The Stone Age Continues.
- Thread starter DuQuense
- Start date
Stephen
Banned
When columbus arrive the Inca and Aztecs had gold and were just starting to make things out of copper and even some bronze. The Inca had lamas and guinei pigs, the Aztecs and Mayans had only turkeys and dogs. Before the bronze age proper there was the copper age. Copper axe heads were made and they are useful, hammerd copper has a harder edge than wrought iron.
Agreed. I also said something similar here:
And here:Domoviye said:
I'm not saying they wouldn't discover it, I'm just saying that with the generally smaller population and less far reaching trade it would take longer.Domoviye said:
I know. But when the average person thinks of the different ages, they don't think of the Copper Age. I was skipping over it lightly to fit with the idea of the thread.
To take away copper would require ASB's, which I wanted to avoid. So I assumed we could mix copper and stone age together, as long as we avoided bronze and iron.
If the original poster wants to avoid copper entirely, than I'll politely bow out, because I don't see how it could be done.
Humans of varying species have been using fire for millions of years, humans have only been using metal for maybe 6000 years. Having access to fire does not automatically imply having knowledge of metal working
It would be perfectly possible for the entire world to still be in the stone age today, yes the population would be far smaller and the various tribes, nations and empires wouldn't be as advanced but it's a perfectly possible scenario
)Cool they apparently did have bronze working.
http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/anth_3311/anth_3311_adkins_tarascan_paper.htm
Ok I stand corrected. Can we agree that it would probably take a lot longer to develop metal working without animals?
This is why I like this forum, even when I'm wrong its interesting.
No because that assumes that the two are related and they are not. If population size is linked to developing metalworking then domestication of plants is also a key factor. Here the Eurasians had an advantage because their cereal crops were easier to domesticate than the ones the Americans eventually did. In terms of time they had a 1500 year head start.
It may also be worth considering pottery making because that requires fire. Here the Eurasians had a 3000 year head start.
Another factor would be accessible ores. Does any one who if it was easier to find copper and tin in the Old World than the New?
Valdemar II
Banned
Cutting trees down was rare in historical farming, at least until the last 1000 years. The usual method to get rid of a forrest was by burning it down.
Stephen
Banned
First you ring bark it, then you come back a few weeks later when it has died burn the stump and split up the trunk with wedges
It's a lot of work, but as others have pointed out, there are solutions to that. It is, in fact, likely that neolithic cultures in Europe practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management along with agriculture.
True they probably did. after all the sharpest tool they had was the 5 inches between their ears. The point is tough as soon as a better way of doing things comes up it will catch on like wildfire with the exception of the most hidebound traditionalist
Human culture is an amazing thing. I find it perfectly believable to imagine a world in which true metallurgy (by which I mean the smelting and alloying of ores - not the cold beating and casting of naturally available nugget sources) is never invented.
Assuming this, there is no reason highly developed, literate, state-level civilizations would still not arise in the places where they developed OLT. However, there could be no industrial revolution, since so many technologies related to it require metal. No electrical generation. Power would remain generated by human or animals, except in a few areas where wind or water could be harnessed. The absence of iron and steel would affect many technologies, most dealing with transport and construction/building. Many spring, gear and cog related mechanical devices would not be feasible - or if made of alternative materials (bone, wood, shell, ceramics) - would be much more costly and probably less efficient. The true plow would be impossible, meaning that many areas which can be effectively farmed today might not be usable. Metal fittings and mechanisms are necessary for effective long-distance ships and wheeled vehicles, so civilization would not spread over the world, and contact between centers of civilzation would be less. Very likely, many places on earth would remain at a hunting-gathering level, and human popoulation would remain relatively small.
Assuming this, there is no reason highly developed, literate, state-level civilizations would still not arise in the places where they developed OLT. However, there could be no industrial revolution, since so many technologies related to it require metal. No electrical generation. Power would remain generated by human or animals, except in a few areas where wind or water could be harnessed. The absence of iron and steel would affect many technologies, most dealing with transport and construction/building. Many spring, gear and cog related mechanical devices would not be feasible - or if made of alternative materials (bone, wood, shell, ceramics) - would be much more costly and probably less efficient. The true plow would be impossible, meaning that many areas which can be effectively farmed today might not be usable. Metal fittings and mechanisms are necessary for effective long-distance ships and wheeled vehicles, so civilization would not spread over the world, and contact between centers of civilzation would be less. Very likely, many places on earth would remain at a hunting-gathering level, and human popoulation would remain relatively small.