# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Overview of Varna, its stratification, and its demise.

## Angela

It's a nice summary from the Smithsonian Institute.

See:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel...958733/?no-ist

----------


## Milan

Nice article thanks,challenge for Gimbutas theory;

Gimbutas thought the Copper Age ended when invaders from the east swept into the region around 4000 b.c. The newcomers were “patriarchal, stratified … mobile, and war oriented”—everything the people of the Copper Age weren’t. They spoke Indo-European, the ancient tongue that forms the basis for English, Gaelic, Russian, and many other languages. The new arrivals put their stamp on Europe, and wiped out the goddess worship of the Copper Age in the process. 


Gimbutas was putting the finishing touches on Goddesses and Gods as the first finds from Varna were coming to light. She couldn’t have known that this cemetery deep behind the Iron Curtain would come to challenge her theory. 


In hindsight, the evidence is compelling. When I ask Slavchev about the conclusions drawn by Gimbutas, who died in 1994, he shakes his head. “Varna shows something completely different,” he says. “It’s clear the society here was male dominated. The richest graves were male; the chiefs were male. The idea of a woman-dominated society is completely false.”

I think however that the Danube cultures "Old Europe" as are known should be researched much more from scholars all around the world,scholars should show more interests in it.
First gold in the world,signs of writings/symbols the oldest in the world and more... could answer some questions..

----------


## Angela

> Nice article thanks,challenge for Gimbutas theory;
> 
> Gimbutas thought the Copper Age ended when invaders from the east swept into the region around 4000 b.c. The newcomers were “patriarchal, stratified … mobile, and war oriented”—everything the people of the Copper Age weren’t. They spoke Indo-European, the ancient tongue that forms the basis for English, Gaelic, Russian, and many other languages. The new arrivals put their stamp on Europe, and wiped out the goddess worship of the Copper Age in the process. 
> 
> 
> Gimbutas was putting the finishing touches on Goddesses and Gods as the first finds from Varna were coming to light. She couldn’t have known that this cemetery deep behind the Iron Curtain would come to challenge her theory. 
> 
> 
> In hindsight, the evidence is compelling. When I ask Slavchev about the conclusions drawn by Gimbutas, who died in 1994, he shakes his head. “Varna shows something completely different,” he says. “It’s clear the society here was male dominated. The richest graves were male; the chiefs were male. The idea of a woman-dominated society is completely false.”
> ...


Some things she obviously got right, but not all. 

I remember some papers I read last year that indicated that the stratification of society actually began in the Near East as soon as large agricultural surpluses were created, and sharply increased with the spread of metallurgy. I'll see if I can find them.

Totally agree that these "Old Europe" cultures need more study, and study of their ancient dna is also important.

----------


## Yetos

Well she observed the Kurgans and she made her theory,

but if we watch the gold Mettalurgy, then is the oposite road, from Balkans to Steppe.

*Gold metallurgy Road runs oposite the IE theory*,

----------


## LeBrok

> Some things she obviously got right, but not all. 
> 
> I remember some papers I read last year that indicated that the stratification of society actually began in the Near East as soon as large agricultural surpluses were created, and sharply increased with the spread of metallurgy. I'll see if I can find them.
> 
> Totally agree that these "Old Europe" cultures need more study, and study of their ancient dna is also important.


That's right. Stratification is common to every bigger population. Big group of people can't exist without a structure, or structures which organize group existence. Layers of management, if you will. Otherwise it is a mess. Based on this argument, we can be sure that there was no neolithic population, steppe herders without ruling class. Even big hunter gatherers groups of hundreds of people have a chieftain, shaman, and group of advisor elders. Unlike smaller groups of few tens of people which don't have them, and live in simple communes of equal people.
The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun. We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.

----------


## LeBrok

> More recently, researchers have begun considering another possibility—climate change. The collapse of the Copper Age coincides with a warming world, with larger swings in temperatures and rainfall. The villages that produced the gold found here are now underwater: The Black Sea was as much as 25 feet lower than it is today.


 Does anyone remember when was the estimated time of Black Sea deluge?

----------


## ElHorsto

> That's right. Stratification is common to every bigger population. Big group of people can't exist without a structure, or structures which organize group existence. Layers of management, if you will. Otherwise it is a mess. Based on this argument, we can be sure that there was no neolithic population, steppe herders. Even big hunter gatherers groups of hundreds of people have a chieftain, shaman, and group of advisor elders. Unlike smaller groups of few tens of people which don't have them, and live in simple communes of equal people.


Indeed it seems that inequality is more stable than equality. I wonder if this is the core message of the Pareto Principle. Most systems in nature are more resilient against damage if they comply with the power law distribution.




> The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun.


It's possible.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I remember some papers I read last year that indicated that the stratification of society actually began in the Near East as soon as large agricultural surpluses were created, and sharply increased with the spread of metallurgy. I'll see if I can find them.


That's what I remember too. Therefore the Indo-Europeans were not required to bring stratification anywhere. Stratification happens multiple times independently.

----------


## Milan

> Does anyone remember when was the estimated time of Black Sea deluge?


From Wikipedia;The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC from waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosphorus strait.
However the flood myth survives among people epics for example Deucalion the son of Prometheus; ancient sources name his mother as Clymene, Hesione, or Pronoia.He is closely connected with the Flood myth, according to which, the anger of Zeus was ignited by the hubris of the Pelasgians.
Deucalion is parallel to Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Sumerian flood that is told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and to the Biblical Noah.
Could be connected to this or at least might influence this narratives of some other flood,but certainly some flood was remembered among ancient people.

----------


## bicicleur

> The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun. We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.


are you serious?

----------


## Milan

> The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun. We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.


Who is the presumably IE here,the steppe people?We don't have such recorded encounter so we can draw any hypothesis but not more then this.
I don't think that history of WW1 or WW2 should be compared to ancient people,the fight everywhere was intense.

Some of most famous ancient conquerors culture builders were from South,unless we label they must have been "steppe related" while others were their what? perhaps they had their haplo's known already.

----------


## Yetos

> The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun. We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.



Neither Varva neither Rudna Glava is Northern Europe,
and WW1 was not intense at North, 10 years before WW1 Balkans were in flames, and they continued more than 5 years after WW1
and WW2 although Russia was the big theater, Balkans was the main resist,the main Guerilla wars, and ended 4 years after WW2,
so come on with N European extra-estimation, they do not know about Guerilla wars, just Napoleoneanan tacticks and Blitzkrieg,
the most numerous casualties at one battle in few hours at 20th century is Kilkis-Lachana (lahanas) at Makedonia, 2nd Balkan wars
I don't know if Hirosima consider as battle. that is why S Europeans always avoid Napoleonean tacticks.
and as I said before if we exclude Hebrew and Roma deaths at camps, for they are victims of another kind of war, Balkans suffer much more than N europe,

----------


## Angela

> That's right. Stratification is common to every bigger population. Big group of people can't exist without a structure, or structures which organize group existence. Layers of management, if you will. Otherwise it is a mess. Based on this argument, we can be sure that there was no neolithic population, steppe herders. Even big hunter gatherers groups of hundreds of people have a chieftain, shaman, and group of advisor elders. Unlike smaller groups of few tens of people which don't have them, and live in simple communes of equal people.
> The main difference between farmers of Varna and IE invaders was the scale of warrior culture. Analogy would be comparing farmers to a nice dog who can fight when there is a need, and IE to a vicious one who attacks at will, almost for fun. We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.


Well, we have a lot of EEF in us, but much as I would like to claim that my people fight only when there's a real need, I can't. Italy stupidly fought in World War I to get back territory many of whose people don't want to be part of the country anyway, and we bombed poor Ethiopians to get into the imperialist game. We went into Greece as well. I'm not proud of any of that, even if most of my relatives were anti-fascists of one sort or another.

That isn't to say that I think there are no differences between "ethnic" groups of people in terms of how aggression manifests itself, behavior during war etc., because I do think they exist, and are a product of both genetics and history.

----------


## João Soares

Thanks for the article. Very interesting!

From reading _História de Portugal, Volume 1_, 1992, coord. José Mattoso – it seems that Indo-European peoples (aka “urnfield civilization”, aka continental peoples) weren’t much war oriented. At the time this book was written (1992), archeologic records didn’t show signs of violence when of these people arrived. The author points out one case, in São Pedro do Sul, which could suggest a “violent shock” between the newcomers and the established ones. But then he admits the destuction of that site could be explained by “many reasons”, so it was not safe to conclude it was a military engagement.

He finaly comes to the conclusion that, although the continental peoples left their mark in what concerns funerary rites, they were largely assimilated by what had been so far the local culture elements, and namely by the local “mountain living peoples”.

But this is about western Iberia only. 

Altough I agree big societies need higher levels of organization, which can lead to stratified communities, there was a neolithic city - Çatalhöyük - that apparently didn´t bear social classes. Go figure...

----------


## LeBrok

> Indeed it seems that inequality is more stable than equality. I wonder if this is the core message of the Pareto Principle. Most systems in nature are more resilient against damage if they comply with the power law distribution.


I'd say that, inequality is rather a side effect of stratification, not a stand alone element which brings positive effect of stability. Stratification brings efficient organization and stability. Inequality brings dissatisfaction and in some degree instability, however stability and efficiency is much more precious to society than destructive inequality, that's why we put up with it. Of course, among other things, but it is irrelevant here.
In short, it seem that one ruler could do a better leading job than thousands of arguing citizens. Other words, making a timely decision, even not the best one, is better than no decision at all, especially in times of a crisis. Even modern democratic systems elect one ruler for this mentioned reason.






> It's possible.


 Seems that I'm getting a quick backlash from South Europeans. :)
Hey, I never said that South Europe can't fight or be heroic. I'm just saying that it comes more naturally to Northern Europeans. They have more appetite for fighting, or liking it more. Along the line, that if you like what you do, you are going to do it more often. I'm hypothesising that it could be related to ANE or WHG of Steppe Warriors genes.
Just check the numbers how many people died in WW1 and 2 in south and north Europe.
There must be a reason why these steppe warriors conquered more populous and rich nations of the farming south, in Europe, Near East and India. They loved the war and trained from early age, like Mongols in recent history.

----------


## bicicleur

> Well, we have a lot of EEF in us, but much as I would like to claim that my people fight only when there's a real need, I can't. Italy stupidly fought in World War I to get back territory many of whose people don't want to be part of the country anyway, and we bombed poor Ethiopians to get into the imperialist game. We went into Greece as well. I'm not proud of any of that, even if most of my relatives were anti-fascists of one sort or another.
> 
> That isn't to say that I think there are no differences between "ethnic" groups of people in terms of how aggression manifests itself, behavior during war etc., because I do think they exist, and are a product of both genetics and history.


violence and imperialism worldwide is not exceptional behaviour, it is the rule
that is where Gimbutas was wrong
that is where many naive people are wrong today

----------


## Yetos

well a *kindly reminder


Hettits had no gender, male/female at their language.*
but had gramatical 'person/gender', according 'casta' social class,
now that reflects societies of IEans? or societies of Near/middle East?

consider this at your thoughts,

----------


## Milan

> From Wikipedia;The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC from waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosphorus strait.
> However the flood myth survives among people epics for example Deucalion the son of Prometheus; ancient sources name his mother as Clymene, Hesione, or Pronoia.He is closely connected with the Flood myth, according to which, the anger of Zeus was ignited by the hubris of the Pelasgians.
> Deucalion is parallel to Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Sumerian flood that is told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and to the Biblical Noah.
> Could be connected to this or at least might influence this narratives of some other flood,but certainly some flood was remembered among ancient people.


The narrative of the flood is interesting for example,the oldest Greek oracle and location of the landing place of the ark in Greek mythology,Dodona was the oldest Hellenic oracle centre according to the fifth-century historian Herodotus. Archaeological excavations have recovered artefacts from as early as the Mycenaean era,and prehistoric sites at Dodona, have been shown to have been in existence since about 2,000 BC.Dodona is the Mythological landing place for Deucalion after the flood, while Ararat is known in Hebraic as the landing place of the Ark for Noah.
Some call it the oldest oracle hence Pelasgian,Aristotle say is the place where Hellenes originated etc..

But very hard anything from this can be established since is a myth only.

----------


## Milan

> Some things she obviously got right, but not all. 
> 
> I remember some papers I read last year that indicated that the stratification of society actually began in the Near East as soon as large agricultural surpluses were created, and sharply increased with the spread of metallurgy. I'll see if I can find them.
> 
> Totally agree that these "Old Europe" cultures need more study, and study of their ancient dna is also important.


Yes and i see that the researchers from United states are more interested in them then the one in Europe,for example the figurines and cultures from Danube valley were exhibited in New York,part of article;
A Lost European Culture, Pulled From Obscurity
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORDNOV. 30, 2009
Before the glory that was Greece and Rome, even before the first cities of Mesopotamia or temples along the Nile, there lived in the Lower Danube Valley and the Balkan foothills people who were ahead of their time in art, technology and long-distance trade.


For 1,500 years, starting earlier than 5000 B.C., they farmed and built sizable towns, a few with as many as 2,000 dwellings. They mastered large-scale copper smelting, the new technology of the age. Their graves held an impressive array of exquisite headdresses and necklaces and, in one cemetery, the earliest major assemblage of gold artifacts to be found anywhere in the world.
At the exhibition preview, Roger S. Bagnall, director of the institute, confessed that until now “a great many archaeologists had not heard of these Old Europe cultures.” Admiring the colorful ceramics, Dr. Bagnall, a specialist in Egyptian archaeology, remarked that at the time “Egyptians were certainly not making pottery like this.”
The Thinker

http://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/olde...roduction.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01arch.html

Then one of my favorite medievalists South-East Europe Florin Curta is likewise writing from United States,i have read in his articles that he is complaining that in Europe is hard to work whether archeology,history is subjected by some old ideas that are wrong,but are changing not talking about here IE'ans but medieval.
Balkan for some reason is avoided from many different studies despite the importance of this region in the Medieval times,downfall of Roman empire,emerging of new states etc and likewise as we see in much more ancient world.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I'd say that, inequality is rather a side effect of stratification, not a stand alone element which brings positive effect of stability. Stratification brings efficient organization and stability. Inequality brings dissatisfaction and in some degree instability, however stability and efficiency is much more precious to society than destructive inequality, that's why we put up with it. Of course, among other things, but it is irrelevant here.
> In short, it seem that one ruler could do a better leading job than thousands of arguing citizens. Other words, making a timely decision, even not the best one, is better than no decision at all, especially in times of a crisis. Even modern democratic systems elect one ruler for this mentioned reason.


Agree that inequality is a side effect of stratification.
But also a certain degree of inequality itself is stable (self-reinforcing) in nature. The 80:20 figure is mentioned often In Pareto articles. I'm not saying that it is good, just that it is natural. Too much inequality again leads to instablilty of course (revolution). 




> Seems that I'm getting a quick backlash from South Europeans. :)
> Hey, I never said that South Europe can't fight or be heroic. I'm just saying that it comes more naturally to Northern Europeans. They have more appetite for fighting, or liking it more. Along the line, that if you like what you do, you are going to do it more often. I'm hypothesising that it could be related to ANE or WHG of Steppe Warriors genes.
> Just check the numbers how many people died in WW1 and 2 in south and north Europe.
> There must be a reason why these steppe warriors conquered more populous and rich nations of the farming south, in Europe, Near East and India. They loved the war and trained from early age, like Mongols in recent history.


I have to disappoint you, I didn't agree with your WW2 hypothesis, that's why I didn't quote it. :) WW2 is no good example. 
I only agree that it's possible that Indo-Europeans might have been more specialized on raids and mobility like Mongols, and farmers more specialized on defense (like Chinese?), or something similar. But to which degree this is inherited is not certain. For example Spain and Portugal were once the biggest empires in the world.

----------


## LeBrok

> I have to disappoint you, I didn't agree with your WW2 hypothesis, that's why I didn't quote it. :) WW2 is no good example.


I'm not sure why not? Main aggressors were from north Europe. I don't have the exact figures but I would say that north Europe lost 20 million people and south 2 million. This points to much bigger intensity of fighting in the North.




> I only agree that it's possible that Indo-Europeans might have been more specialized on raids and mobility like Mongols, and farmers more specialized on defense (like Chinese?), or something similar. But to which degree this is inherited is not certain.


 Nothing certain indeed, just reading possible clues.




> For example Spain and Portugal were once the biggest empires in the world.


Contr-argument would be that their conquest was not done by their big army but superior technology, money and canning.

----------


## LeBrok

> The narrative of the flood is interesting for example,the oldest Greek oracle and location of the landing place of the ark in Greek mythology,Dodona was the oldest Hellenic oracle centre according to the fifth-century historian Herodotus. Archaeological excavations have recovered artefacts from as early as the Mycenaean era,and prehistoric sites at Dodona, have been shown to have been in existence since about 2,000 BC.Dodona is the Mythological landing place for Deucalion after the flood, while Ararat is known in Hebraic as the landing place of the Ark for Noah.
> Some call it the oldest oracle hence Pelasgian,Aristotle say is the place where Hellenes originated etc..
> 
> But very hard anything from this can be established since is a myth only.


The biblical flood might as well be the Black Sea deluge. However the oldest texts about this come from Babylon, and Babylon is located in a valley of two big rivers prone to flood. It could have been local babylonian flood as well.

----------


## Milan

> The biblical flood might as well be the Black Sea deluge. However the oldest texts about this come from Babylon, and Babylon is located in a valley of two big rivers prone to flood. It could have been local babylonian flood as well.


Yes just possibilities,the Danube was identified by some as Pishon river from the bible the four rivers of Eden,land described as rich in gold,cradle of gold but most trace this rivers to the middle east,since others Euphrates,Tigris,Nile were there,but Pishon is missing.
One is sure that this myths are related.

----------


## ElHorsto

> Contr-argument would be that their conquest was not done by their big army but superior technology, money and canning.


Yes, money/gold in particular. They were at the right time at the right place. The influx of new gold from the new world triggered a "keynesian" effect which made further expansion possible. Deflation due to limited gold supply was a notorious problem in feudalsim with it's social immobility. Hence greed for gold was very rational and not only emotionally driven.
On the other hand, maybe Indo-European and BB metal workers enjoyed a similar effect like Spain and Portugal? Could be that their new settlements opened new sources of metal(~military) wealth for them. Did they also rob the gold from other Varna-like sites we don't know about? Very speculative I know.

----------


## João Soares

> Yes, money/gold in particular. They were at the right time at the right place. The influx of new gold from the new world triggered a "keynesian" effect which made further expansion possible. Deflation due to limited gold supply was a notorious problem in feudalsim with it's social immobility. Hence greed for gold was very rational and not only emotionally driven.
> On the other hand, maybe Indo-European and BB metal workers enjoyed a similar effect like Spain and Portugal? Could be that their new settlements opened new sources of metal(~military) wealth for them. Did they also rob the gold from other Varna-like sites we don't know about? Very speculative I know.


I would say it was the portuguese jesuits priest who played the 20 in Pareto principle regarding portuguese colonization: they were the ones who made first contact with the tribes, converted them, and made them allies of the Portuguese Crown. 

Also, Portuguese military tactics were more defensive than ofensive, with the feitorias at shore being the center of the expeditions.

So, I don't see a conditio sine qua non between metal and expansion, although of course it played it's part.

----------


## ElHorsto

> I would say it was the portuguese jesuits priest who played the 20 in Pareto principle regarding portuguese colonization: they were the ones who made first contact with the tribes, converted them, and made them allies of the Portuguese Crown. 
> 
> Also, Portuguese military tactics were more defensive than ofensive, with the feitorias at shore being the center of the expeditions.
> 
> So, I don't see a conditio sine qua non between metal and expansion, although of course it played it's part.


I wasn't sure about Portugal, now that you say it. The described role of gold applies only to Spain then (El Dorado), where religion was only the official excuse.

----------


## Yetos

> Yes just possibilities,the Danube was identified by some as Pishon river from the bible the four rivers of Eden,land described as rich in gold,cradle of gold but most trace this rivers to the middle east,since others Euphrates,Tigris,Nile were there,but Pishon is missing.
> One is sure that this myths are related.



or we are talking about Phases river, the golden fleece, Φασης,
Phases Phasis river is the mythical river were people gather gold, by laying fleece at the bottom of the river, area Colchis.
Romans use to gather gold with Callicum which was made by skin,
the gold or Romania which even today is collected was not so known before few centuries, and I do not know if it was river gold ot mining gold,




the most known river of gold are Φασης and Πακτωλος Pactolus, and little bit less known is Εχεδωρος-Callicum river at Makedonia

----------


## Fire Haired14

"first evidence of social hierarchies in the historical record.r"

The archaeological site in which Karelia_HG was from had clear social hierarchy. I read a book, where an archaeologist made this very clear. There was also obvious religious symbolism. So, I don't know what they're talking about. Varna definitely isn't the oldest example of some individuals being more valued than others. Humans made valuable possessions before metals. You can see in stone age burials, some people get incredible grave goods while others not so much.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Well, we have a lot of EEF in us, but much as I would like to claim that my people fight only when there's a real need, I can't. Italy stupidly fought in World War I to get back territory many of whose people don't want to be part of the country anyway, and we bombed poor Ethiopians to get into the imperialist game. We went into Greece as well. I'm not proud of any of that, even if most of my relatives were anti-fascists of one sort or another.


The military aggression of a large country doesn't represent the aggression levels of the populous. America is a good example. It's a pretty aggressive country in terms of military, but the people are pretty peaceful. 




> We possibly could still see it during WW1 and WW2, where the most intense fighting took place throughout northern Europe, from England to Russia. Countries with prevailing ANE and WHG genes. Differences in behaviour could be partially explained by different genetic base. I have a feeling that genes influence culture a lot.


We better put Mexicans in camps before their blood lust ANE genes kick in :). Genes probably do have influence culture, but is there any field of study that looks at this in detail? Doubt it. IMO, we can't be making claims based on culture before someone does serious research on the topic. 

The reason there's variation in human population's behavior is because we're learned creatures. Other species don't learn knowledge and behavior from each other, so there's hardly any variation between members of the same species from differnt continents.

----------


## LeBrok

> We better put Mexicans in camps before their blood lust ANE genes kick in :). Genes probably do have influence culture, but is there any field of study that looks at this in detail? Doubt it. IMO, we can't be making claims based on culture before someone does serious research on the topic.


yes we can make claims, no harm in it, as long as we admit these are just hypothesis. I hope I was clear with this one.
If you go back to threads about Neanderthal from around 2009, I was making claims in them that Neanderthals had mated with humans. Guess what?...
All was based on circumstantial evidence. Perhaps I'm a good observer and detective?




> Other species don't learn knowledge and behavior from each other, so there's hardly any variation between members of the same species from differnt continents.


Ok then. Cats on all continents are carnivores. Do you think it is cultural or genetic?

----------


## bicicleur

> yes we can make claims, no harm in it, as long as we admit these are just hypothesis. I hope I was clear with this one.
> If you go back to threads about Neanderthal from around 2009, I was making claims in them that Neanderthals had mated with humans. Guess what?...
> All was based on circumstantial evidence. Perhaps I'm a good observer and detective?
> 
> Ok then. Cats on all continents are carnivores. Do you think it is cultural or genetic?


a bigger difference between north and south Europe is climate
north Europe has grey and wet winters with long and dark nights
it causes lots of winter depressions in Scandinavia
climate will explain more differences in behaviour than genes
looking for clues in the IE behaviour of 5000 years ago is very far fetched

----------


## Milan

The curator David Anthony at the exhibition in New York says "that this were the most advanced European civilization's of it's time,these were the first cultures to invent metallurgy in Europe,that's a major technological achievement,and all later civilizations depended on it including Greeks and Romans,history of making tools and weapons out of metal begin with this cultures of old Europe,culture that thrived across for centuries across present day Bulgaria,Romania,Serbia,Moldova,Macedonia and Ukraine".Now when we talk about "loot" or conquest of gold, what gold meant to steppe people at the time?in what level they were at that time? I personally believe more in culture exchange,just like it was with what gun powder for example,the loot doesn't bring anything,then intermingling,migration,well the fourth crusade melted the gold from Constantinople, meant what to them in middle ages?

----------


## LeBrok

> a bigger difference between north and south Europe is climate
> north Europe has grey and wet winters with long and dark nights
> it causes lots of winter depressions in Scandinavia
> climate will explain more differences in behaviour than genes


At the end of a day climate will show its dominance in genetic changes. If species stays in an area for many generations, they will genetically adapt to its environment. Arctic foxes have long white coat, good for camouflage and warmth. Even people staying in place for thousands of years will go through genetic changes to fit better into environment. For example northern Europeans have lighter skin and are more lactose persistent than south Europeans. Genes dictate that they can drink milk and they do. Cultural aspect of culinary tradition is secondary.




> looking for clues in the IE behaviour of 5000 years ago is very far fetched


Making clues about Neanderthal was even more far fetched.

----------


## Alan

> Indeed it seems that inequality is more stable than equality. I wonder if this is the core message of the Pareto Principle. Most systems in nature are more resilient against damage if they comply with the power law distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible.


The most stable however is a balance of equality and inequality. 
As I have said it in the past many times, All people can't be 100% equal because you need some inequality for progress. This is why Communism as much as it sounds cool and great in theory will never and never worked well in reality. The same can be said about hardcore capitalism which brings out the most animalic instincts of the human and should not gain the upper hand in a progressive society. As always a balance middle way is the real deal.

You need competition, rewards to motivate the human being to become better and develop. Why else are competitive sports the most successful in the world? The same can be projected on our daily live. What makes a human work harder in his job and become better is the idea that he would be rewarded for it with something. At best this is something what not anybody has (Humans love rare things which they believe makes them special why else this hype about metals around their neck even in ancient times). However in an "equal" society there is not much motivation for the animalistic instinct of the human to become better. "Why should I study harder if at the end of the day I have the same as the person next door who didn't even go to college?". 

That is what will go trough most peoples heads with the exception of some people who are idealistically motivated. We have an example too. Look at Cuba which still looks like it is in the 60-70-80s.
However in a progressive and healthy society we can't let our animalistic instinct gain the upper hand. Otherwise we will end up in killing each other for the tiniest stone. Which is the problem in hardcore capitalistic countries where the gap between rich and poor is huge.

So the goal should NEVER be the ultimative equality, but a, holding the gap between rich/successful and poor/less successful as small as possible (at best very minimal, guaranteeing a good live for the poorest) without actually killing the diversity and retaining still some sort of hierarchy.

----------


## Alan

> Yes and i see that the researchers from United states are more interested in them then the one in Europe,for example the figurines and cultures from Danube valley were exhibited in New York,part of article;
> A Lost European Culture, Pulled From Obscurity
> By JOHN NOBLE WILFORDNOV. 30, 2009
> Before the glory that was Greece and Rome, even before the first cities of Mesopotamia or temples along the Nile, there lived in the Lower Danube Valley and the Balkan foothills people who were ahead of their time in art, technology and long-distance trade.
> 
> 
> For 1,500 years, starting earlier than 5000 B.C., they farmed and built sizable towns, a few with as many as 2,000 dwellings. They mastered large-scale copper smelting, the new technology of the age. Their graves held an impressive array of exquisite headdresses and necklaces and, in one cemetery, the earliest major assemblage of gold artifacts to be found anywhere in the world.
> At the exhibition preview, Roger S. Bagnall, director of the institute, confessed that until now “a great many archaeologists had not heard of these Old Europe cultures.” Admiring the colorful ceramics, Dr. Bagnall, a specialist in Egyptian archaeology, remarked that at the time “Egyptians were certainly not making pottery like this.”
> The Thinker
> ...




You are confusing civilizations with cultures. Pottery is not a sign of a civilization but culture. Pottery was made in the Near East (Natufians, Halaf *cultures*) prior to ancient civilizations.

----------


## Milan

> You are confusing civilizations with cultures. Pottery is not a sign of a civilization but culture. Pottery was made in the Near East (Natufians, Halaf *cultures*) prior to ancient civilizations.


Where did you saw i do that? i was merely quoting others most of the time about this "Old Europe" people,and yes some call them Danube valley civilizations and they had everything to be call civilization,economic systems,social stratification,settlement patterns and even sign of symbols/writings among first in the world,first gold assemblage in the world,all this should not be disregard and it was on European soil.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> You are confusing civilizations with cultures. Pottery is not a sign of a civilization but culture. Pottery was made in the Near East (Natufians, Halaf *cultures*) prior to ancient civilizations.


No, he isn't. Did you read that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/sc...arch.html?_r=0




> New research, archaeologists and historians say, has broadened understanding of this long overlooked culture, which seemed to have approached the threshold of “civilization” status.





> At its peak, around 4500 B.C., said David W. Anthony, the exhibition’s guest curator, “Old Europe was among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced places in the world” and was developing “many of the political, technological and ideological signs of civilization.”


The things he said are consistent with the above statements. Either way, he used the term "cultures".

----------


## Yetos

> You are confusing civilizations with cultures. Pottery is not a sign of a civilization but culture. Pottery was made in the Near East (Natufians, Halaf *cultures*) prior to ancient civilizations.


from what found in Balkans the last decades, many things change in archaiology, and civilizations,
Varna is one of them, some of varna burial ritual is found thousands year before Pharaoh burial customs etc etc,

----------


## Angela

Lots of good information on this general topic in the following threads:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ghlight=Europe

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...=david+anthony

----------


## Alan

> Where did you saw i do that? i was merely quoting others most of the time about this "Old Europe" people,and yes some call them Danube valley civilizations and they had everything to be call civilization,economic systems,social stratification,settlement patterns and even sign of symbols/writings among first in the world,first gold assemblage in the world,all this should not be disregard and it was on European soil.


you compared "Old European" pottery to ancient Mesopotamia and said say predate Sumerians as if anyone claimed that there was no pottery pre Sumerians. Do you see the mistake now? Sumer was a civilization and as far as I know there is no other civilization that predates Sumer, Elam, Egypt and Indus Valley Civilization. There are however dozens of cultures around the globe that predate these civilizations.




> *Before the glory that was Greece and Rome, even before the first cities of Mesopotamia or temples along the Nile, there lived in the Lower Danube Valley and the Balkan foothills people who were ahead of their time in art, technology and long-distance trade.*
> 
> 
> For 1,500 years, starting earlier than 5000 B.C., they farmed and built sizable towns, a few with as many as 2,000 dwellings. They mastered large-scale copper smelting, the new technology of the age. Their graves held an impressive array of exquisite headdresses and necklaces and, in one cemetery, the earliest major assemblage of gold artifacts to be found anywhere in the world.


And I just said that before Mesopotamian cities and Egypt there were cultures around the globe who were ahead of their times and pointed out that this nothing unique. Natufians and Halaf were just two examples. Civilizations are something slightly different than cultures.

----------


## Alan

> No, he isn't. Did you read that?
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/sc...arch.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The things he said are consistent with the above statements. Either way, he used the term "cultures".



All I read is "approached the threshold " and "developing many of the political, technological and ideological signs of civilizations." 
And what of these things are actually unique or unseen in many other cultures? 

That is basically the case for many of the cultures and as *I stated is nothing unique.* 
Göbekli Tepe and Ubaid period which is the first stage of Sumer actually and a transition from culture to civilization.

As I said, not that unique for cultures to approach the civilization status. Articles in Jornals are often written to make anything appear sensational. Do you expect them to write, "we found another Old European culture beside dozen others." Of course they will make it sound more interesting. Someone just needs to take a look at the Neolithic-Indo European articles in those journals.


Comparing a culture, no matter how close to becoming a civilization, to a full grown civilization like Sumer, Elam or Egypt is just wrong. Pharaos have nothing to do with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period

----------


## bicicleur

> you compared "Old European" pottery to ancient Mesopotamia and said say predate Sumerians as if anyone claimed that there was no pottery pre Sumerians. Do you see the mistake now? Sumer was a civilization and as far as I know there is no other civilization that predates Sumer, Elam, Egypt and Indus Valley Civilization. There are however dozens of cultures around the globe that predate these civilizations.
> 
> 
> 
> And I just said that before Mesopotamian cities and Egypt there were cultures around the globe who were ahead of their times and pointed out that this nothing unique. Natufians and Halaf were just two examples. Civilizations are something slightly different than cultures.


so what does it take to form a civilization instead of a culture?

----------


## Alan

> so what does it take to form a civilization instead of a culture?


urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.

----------


## Yetos

> urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.


I dont think urbanization is the difference among culture and civilization,
urabnization is just a degree of how engineering and social sciences were advanced,

for me the difference is like Americas West and Indians,

for example indians had different cultures, and they were divided to tribes
simmilar tribes had simmilar culture, 
different tribes had different culture,
but all this makes the civilization of 'open valleys'
Petra for example is a culture and civilization by its own, fits to both,

now you use the term urbanization, to describe the difference among culture and civilization,
I will use 2 term
1) civilian πολιτης πολις
2) production and advanced usage of first materials,

1) civilian, is the unit of a civilization, civilians according civilization they belong somewhere they produce store and consum, and they protect these things and their society,
2) production lets look at Eskimoes, they hunt not farm, but they produce and have advanced usage of their first level materials, they may never found iron production, cause it might be never there as iron ore or as coal, but they had advanced usage of bones and leather which is plenty there,
they may have different or simmilar culture according tribe, but they all are the civilization of Arctic lands.
so when I, a farmer who used to be dressed with linen cotton and wool, move there, I am doomed, if someone did not transmit me the secrets of their civilization,

ok the above are personal, 
termination civilization, advanced, and very or high advanced has to do with the level of sciences and law respect,
all civilizations collapse by 3 things
1) barbarian raiding enemies (steal the production)
2) lost or lack of first level materials and not turn to alternative production
3) new inside culture that deny law and sciences (anarchy or new religion)

many times culture and civilization is the same thing, many times not

a good example Finland,
Finland has 2 civilizations, 
1 of urban Finnish at cities with govermental and industrial etc etc
2 the lappi of the North who are breeders
now these 2 had different civilizations few centuries before
but today they combine and complex their needs and demands and have a higher and more complicated civilization
Lappi use snow motorbikes and consume oil,
Urban Finnish consume Lappi production
so yes merchantise as you said is something that advance a civilization

a good example among culture and civilization is sports and how people develope and think about
Football (soccer for USA) is purely European culture that also loved and advanced in S America culture, and elsewhere
champions league is a kind of ultimate desire for Europeans,
each country had developed its own style of gaming according their culture,
the same game in USA Canada and Australia is just silly, or not worthy, 
that is difference of culture, not civilization,

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

> All I read is "approached the threshold " and "developing many of the political, technological and ideological signs of civilizations." 
> And what of these things are actually unique or unseen in many other cultures?


What's your problem really? No one said that it was the first ancient civilization but if it had "approached the threshold" of civilization it deserves more attention, especially if it is generally overlooked.
Most of the things you said are almost correct but irrelevant.




> _At the exhibition preview, Roger S. Bagnall, director of the institute, confessed that until now “a great many archaeologists had not heard of these Old Europe cultures.” Admiring the colorful ceramics, Dr. Bagnall, a specialist in Egyptian archaeology, remarked that at the time “Egyptians were certainly not making pottery like this.”_


Also, if that is true, it's important, no matter what. And I don't think that MILAN=Roger S. Bagnall

----------


## bicicleur

> urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.


it may all have been there in old Europe
the main difference between old Europe and Ubaid is that old Europe used perishable wood as construction materials, which was not available in Mesoppotamia
in metallurgy, old Europe certainly was ahead of Mesopotamia

----------


## Goga

> in metallurgy, old Europe certainly was ahead of Mesopotamia


Which metallurgy (metal) do you mean? Because the earliest artefact of copper has been found in Kurdistan. And it is dated to 9500 BC.


_" Several isolated finds of copper objects have been discovered from before the 6th Millennia B.C. The earliest artefact of pure copper known to me is a 2.3 cm pendant found in the Shanidar Cave located in north-east Iraq that is dated to 9,500 B.C. (Hummel 2004). "_

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/iraqshanidar.htm

----------


## Goga

A copper awl from Cayönü, Northern Kurdistan.




" _The earliest known copper artefacts are from Çayönü Tepesi, an early agricultural settlement in the SE, from the late 9th millennium BC to early eighth millennium BC._ "



Copper bead from Aşıklı Höyük





"_Other early sites are Aşıklı Höyük, further west, from which have been found more than 11 rolled or solid, mostly annealed native copper beads included in burials (levels 1-4, but mainly level 3) probably from the early 8th millennium BC. Small copper beads at Nevalı Çori, thought to date around 7500 BC, despite being genuine in form, are considered by some to be suspect, due to base metal impurities indicative of smelting_ "


http://armchairprehistory.com/2015/0...he-copper-age/

----------


## Goga

> in metallurgy, old Europe certainly was ahead of Mesopotamia


I don't know about what kind of metallurgy (metal) you are talking about, but the 'copper' metallurgy in Northern Mesopotamia-Zagros, Kurdistan, is still the oldest known to date.

*It was thousands of years ahead of Old Europe.*

Btw, they are also talking about my native region of Shengal (Sinjar).


from: _Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence_, Peter Roger & Stuart Moorey

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

It isn't a competition. Even if the emergence of metallurgy occurred in the Fertile Crescent (which is possible) it is important that we have evidence of extractive metallurgy from modern-day Serbia from the 6th and 5th millennium B.C.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05440310001986

----------


## bicicleur

I didn't say old Europe did have the first metallurgy, I said they were ahead of Mesopotamia
furthermore old Europe has the earleist known copper ore smelting facilities and copper ore mines
the copper in the Zagros Mts was probably native copper, not from ores and was only found in very limited quantities

----------


## Yetos

@ Goga

try to understand the difference,

the cayonu tepesi copper is not the same with Rudna Glava,
one is cold work, hammer,
the other is smelting,
*the mettalurgy method is tottaly different,
so yes Rudna Glava and Varna are pioneers in mettalurgy, although the oldest copper is found at Cayonu,

*the first is like producing a wooden wheel by rub and grate wood to hard stone,
the other is like produce wooden wheel with a saw,
tottaly different methods,

and such things are the main argue against Gibutas,
for the road of gold and smelting copper etc follows oposite direction of kurgans,
only arsenic bronze fits with Kurgan roads in Europe,
covering the dead king with gold and golden masks is not IE neither Semitic custom,
it was old Europe custom

----------


## Angela

We discussed the different centers of metallurgy in this thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...ght=Metallurgy

"Anyway, he begins with a very well written and therefore clear review of the development ofmetallurgy in the Near East. Some of us have discussed the various ways that it could have developed, so you might find it an interesting read. 

Of interest considering matters we have been discussing he states that by the late 5th millennium, there were four centers ofmetallurgy in the Near East, mountainous SE Anatolia (the first center, and, of course, where farming also first developed), S.E. Anatolia closer to the coast, the Levant west of the Jordan, and highland Iran.

He takes a rather non-committal attitude toward the issue of where coppermetallurgy first developed, the Near East or the southeast Balkans. 
_"Not so long ago it was generally assumed that European metallurgy was derived from the Near East, whence it spread to the Aegean and then into the Balkan peninsula".

But, based on carbon dating by Renfrew, it was"suggested that production of copper in the Balkans was an indigenous, independent, or nearly independent development...It would not be unreasonable to suggest that copper smelting began during the late sixth millennia BC [in the Balkans] and somewhat later in Anatolia. But, this conditional European priority depends on the resolution of slag like material from Catal Hoyuk level VIA, which would give priority back to Anatolia". 

He also goes on to say that it's unclear whether the four centers in the Near East and the southeastern Balkans had influence on each other culturally.The earliest alloying seems to have occurred in the middle of the 5th millennium BC in both south eastern Anatolia and Varna. He then points out that arsenical copper objects were unusual in south east Europe and Iran, and that lost wax casting was confined to the Levant until the later 4th millennium BC. Additionally, he points out that whereas the oldest use of native copper in southeast Europe was in the northern part of Starcevi Crist, pretty far from a trade or technology route from the Near East, copper objects were by no means common there, and the earliest copper smelting was in Vinca 5400 BC. 
.
Rounding out the picture is this statement..."Smelting and casting...the only operations shared across all of these metal craft centers...could have been invented independently in connection with high temperature ceramic in kilns."

So, he's taking a very cautious position in all of this. What is clear, I think, is that there is no indication it was invented in the Balkans and spread from there to the Near East. It's possible that it developed independently in a Neolithic context in both places, but with better analysis and dating, it might be that the pre-Renfrew analysis was correct, and that it spread along long established trade routes from the Near East to south east Europe."

__What's very clear, however, is that the steppe people were late comers to the metallurgy game. It moved from "Old Europe" east to the steppe in the case of copper metallurgy, and at some point from the Caucasus as well. As I've been saying for five years or more, the steppe people incorporated influences from all the neighboring cultures. Their unique input into the "Indo-European package" seems to me to have been the domestication of the horse and using horses to pull wagons (also developed by others) and perhaps extreme patriarchy and war likeness. To that extent I think Gimbutas was somewhat correct. While Old Europe may not have had female rulers, and already had social stratification, as indeed was also present in the Near East, there still seems to be a qualitative difference between the two cultures._

----------


## Goga

@ Yetos & bicicleur


Bros, it doesn't even matter who was first, but I just want to have my facts straight.


The Balkans and West Asia are next to each other, so of course they influenced each other.

The oldest traces of the metallurgy (*metalworking* / *manipulating copper*) itself still have been found in Northern Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia has the oldest known metallurgy to date, *9500* BC. It is true that the oldest smelting facilities have been found in the Balkans, they are the oldest known. And the folks in the Balkans could pioneer smelting. But did they actually do it?

There is a huge gap of more than *3000-4000 years* between ancient metallurgy in Mesopotamia and more advanced metallurgy in the Balkans. Don't you think that in all those 3000 years people in the Northern Mesopotamia and the Iranian Plateau couldn't invent how to smelt copper (alloying and refining) by themselves?


So, there was already a metallurgy in the Mesopotamia thousands years before the Old Europe. And even around 4000 BC metallurgy was much more advanced in the Mesopotamia than in Old Europe. Because the Sumerian were already familiar with '*bronze*'.


By the year 4000 BC ancient Sumerians already made 'bronze' (copper + tin). So even by the year of 4000 BC ancient Mesopotamia was way more ahead the Old Europe. It is although possible that the Sumerians learned how to smelt copper from the the folks in the Balkans and right after it they invented '*bronze*' and *updated the metallurgy to a different higher level*.

----------


## Goga

> "Anyway, he begins with a very well written and therefore clear review of the development of metallurgy in the Near East. Some of us have discussed the various ways that it could have developed, so you might find it an interesting read. 
> 
> Of interest considering matters we have been discussing he states that by the late 5th millennium, there were four centers of metallurgy in the Near East, mountainous SE Anatolia (the first center, and, of course, where farming also first developed), S.E. Anatolia closer to the coast, the Levant west of the Jordan, and highland Iran.
> 
> He takes a rather non-committal attitude toward the issue of where copper metallurgy first developed, the Near East or the southeast Balkans. 
> _"Not so long ago it was generally assumed that European metallurgy was derived from the Near East, whence it spread to the Aegean and then into the Balkan peninsula".
> 
> But, based on carbon dating by Renfrew, it was"suggested that production of copper in the Balkans was an indigenous, independent, or nearly independent development...It would not be unreasonable to suggest that copper smelting began during the late sixth millennia BC [in the Balkans] and somewhat later in Anatolia. But, this conditional European priority depends on the resolution of slag like material from Catal Hoyuk level VIA, which would give priority back to Anatolia". 
> 
> He also goes on to say that it's unclear whether the four centers in the Near East and the southeastern Balkans had influence on each other culturally.The earliest alloying seems to have occurred in the middle of the 5th millennium BC in both south eastern Anatolia and Varna. He then points out that arsenical copper objects were unusual in south east Europe and Iran, and that lost wax casting was confined to the Levant until the later 4th millennium BC. Additionally, he points out that whereas the oldest use of native copper in southeast Europe was in the northern part of Starcevi Crist, pretty far from a trade or technology route from the Near East, copper objects were by no means common there, and the earliest copper smelting was in Vinca 5400 BC._


Thanks!

And exactly. There is a huge gap of 3000-4000 years between primitive metallurgy of Northern Mesopotamia and more advanced metallurgy in the Southeast Balkans.

And both areas are bordering each other. It is very easy possible that both regions influenced each other in many ways.

I don't think that after the first metallurgy invention in the Mesopotamia 9500 BC, people in the Mesopotamia were not evolving even further. I don't think they stopped advancing after 9500 BC, because around 4000 BC the Sumerians were much more advanced with their 'bronze' metallurgy than folks in the Old Europe.

----------


## Yetos

> @ Yetos & bicicleur
> 
> 
> Bros, it doesn't even matter who was first, but I just want to have my facts straight.
> 
> 
> The Balkans and West Asia are next to each other, so of course they influenced each other.
> 
> The oldest traces of the metallurgy (*metalworking* / *manipulating copper*) itself still have been found in Northern Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia has the oldest known metallurgy to date, *9500* BC. It is true that the oldest smelting facilities have been found in the Balkans, they are the oldest known. And the folks in the Balkans could pioneer smelting. But did they actually do it?
> ...



now the first bronze was arsenic bronze not tin bronze, the bronze that IE used.
the first who mix tin and copper for bronze are much later around 4000- 3000 BC at Balkans, or Cyprus
Greeks input zing in tin bronze, brass

now from the mettalurgy used to produce one item we know how methods spread and where,
so if Egyptian golden masks show Varna mettalurgy, then we know that from Varna there was a move somewhere and from there to Egypt elite, or straight to Egypt,

so the Arsenic bronze road which I consider as IE movement road,
it is surely from Maykop to Yamnaa to Cotofeni etc,
everywhere they find same technique production of arsenic bronze, 
and that is what making me think that IE were not from Steppes but from Layla teppe,
but gold Mettalurgy follow oposite way,
the gold as Varna produce it moved from Balkans to Egypt and steppe,
also tin and tin/zing bronze

*So yes*
Copper was known in middle east before 000 years, as Gold and many other metals
but 
technology of Arsenic bronze spread from Maykop to yamnaa and to Iranian plateau (there is an argue in that since many claim that from Iranian plateau moved to Maykop)
technology of Tin Bronze spread from Balkans or Cyprus,
technology Gold spread from Varna, yet although Greeks believe from Colchis.
etc etc
today by analising a κτερισμα an archaiolithic relic/object with certified chemical analysis they can tell you even from which mine and which laboratory it was produced,

----------


## Goga

> now the first bronze was arsenic bronze not tin bronze, the bronze that IE used.
> the first who mix tin and copper for bronze are much later around 4000- 3000 BC at Balkans, or Cyprus
> Greeks input zing in tin bronze, brass
> 
> 
> *So yes*
> Copper was known in middle east before 000 years, as Gold and many other metals
> but 
> technology of Arsenic bronze spread from Maykop to yamnaa and to Iranian plateau (there is an argue in that since many claim that from Iranian plateau moved to Maykop)
> ...


Why do you say that tin-bronze is originally from the SouthEast Bakans or Cyprus? It could be that I missed something, but on what facts are you basing your argument?

As far as I know ancient Sumerians already were busy making objects from tin-bronze


*"BRONZE AGE MESOPOTAMIA* 

_ The Bronze Age in Mesopotamia (roughly 3200 B.C. to 1000 B.C.) has been characterized as a time of vibrant economic expansion, when the earliest Sumerian cities and the first great Mesopotamian empires grew and prospered. John Noble Wilford wrote in the New York Times, “After thousands of years in which copper was the only metal in regular use, the rising civilizations of Mesopotamia set off a revolution in metallurgy when they learned to combine tin with copper -- in proportions of about 5 to 10 percent tin and the rest copper -- to produce bronze. Bronze was easier to cast in molds than copper and much harder, with the strength of some steel. Though expensive, bronze was eventually used in a wide variety of things, from axes and awls to hammers, sickles and weapons, like daggers and swords. The wealthy were entombed with figurines, bracelets and pendants of bronze. [Source: John Noble Wilford, New York Times, January 4, 1994]

_
_ Among the mysteries of ancient metallurgy include the question of how people first recognized the qualities of bronze made from tin and copper and how they mixed the alloy. For several centuries before the Bronze Age, metalsmiths in Mesopotamia were creating some tools and weapons out of a kind of naturally occurring bronze. The one used most frequently was a natural combination of arsenic and copper. The arsenic fumes during smelting must have poisoned many an ancient smith, and since the arsenic content of copper varied widely, the quality of the bronze also varied and must have caused manufacturing problems.

_
_Scholars have yet to learn how the ancient Mesopotamians got the idea of mixing tin with copper to produce a much stronger bronze. But excavations have produced tin-bronze pins, axes and other artifacts from as early as 3000 B.C. In the Royal Cemetery at the ancient city of Ur, 9 of 12 of the metal vessels recovered were made of tin-bronze, suggesting that this was the dominant alloy by the middle of the third millennium B.C._ " 

http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat.../item2216.html


and also this from: _Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence_, Peter Roger & Stuart Moorey




I believe that because of those beautiful golden Varna artifacts, the 'gold' metallurgy came right after the 'copper' metallurgy. The gold metallurgy is older than 'bronze' metallurgy. Why do I think that? Because to make gold stronger you need copper and gold is one of the oldest metals known to humans. 

Also, it is even *easier* to smelt gold than copper.

Melting point of gold = *1064.18* °C or 1337.33 K ​
Melting point of copper = *1084.62* °C or 1357.77 K

You see, almost the same*!*


Although, I do believe that influence from the SouthEast Balkans and Greece on the ancient Egypt is much bigger than influence from the Mesopotamia.

----------


## Yetos

@ Goga

no it is mistaken
all middle and near East bronze is Arsenic bronze, 
tin bronze was invanded either at balkans either Cyprus,
and zinc+tin bronze brass by Greeks,
if you want i can give you links,
but until today we recognise early IE bronze from arsenic existance and the first who use that was either Maykop, either Iranian plateau 

tin bronze might date at 4000-4500 BC at Vinca or 3500-3800 Cyprus or Sina peninsula

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...96207405000610

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...03598X0004984X

now the excact dates from author to author are showing a huge +- as also the main searches,
but for all it is certified that early IE and Iranians & Messopotamians use Arsenic, and Plocnik or Cyprus/Sina used Tin
it is certified that maykop Yamnaa etc is a road full of Arsenic bronze, a techique that used by what we call IE,

----------


## Goga

> @ Goga
> 
> no it is mistaken
> 
> tin bronze might date at 4000-4500 BC at Vinca or 3500-3800 Cyprus or Sina peninsula
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...96207405000610
> 
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action...03598X0004984X


Thanks for the articles, you might be right. Need to update my knowledge.

You know what they say? (right) knowledge is power.

----------


## Goga

@ Yetos


Do you think that advanced 'gold' metallurgy (combination of gold/copper) originated within the Varna culture? If not, where do you think it is from?




PS. Oh I see you already answered that question. You think that 'gold' metallurgy is actually from Varna.

----------


## Yetos

> @ Yetos
> 
> 
> Do you think that advanced 'gold' metallurgy (combination of gold/copper) originated within the Varna culture? If not, where do you think it is from?


well you find me unprepaired,
but truth is that depends of gold digits,
usually gold from rivers, antigue gold, has not much copper, it is more pure or has tin
Varna gold although has small percentages of other metals, 
Hardmanns work give Ag Cu Pt Ni and in some also Zn and very high purity
Ivanov gives purity 23,5 carats with 0,3 silver and 0,2 copper
the most strange thing is that the hardest items contain Platinum
there many categories nd types, as concern varna gold,
mainly are the pure, the hardened, and the imported,
one mine that surely trade varna is Ai Bunar, Transylvania and Romania is also possible

the gold that contains tin is probably from Alluvian soils of caucasus, perhaps Georgia Phases river,

according the artifact they want to produce they used simmilar quality of gold,
it seems likes they had either many kind of laboratories, or they use different levels of smelting

from what I found today except Hardmann which happened to read some of his work few years before
also Muhlay Ivanov Kostov Jovanovic *Zanotti* etc write about
Jovanovic speaks about the first mechanical separation of inpurities known.

even today at romania they mine gold.

the bellow I did not read it, it is from 2014, 

http://www.academia.edu/10264506/Cha...g_and_function

----------

