But... none of those things actually contradict "stone age". It might be better to point out that an advanced civilization isn't necessarily defined by metalworking.
post
Even if. How does a different state of technological developement justifies colonialis, conquering and genocide?
It doesn't, unless you're a colonizing nation, then any justification will do.
There are two significant papal bulls around the time that "allowed" European nations to go and conquer the world to spread Christianity and created the Doctrine of Discovery, meaning that non-Christian civilisations were not actually civilized and should be civilized by force for their own good.
Yeah, but are the people OP is talking nowadays part of a nation currently colonizing native american peoples and do these people need a justification?
All of the above are true, right? They had advanced astronomy, agriculture, ceramics, economics, and systems of government while living in the Stone Age. Their tools and weapons were made of wood and stone, right? Not bronze?
Actually, many weapons were made from copper (and wood, but even modern firearms nowadays and military firearms up to round about the 1960s are partially made of wood).
As the person below mentioned, they very much had access to copper. We find quite a lot of copper artworks. We find surprisingly few copper tools. This makes sense. Pure copper kinda blows for tool making. Stone is harder and easier to get. And the problem lies with the purity. Other civilizations had to accidentally discover early metalworking and eventually stumbled upon bronze, being more durable than anything else at the time. North America, up near the great lakes actually has fairly pure raw copper deposits on the surface. A theory is that it led to the native people finding a "new" type of rock, but other than being distinct looking, it proved to be kinda useless.
Fun fact: The ancient Egyptian pyramids were built with copper tools, not bronze. Bronze hadn't been invented yet; the Egyptians hadn't established the international trade required to get tin.
They found that copper with arsenic impurities was harder and held its shape better than pure copper, so arsenical copper was cast into basic chisel shape and the edges were cold hammered to work harden them into something that will just about cut limestone for awhile I guess. They also used tube drills and flat saws. They would scatter a slurry of quartz sand and water on the stone to be cut, and then they would work a flat plate of copper back and forth over the sand or rotate a hollow cylinder of copper in place to make a straight cut or drill a hole respectively. In that way they could cut material as hard as granite.
Now as a woodworking tool, even copper is vastly superior to stone in one key way: Ease of repair. You make the bit of an axe out of stone, it's considerably harder than copper, but it's brittle. It's easy to just break, and if you do that you'll never get it back to the same shape because to re-sharpen that bit means napping more of the edge away. A copper axe bit might dull easily, but it can be honed in a minute or so. It bends, rather than breaks.
"Stumbling upon" bronze requires access to tin and knowledge of forging and casting technology. Tin and copper are seldom found near each other, and even if you've got tin it needs to have occurred to you to try melting copper. If you only ever cold work copper, you're not going to figure out bronze.
Hernan Cortes landed on the Yucatan, riding a horse wearing an iron breastplate and carrying a steel sword, and found the Maya and Aztecs living in societies not dissimilar to the Old Kingdom Egyptians. A dude on foot wearing a jaguar skin swinging a wooden club studded with bits of sharp obsidian is scary. A dude on horseback with a matchlock musket and a steel saber is scarier. Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu's Memphis. That's pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.
Imagine a galleon full of 16th century Spaniards dropped anchor at the mouth of the Nile in 2600 BCE and rode into Khufu’s Memphis. That’s pretty much exactly what went down in what is now Mexico City.
This bears so little resemblance to what happened that it’s essentially 1500s Spanish propaganda. Archaeological remains from first contact show mass civil uprisings of peoples who had been conquered by the Aztecs prior to Spanish contact, not OP European kill bots plowing through thousands of Native zombies. You fire that musket once and then what are you doing for the next 30 seconds while the other 5000 screaming warriors are still headed over to kill you? That’s why they had to flee Tenochtitlan until the plague they brought with them did the work for them. Even then it still took them 3 months to retake the city; pretty poor performance all things considered.
any books or whatever you'd recommend to read up the the subject?
Conquistadors and Aztecs by Stefan Rinke and When Montezuma Met Cortez by Matthew Restall are good reads. And if you feel like waiting until tomorrow I can access my school stuff and tell you the name of a good documentary on it, but for the life of me I can’t remember or find the title right now.
Brain fart, the documentary I was thinking of was actually about the Incas! But it’s the same time period, it’s PBS Nova: The Great Incan Rebellion if you can find it anywhere. Unfortunately PBS doesn’t seem to host it online anymore.
Archaeological remains from first contact show mass civil uprisings of peoples who had been conquered by the Aztecs prior to Spanish contact, not OP European kill bots plowing through thousands of Native zombies.
Yes to the first; Spanish conquest would have been impossible under Cortes without the alliance with anti-Aztec native polities. But to the second, the Spaniards were OP killbots - just not enough to take on the entirety of Mesoamerica with an expeditionary force, as is sometimes imagined. At the Battle of Centla, some ~500 Spanish troops under a man with no military experience successfully held off and forced the surrender of several thousand native troops.
Steel, guns, and cavalry are massive advantages.
Both aztecs and their rivals were decimated by disease, that was the key. Given time, they would have been able to master horse riding, armor and more modern weapons, as they actually did in one of the last battles in Xochimilco just a year after the fall of Tenochtitlan, but too few remained to make a difference.
Both aztecs and their rivals were decimated by disease, that was the key.
In the long-run, in terms of why there wasn't a resurgence of native polities, sure. In the short-term, the ability of a small expeditionary force of Europeans to exercise disproportionate force (making them a desirable ally for the Aztecs' enemies) was the key element of the overthrow of the Aztec polity, not disease.
Given time, they would have been able to master horse riding, armor and more modern weapons, as they actually did in one of the last battles in Xochimilco just a year after the fall of Tenochtitlan, but too few remained to make a difference.
I'm unfamiliar with that particular battle, but I'm familiar with later examples. Those weapons also need to be produced in large enough quantities to make a difference, as well as proficiency with them developed. Horse riding is a notoriously difficult skill to master, and metallurgy itself is far from simple. Being able to use captured equipment at a basic level is not nearly the same as being proficient with it, or being able to equip an entire cohesive military unit with it. Disease does not explain battlefield imbalances, which is what I'm referencing.
I don't think tech levels even matter in the discussion about whether the native american genocide was justified.
Though on the technological question, I'm curious how the conflict with europe would have gone if they didn't have to deal with the slew of epidemics that resulted from first contact and killed off the majority of people there before the europeans even started looking at the mainland instead of just colonizing the Caribbean islands.
The Inca were figuring out tactics to use against the Spanish and were able to halt their advance several times, but didn't have the numbers to really push back, plus were just on the tail end of civil war that could have been caused in part by the sickness destabilizing things before the spainish even realized there was an empire there (that wasn't just their wild goose chase for a city of gold).
Not sure if the Aztecs would have turned out differently, though it probably would have been a longer war and perhaps would have gone hot before they made it to their capital and took their leader hostage. But they did awe him to the point that he thought appeasement would be a better strategy, not realizing they had no intention of leaving.
I'm honestly convinced that the Americas would have eventually repelled the European invaders if the introduced (and intentionally spread) diseases weren't so devastating. Guns and metal armor are pretty good in warfare and all, but the size of the army required to subjugate millions of people across varied terrain where the invaders are wildly unfamiliar with the land and how to live in it while the defenders have been present for thousands of years, are very familiar with the land, have established warfare traditions, quickly adapt to introduced technologies, and have allied with historic enemies to repel invaders? Does not tend to go well for the invaders.
That wouldn't surprise me, though there's both supporting and opposing historic examples for that.
Like the colonization of Africa. While some areas like Ethiopia held out longer than others, Europe took most of Africa without disease. India was also subjugated, as well as Malaysia. I'm not really sure what the story was for Australia, though suspect it might have been more like the Americas.
Or there's China and Japan where Europe had the upper hand in dealings but weren't able to essentially make China or Japan colonies under their control.
There were definitely long term colonies in a lot of places, but most of those places are no longer under settler control. The damage to be repaired is huge, and there's still economic control from a distance going on, but it's miles different from what happened in the Americas, especially North America, I'd say.
Also the Old Copper Culture of the Great Lakes area! The area has a lot of natural workable copper deposits that are pure enough to be shaped with campfire level heat and stone, not requiring the intensive smelting techniques that were required for metalworking in much of the rest of the metalworking world.
NORTH 02 on YouTube has some great videos about the metallurgy of the pre-Columbian Americas; I literally just watched the one on the Old Copper Culture today, and have his video on the larger metallurgical traditions of the Americas saved to watch.
The Old Copper Culture: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0E0ueRnBLw
The Lost Metallurgy of the Ancient Americas: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tfwjM4e42cE
They're really gorgeous too, some incredible artwork from the culture!

But I think non-bronze copper is not all that practical for tools?
Speaking only of that which I learned from the video I linked, my understanding is that cold-hammered copper actually hardens a fair amount. There's a demo using an axe with a cold hammered replica copper blade where he cuts down a tree, for example, and some tests using copper tipped spears. Also, cold hammered copper fishing hooks, which had advantages over bone fishing hooks inreparability and flexibility and would have been useful for fishing in the Great Lakes area. There are still tradeoffs, though, and stone tools were still in widespread use for things they were better for, but there was still a lot of utility in cold hammered copper.
Reading "The Dawn of Everything" really opened my eyes to how much our understanding of Native American culture is entirely driven by White colonial narratives. It wasn't just everything in this meme, its the consequences of them. These weren't "tribals" waiting for civilization to come to them, there was a sophisticated and advanced ecosystem of nations here, not always peaceful but rooted in an entirely different world view and systems of interaction than Europe.
To the extent that when NA ambassadors traveled to Europe, they would report back with what barberous and disgusting people the Europeans were, for all the reasons that would sound familiar today: abandoning the sick, old, and poor to die; worshipping wealth and commodities over people and community; pollution; environmental destruction; exploitation; religious hypocrisy; and more.
The "Native Critique of European Culture" is devastating, as further evidenced by how many early colonies "failed" (including the famous "missing" Roanoke colony) because the indentured servants, prisoners, and other folks who made up early colonists much preferred to "go native" than be forced into exploitative labor relationships with the foreign power.
That book is fucking amazing and one of my favorite reads by far. It opened my eyes too and got me super curious about the first jesuit encounters with the Brazilian natives in the early 1500s. History as taught in schools is also very "white man brought civilization" and every single one of the natives' struggles is swept under the rug. Finding these first records is hard for me. I might need to hit up university professors.
Yeah, it was wild to see how much of what I had been taught was European ideals and ideas were just Iriqouian critiques that Europeans were convinced of. Then later when he gets to talking about how some of these ideas seem to come from the rejection of Cahokia blew my mind again.
I mean, it is literally the stone age for North America. Even if you want to count Chalcolithic societies in Mesoamerica as out of the stone age, most of North America is still in the neolithic at the time of European discovery. Hell, one of the core features of the neolithic stone age is agriculture and plant domestication.
These are the 3 main reasons I think native americans were considered primitives: lack of metal tools (some groups had access to copper and bronze, but none had iron), lack of any sort of writing (writing didn't extend much beyond central America) and, especially in the warmer places, wearing little to no clothing.
Still, no one in their right mind would ever look at the huge temples and cities built without animal traction and think "Yeah, only a group of primitives would do that". I mean, when you look at the megaliths of Sacsayhuaman, you immediately think "How the fuck did they do it?"
some groups had access to copper and bronze, but none had iron
There were a group on the Washington coast that work with iron that washed up from old japanense shipwrecks before any contact of Europeans.
There are also a few Inuit groups who made knives for centuries from a metallic meteorite that landed in the arctic circle.
Isn't Washington coast on the east side of the continent?
Washington state is on the West Coast. Washington DC, the capital city, is on the East Coast.
It's... not intuitive.
When I was a kid, Washington the state, Washington DC, and the whitehouse all blurred together, and then we learned that the whitehouse burned and was rebuilt, and for the longest time I thought it was relocated... to the state... of Washington... and I believed that for years. I think I figured it out before high school, but it was definitely 7th or 8th grade before I could point on a map where the president sat.
There's a 4th: absolution. If you see their societies as having equal right to exist then what was done was a horrific atrocity that specific people are guilty of, often including one's ancestors. It's the same with a lot of anti black racism.
It's the problem of using an skewed system to make Europe the advanced civilization.
I read once that the first sign of civilization wasn't a weapon. It was a cured broken femur because that means someone took care of the person with the broken leg. So maybe that should be the guide to follow: medicine and healthcare.
It's interesting reading Cabeza de Vaca's account of living in Texas for a decade. All the natives living on the Texas coast weren't even hunter-gatherers. They were just gatherers and lived in lean-tos. Meanwhile, 1000 miles south of them was Tenochtitlan, and a bunch of other cities that Bernal Castillo described as grander than those in Europe.
There was no Mayan empire. The Mayas were divided among city-states.
Inka empire then?
OP definitely could have used the Inca empire. Its size far surpassed that of any bronze age state in the Old world.
It was also the largest empire by continuous latitude coverage
Aren't they one of only two empires that was formed into a narrow line north to south? I'm not saying they aren't impressive, just that they were only competing with Egypt there.
I did this in True Size Of:

I didn't include a few northern regions for New Kingdom Egypt, because they were a pain to move with my phone, but I also included all of Egypt which covers a lot of desertic area that probably wasn't under any strong state control.
Couldn't find La Paz in Bolivia with the website.
But it should give a pretty good idea.
EDIT:
Ok even better:

The Inka get bonus points for building earthquake-proof (or at least extremely resistant) structures out of stone.
Overwhelming percentage of your modern diet is due to precolumbian agricultural science.
They did all of that, without steel or cattle.
Stone Age, my left ass cheek. They were more advanced than the Europeans, Europe just got a lucky spawn.
top 90 comments