs that the stone mines such as flint and obsidian were used up? Maybe the switch to bronze was partly due to scarcity of stone. I suppose a flint weapon could not be repaired or recycled after it was worn or damaged. Or did they simply break the larger flint weapons into smaller tools. It seems like stone tools might be more useful archaeologically by landing in the trash more often. (Our modern society should be an archaeologist's dream. Imagine in the distant future as they sift through our landfills for plastic bottle caps and shopping bags.)
edit on 14-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


Garbagolists do have a field day

Lack of flints? No, plenty were available when flint was needed for flintlock muskets, when that technology came aground. Interestingly in looking for sources of flint some of the first signs of ancient mining were written up.

One of the most commonly used signs by archaeologists to future colleagues to show that a site has been excavated and refilled is to leave a coke bottle in it



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
...
Lack of flints? No, plenty were available when flint was needed for flintlock muskets, when that technology came aground. Interestingly in looking for sources of flint some of the first signs of ancient mining were written up.

One of the most commonly used signs by archaeologists to future colleagues to show that a site has been excavated and refilled is to leave a coke bottle in it


Leaving the coke bottle seems appropriate - like a modern potsherd. Funny, I never thought about flint making a comeback with guns. Flint must have been the most useful technology we will ever make.

Do archaeologists ever worry that they are destroying clues that might have helped some future archaeologist equipped with new techniques? I know they probably need to find and study these sites before looters, so they can't be too fussy.
edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by Hanslune
...
Lack of flints? No, plenty were available when flint was needed for flintlock muskets, when that technology came aground. Interestingly in looking for sources of flint some of the first signs of ancient mining were written up.

One of the most commonly used signs by archaeologists to future colleagues to show that a site has been excavated and refilled is to leave a coke bottle in it


Leaving the coke bottle seems appropriate - like a modern potsherd. Funny, I never thought about flint making a comeback with guns. Flint must have been the most useful technology we will ever make.

Do archaeologists ever worry that they are destroying clues that might have helped some future archaeologist equipped with new techniques? I know they probably need to find and study these sites before looters, so they can't be too fussy.
edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


Yes it preys on their minds all the time. This happens because they look at what looters and poorly trained excavators did early on. Most sites are to big to completely excavate anyway. It is usual now - even in small sites or caves - to leave some part un-excavated for future re-examination.

One thing archaeologists have done is to work thru the remnants of past digs, especially from the grand excavations of the mid 19th century, which were more like looting expeditions; this includes the material recovered and going thru the debris left on site.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Hanslune
 


[doing the walk of shame] I hadn't really considered it like that before! The Stone Age and Iron Age always made sense to me but the Bronze Age just seemed a little odd. Makes much more sense now, particularly for everyday items, as you say, like pots / jars, etc.

Probably also why meteorites were still so prized in this time then - weapons made from meteorites (rarely, but there are tales) would go through even the strongest bronze without a pause - a bit like a knife through butter.


Don't feel to bad Flav! Most folks don't even know what obsidian is.
You may have heard about American Indians shooting thier arrows and spears through Spanish armour. And they did but they were tipped with cherts, jaspers or other hard silicas.
A tid bit aboud flint. Although cherts and the like commonly called flint, True flint is found only in the chalk of England and Denmark. The English venere thier houses with it. They are high quality.
Like copper, brass, bronze iron and steel, flint was the precursor. I think it helped give rise to the Vikings and English.
Just like the metals. Another tidbit I find interesting is when the use of aluminum became possible some aristocract replaced thier silver with it.
I think the main reason metal worked better than filnt in warefare is that you could make a heck of a bigger sword or battle ax from it.
A few good knappers can turn out spear and arrow heads way,way faster than most folks think.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Howdy

Could you provide a link or cite for this please



You may have heard about American Indians shooting thier arrows and spears through Spanish armour


This would be possible thru leather or even chain mail but plate?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Howdy

Could you provide a link or cite for this please



You may have heard about American Indians shooting thier arrows and spears through Spanish armour


This would be possible thru leather or even chain mail but plate?


It was chainmail. Desoto's troops in northern Florida, southern Georgia.
Again from books years ago. But a book excusivly about the adventures of Desoto.
BTW your small quote about how Cavasa wound up on the mainland does not jive at all with de Baca's report to King Carlos.
I just googled the report it's there, didn't resd it. If it hasn;t changed in 20 years or so It should be the one I read. An interesting read but phoney as heck in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

It was chainmail. Desoto's troops in northern Florida, southern Georgia.


Chain mail is vulnerable to bodkin type arrows of any kind




BTW your small quote about how Cavasa wound up on the mainland does not jive at all with de Baca's report to King Carlos. I just googled the report it's there, didn't resd it. If it hasn;t changed in 20 years or so It should be the one I read. An interesting read but phoney as heck in my opinion.


I think is should be in the other thread?



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I guess this is a little off topic, but I've always had a hard time understanding foreign policy and war. Like what makes a group of people mass into formations and kill each other in one spot on one day as opposed to raiding or whatever? There seem to be unspoken rules of war understood by both sides that makes war possible.

I have read that primitive warfare was designed to minimize casualties by focusing on intimidation and duels between champions. But this would limit the amount the winner could demand from the loser.

Maybe evolution is the best model. Nobody makes up the rules; they just follow the established rules and break them in minor ways. Gradually the rules evolve but they are not designed by anybody?
edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


War tends to be fought in traditional ways, arrived at over time; when and outside group comes in with a different way of 'looking at' war you usually have a disaster.

Tribal raiders had a great deal of difficulty with European style armies, and their method of doing war despite ocassionally overwhelming them at Adowa, Bighorn and Isandlwana. Aztec armies were trained to capture people in individual combats, Spanish armies to kill and break the enemy army up by mass shock action and missile fire.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by cloudyday
 


War tends to be fought in traditional ways, arrived at over time; when and outside group comes in with a different way of 'looking at' war you usually have a disaster.

Tribal raiders had a great deal of difficulty with European style armies, and their method of doing war despite ocassionally overwhelming them at Adowa, Bighorn and Isandlwana. Aztec armies were trained to capture people in individual combats, Spanish armies to kill and break the enemy army up by mass shock action and missile fire.



Even in modern times it seems that war has rules. Like in WWII there was a taboo against poison gas but it was o.k. to methodically fire bomb the cities in Japan. Today we have a taboo against nuclear weapons that probably isn't rational (not that I want to die in a nuclear war of course). And then there is international law and the United Nations that seem to inhibit superpowers without any visible enforcement mechanism. (It actually reminds me of the way European nations used to go to the Pope to arbitrate their disputes.)
edit on 16-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Its like our western concept of prisoners of war and treatment of enemy dead with respect, some other cultures considered prisoner of war non people, available for sacrifice or ill treatment and enemy bodies as lunch



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join