Well, doesn’t the Harappan civilization make a mess out of all this? Tin was nearby, and there’s evidence of bronze artifacts in all kinds of houses across the cities, and in general less evidence of hierarchical power, and certainly nothing like the concentration you see in other Bronze Age civilizations. We don’t have the civilization surviving as is to the Iron Age, because it depopulated before iron smelting became common. But it’s odd to make the claim bronze had to lead to stratified societies. Clearly, not always.
The claim (as I understand it) is that power was centralized because tin was rare--i.e., had to be imported via sophisticated trade routes, which presumably could be controlled by the state.
In an area where tin is abundant, individuals could easily forge their own bronze weapons, thus making it harder for the state to have a monopoly on high-tech weapons.
So I think the Harappan actually reinforce the theory.
Bronze and iron weren't limited for military usage. Basically from an economical point of view, the scarcity of bronze limited the size of economies and armies.
Once people started using iron instead of bronze, the first use was probably creating tools used for farming, food production, and other important things: Axes, hoes, spades, etc. And they did not just substitute bronze tools but because iron was cheaper, they probably created more of them, and new tools. And it also enabled things like nails and other construction material.
So, the economy and power structures shifted as tools enabled more economic output. By the time steel became good enough for weaponry, the bronze age was effectively already a thing of the past as the economy would have shifted to using iron for most tools long before.
And then later of course, having cheap and good enough steel weaponry enabled the creation of larger armies too. So towards the end of the Iron age, you get e.g. the Romans creating huge legions that were simply not economically feasible in the bronze age. And given that hand to hand combat was basically the way people waged wars, the ones with the bigger armies would tend to win.
I would be careful with using the "state" word in this context. The first real "states" around the Mediterranean were arguably Rome and Egypt, but even then, every (militarily or economically) subjugated city or province could have local ruling structures tied to families or individuals. Even in Rome itself, specific families were often "bigger than the state", directly controlling people and resources without answering to anyone in practice. This is particularly true in terms of weapons: more often than not, the top rulers would actually borrow weapons produced for, and owned by, specific families and individuals.
The concept of "state" is very modern, we tend to retrofit it over the past, but it's often wrong. There have always been rulers, and families, competing interests and identities; which typically produced inconsistent and fragmented governance over most territories, until very recently.
I agree. The author is stretching several assumptions to get to his conclusions. The sub-title suggests he has solved the "Bronze Age collapse" riddle but his statement can simply be considered one of many factors already pointed out in the literature -- not the main reason.
I’m ignorant of the geology there, but Wikipedia says copper was available. If you are saying they had unusually easy access to tin, then they sort of had the ability to make bronze without the long-range trade. Is that right?
That would seem to support the theory in a way. If they could make bronze “in their back yard,” the same way that everyone else could make iron in the Iron Age, they would be sort of living in their own proto-iron-age, right? (In the sense that access to metallurgy was democratized). So if anything, it would provide some pretty strong support of the link between democratized metallurgy and more disperse power.
The author also doesn’t really even attempt to explain why the Sea Peoples hypothesis, one pretty well substantiated by a lot of independent evidence, and one which the current consensus theory among experts, is wrong. Is there a prior post we’re supposed to be familiar with?
It doesn't need to be wrong - democratising violence mean people with boats are more likely to have weapons and ability to attack you. Or the ability to disrupt trade, for that matter.
> ships that can transport an army over a long distance on sea
This isn’t what the Sea Peoples built. It isn’t even what the Romans built. Most Mediterranean cultures lacked the navigational and ship-building expertise to let the shore out of sight. That doesn’t mean they didn’t need skill. But it was less skill than needed for metallurgy, in part because the latter’s inputs are dearer.
I'm honestly starting to doubt you've ever been on a ship at sea. Being in sight of the shore is going to be of little comfort if your makeshift raft capsizes because of the waves.
Making a boat that can carry multiple people on sea without sinking when the weather goes a little sour (which can happen in less than an hour in the Mediterranean) is a very hard thing to do. And if you know how to do that you'll never have any shortage of metal or other goods in the first place because you end up being the one who trade them for profit.
I'm not convinced by the author (although I don't know enough to be sure of anything), but despite the title, he is not talking about why the bronze age collapsed but about why the bronze age empires where not replaced by the same kind of empires
I think the argument is the Indus Valley civilization was dependent on international trade with the autocracies further west and collapsed when that network broke down
The generally agreed epoch of Mahabharata war (and also the start of kali yuga or iron age) among Vedic astrologers is about 3102 BC which places the epic deep into the Bronze age territory. Historians generally reject this epoch as it creates the dark age problem (over 2000 years of unexplained historical gap between that war and 500 BC when figures like Bimbisara, Buddha and Ajata Satru start appearing). Their epoch is in the range of 800-2000 BC depending on who you ask.
Having said that, there is nothing to make the bronze age epoch impossible. There is nothing in the epic which may not have been possible in the bronze age based on what we already know about history.
... The Mahabarta also says a woman was pregnant for 2 years after which she birthed a lifeless mass of flesh, cut it into 100 pieces, put it in ghee in jars, and incubated them into a 100 sons and 1 daughter...
this is definitely not possible in the bronze age or any other age for that matter from what we know of history.
> Tin was nearby, and there’s evidence of bronze artifacts in all kinds of houses across the cities, and in general less evidence of hierarchical power, and certainly nothing like the concentration you see in other Bronze Age civilizations.
It seems you didn't read the article carefully. The author says that bronze age empires derived their power from the scarcity of tin, which they could obtain via trade routes, but was hard to get hold of for smaller rulers. In your example this scarcity doesn't hold because tin happened to be nearby. So your example is perfectly compatible with his theory.
randomImmigrant · · focus · HN ↗
GMoromisato · · focus · HN ↗
In an area where tin is abundant, individuals could easily forge their own bronze weapons, thus making it harder for the state to have a monopoly on high-tech weapons.
So I think the Harappan actually reinforce the theory.
The_Blade · · focus · HN ↗
yes, kiln-roasted Linear B in Mycenaean palaces... built on a giant fault line (literally as well as figuratively)
Civ VII 2.0 should bring back Sid's palaces in monolith data centers like The Machine / Samaritan (note: i am only halfway through season 4)
jillesvangurp · · focus · HN ↗
Once people started using iron instead of bronze, the first use was probably creating tools used for farming, food production, and other important things: Axes, hoes, spades, etc. And they did not just substitute bronze tools but because iron was cheaper, they probably created more of them, and new tools. And it also enabled things like nails and other construction material.
So, the economy and power structures shifted as tools enabled more economic output. By the time steel became good enough for weaponry, the bronze age was effectively already a thing of the past as the economy would have shifted to using iron for most tools long before.
And then later of course, having cheap and good enough steel weaponry enabled the creation of larger armies too. So towards the end of the Iron age, you get e.g. the Romans creating huge legions that were simply not economically feasible in the bronze age. And given that hand to hand combat was basically the way people waged wars, the ones with the bigger armies would tend to win.
toyg · · focus · HN ↗
The concept of "state" is very modern, we tend to retrofit it over the past, but it's often wrong. There have always been rulers, and families, competing interests and identities; which typically produced inconsistent and fragmented governance over most territories, until very recently.
TheCoelacanth · · focus · HN ↗
Many Bronze Age empires had complex centralized bureaucracies and are generally considered states.
falaki · · focus · HN ↗
bee_rider · · focus · HN ↗
That would seem to support the theory in a way. If they could make bronze “in their back yard,” the same way that everyone else could make iron in the Iron Age, they would be sort of living in their own proto-iron-age, right? (In the sense that access to metallurgy was democratized). So if anything, it would provide some pretty strong support of the link between democratized metallurgy and more disperse power.
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
yxhuvud · · focus · HN ↗
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Coast-hugging boats can be made from wood with some skill. Weapons in that era requires metal in some part. That required a lot of skill.
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
This isn’t what the Sea Peoples built. It isn’t even what the Romans built. Most Mediterranean cultures lacked the navigational and ship-building expertise to let the shore out of sight. That doesn’t mean they didn’t need skill. But it was less skill than needed for metallurgy, in part because the latter’s inputs are dearer.
stymaar · · focus · HN ↗
Making a boat that can carry multiple people on sea without sinking when the weather goes a little sour (which can happen in less than an hour in the Mediterranean) is a very hard thing to do. And if you know how to do that you'll never have any shortage of metal or other goods in the first place because you end up being the one who trade them for profit.
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
bandrami · · focus · HN ↗
pfdietz · · focus · HN ↗
senderista · · focus · HN ↗
pyeri · · focus · HN ↗
Having said that, there is nothing to make the bronze age epoch impossible. There is nothing in the epic which may not have been possible in the bronze age based on what we already know about history.
erklik · · focus · HN ↗
this is definitely not possible in the bronze age or any other age for that matter from what we know of history.
rusticpenn · · focus · HN ↗
cubefox · · focus · HN ↗
It seems you didn't read the article carefully. The author says that bronze age empires derived their power from the scarcity of tin, which they could obtain via trade routes, but was hard to get hold of for smaller rulers. In your example this scarcity doesn't hold because tin happened to be nearby. So your example is perfectly compatible with his theory.