A real life Stone Age battle

Tomenable

Elite member
Messages
5,419
Reaction score
1,336
Points
113
Location
Poland
Ethnic group
Polish
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-L617
mtDNA haplogroup
W6a
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.
 
This is how battles could look like also in Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Europe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

Papua New Guineans are currently at the Early Neolithic level of technology.

=========================

And here an article about the Neolithic transition in New Guinea:

"Was Papua New Guinea an Early Agriculture Pioneer?":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0623_030623_kukagriculture.html

Fascinating stuff. I don't know how much of that was warefare and how much was 50/50 lets kill each other/lets fight. I don't think the producers or whatever want to show lots of blood and dying people, so maybe this was the best they could do. Talk about imbetmising the "dumb savage". Holy crap.These are the type of people Spanish and British meet in America. And my history book is totally right to criticize them down for saying Native Americans were less civilized and savages. Yeah, British and Spanish just had their own interpretation of civilization, it wasn't any better :).
 
If you watch the video, you will see that they fight in very loose formations.

They would be totally unable to repulse a charge by PIE cavalry or chariots.

What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.
 
What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

What about Funnel Beaker? That's mostly who Corded Ware interacted with.
 
Fascinating stuff. I don't know how much of that was warefare and how much was 50/50 lets kill each other/lets fight. I don't think the producers or whatever want to show lots of blood and dying people, so maybe this was the best they could do. Talk about imbetmising the "dumb savage". Holy crap.These are the type of people Spanish and British meet in America. And my history book is totally right to criticize them down for saying Native Americans were less civilized and savages. Yeah, British and Spanish just had their own interpretation of civilization, it wasn't any better :).

It depends which Native Americans we're discussing, yes? There's a world of difference between the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc., and the more simple cultures of the Caribbean and most of North America and the Amazon etc.

Of course, the Aztecs combined a rather advanced civilization with a fierce warrior culture and human sacrifice. They were no match for "Guns, Germs and Steel", however.

Have you read that book? You should, it's excellent, and explains a lot.

I can also recommend two excellent movies about the encounter between Europeans and the "Native Americans". You can see the savagery on both sides. The score of "The Mission", by Ennio Morrione, is absolutely fabulous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Robe_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mission_%281986_film%29

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6bmm921G8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvWaD-NErlY


[/URL]
 
Angela said:
the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc.

The Aztecs and the Inca mostly had gold metallurgy, which was useless in warfare. Most of their weapons were quite similar to those used in the video from the OP. I know that they had copper, but it rather wasn't extensively used in warfare. So weapons would be quite similar. True - Aztec armies were better organized than those warriors from the video in the OP, but many of their enemies were not (which is why the Aztecs formed such an empire).

Cities - granted, large fortified settlements could put up some resistance.

I'm not sure if New Guineans have fortified settlements, but I suppose they do (because tribal warfare is very common).


A fortified settlement (not very large, but overall structure is similar to Trypillian "cities"):

walled_village.jpg


Reconstructed Trypillian "cities" (or mega-villages - what defines a city?):

[images moved to the post below, no need to post the same thing twice]
 
Last edited:
What about Funnel Beaker? That's mostly who Corded Ware interacted with.

it is funny, DNA has shown most - if not all - of Funnel Beaker people were replaced by corded ware people

yet there are no signs of violence between corded ware and neolithic people
there are signs of violence between corded ware and HG in northeastern Europe, where there were no farmers

archeology describes contacts between neolithic NW Europe and corded ware as 'friendly'

it is an enigma
 
What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions. Do we really have to go over all those papers again?

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy, cities, extensive trade etc? Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

PIE chariots, yes, cavalry no, that is for Asyrians or Scythians
and the Chariots, they were invented by Sintashta, but the moment they had seen them, and got horses to pull them, the Asyrians and the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Seima-Turbino, and whoever else could, used them as well

it strikes me that Indo-Iranians overpowered BMAC,
but alltough they had horses and chariots and bronze weapons and they had known warfare at home, they left the cities and citadels of BMAC intact
they were masters in the field, controlled the pastures, the farming land and the trade routes
even the irrigation fields, of which those Indo-Iranians coming from the northern steppes knew nothing about, remained intact
and the BMAC elite, they remained in their walled cities and citadels, powerless
 



The Aztecs and the Inca mostly had gold metallurgy, which was useless in warfare. Most of their weapons were quite similar to those used in the video from the OP. I know that they had copper, but it rather wasn't extensively used in warfare. So weapons would be quite similar. True - Aztec armies were better organized than those warriors from the video in the OP, but many of their enemies were not (which is why the Aztecs formed such an empire).

Cities - granted, large fortified settlements could put up some resistance.


did they have bronze or something similar, because pure copper weapons are useless as well ?
 
Angela,

What cavalry and chariots? Those didn't exist until long after the first PIE incursions.

Didn't they already master horseback riding by that time (and probably used horses in wars)?

BTW, I wasn't talking just about first PIE incursions, but about entire IE expansion, including Bell Beakers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo

And as Bicicleur wrote, they did have chariots. Which played the same role as cavalry.

As for New Guinea, refresh my recollection, do they have copper metallurgy

Probably not (because the island lacks copper ores) but what difference would it make? Probably not so great a difference.

There is some qualitative advantage, but Copper Age (Chalcolithic) weapons are not so much better than Neolithic ones.

In fact, during the Copper Age most of weapons (blades / points) were still being made of stone, wood and bone, rather than of copper.

Surely some axes (and spearpoints / arrowheads) were made of copper, but stone axes aren't so much worse than copper axes.


Tripolye cities are often considered to be rather a kind of "mega-villages" (though it all depends on how one defines a city):

qLRN5Ed.jpg


cDvoGPy.jpg


extensive trade etc?
Extensive trade does not count in battle, so it's irrelevant here. But they (New Guineans) have some trade for sure!

For example - the video in the OP says, that New Guinean warriors are smoking cigarettes - they surely acquired them via trade.

Is there anything similar to Tripolye culture? That's who the PIE people would have encountered, remember.

Triploye culture was just in one region - what about e.g. Megalithic cultures in Western Europe? Very different.

It depends which Native Americans we're discussing, yes?
Here some good websites (you will see many similarities with the video in the OP):

"New World Images from the 1500's":

http://www.floridahistory.com/de-bry-plates/

"DeSoto's Arkansas Trails":

http://www.floridahistory.com/arkansab.html

A Native American warrior:

standing-man.jpg


Native Americans attacking a fortified town of another tribe:

"War before civilization": https://evolution-institute.org/blog/war-before-civilization/

attack.jpg


And here some New Guineans again (war boats similar to Native American canoes):

http://translate.google.com/transla...-kto-zjadl-antropologa-michaela-rockefellera/

25oxf2d.jpg


There's a world of difference between the Aztec and Inca Empires with their agriculture, metallurgy, cities, monuments, astrologers etc., and the more simple cultures of the Caribbean and most of North America and the Amazon etc.

The Aztecs and the Incas did have metallurgy - but it was limited to gold, or to gold and copper. They did not have bronze, IIRC. And when it comes to copper, they rather didn't use it extensively in warfare. Gold is by definition useless in warfare - they produced other gold items, but not weapons. Their weapons were not that much different than, and not that much technologically superior to, those used by New Guineans, I think. The Aztec army was certainly very well organized, but many of their neighbours didn't have such disciplined armies (which is why the Aztecs conquered them).

The score of "The Mission", by Ennio Morrione, is absolutely fabulous.

Indeed - and the last battle scene shows that those Guarani Indians were using similar weapons as New Guineans:

 
Last edited:
PIE chariots, yes, cavalry no, that is for Asyrians or Scythians
and the Chariots, they were invented by Sintashta, but the moment they had seen them, and got horses to pull them, the Asyrians and the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Seima-Turbino, and whoever else could, used them as well

it strikes me that Indo-Iranians overpowered BMAC,
but alltough they had horses and chariots and bronze weapons and they had known warfare at home, they left the cities and citadels of BMAC intact
they were masters in the field, controlled the pastures, the farming land and the trade routes
even the irrigation fields, of which those Indo-Iranians coming from the northern steppes knew nothing about, remained intact
and the BMAC elite, they remained in their walled cities and citadels, powerless
I don't know what kind of fantasy story you're talking about but BMAC was older than Sintashta, by hundreds of years.

Everything what folks of Sintashta knew they learned from the Aryan BMAC folks. BMAC predates Sintashta...


+ War chariots were invented in the Near East, with disk / cross-bar wheels, later evolved into spoke-wheeled chariots ....
 
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.
 
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.

Settle down man. No one thinks Middle Easterners are inferior. Indo Iranian languages came from Europe, it's not a big deal. The distant origin of your language isn't everything that your people are.
 
+ How can BMAC be overpowered by Indo-Iranians, when the fact is that BMAC WAS Indo-Iranian? BMAC = East Iranid, period. Show me some evidence that BMAC was attacked from North! It was actually vice versa, some BMAC folks migrated into the Steppes, later on they were assimilated. Archeology, such as the Mesopotamian pottery in the Steppes etc. is showing that the Steppes were influenced by the Aryan culture of BMAC.

Read the book, The horse, the wheel and the language by David Anthony, chapter 14, 15 and 16.
I don't know any more detailed account than this.

Oh, and we know who was on the steppe first, we have their DNA.

And then, there is the linguistic evidence.
 
Read the book, The horse, the wheel and the language by David Anthony, chapter 14, 15 and 16.
I don't know any more detailed account than this.

Oh, and we know who was on the steppe first, we have their DNA.

And then, there is the linguistic evidence.
That book is very bad written and it's more science fiction than Harry Potter books/stories.

Of course we know who lived in the Steppes. Mongoloid/Europoid folks. That's not a secret. Look at the Russians. Look at their ancient bones. Those who live there lived always there. But that has nothing to do with the Aryans.


DNA is saying that there was a migration from South into North.
But those who migrated into north were assimilated and their DNA was heavily diluted by the locals.


What linguistic evidences? Nobody in the Steppes speaks Indo-Aryan as their native language. Their languages has nothing to do with Avestan etc. Languages close to Avestan live on the Iranian Plateau...
 
Settle down man. No one thinks Middle Easterners are inferior. Indo Iranian languages came from Europe, it's not a big deal. The distant origin of your language isn't everything that your people are.
My people speak an unique Aryan language close to Avestan that nobody speaks. Ancient Iranid/Mesopotamian religios books are written in that language.

Nobody native to Europe has the same native language as my people. Iranid language was NEVER native to Europe. People in Europe has NOTHING to do with IRANID language. Iranid language was never part of Europe.

Russian, Turkic or other languages of the Steppes are not even remotely as close as my nativelanguage to the ancient Aryan languages like Avestan.



There is no evidence that proto-Indo-Iranian came from Europe at all.

DNA is saying that there was a migration from the South into North. That's a fact. From Y-DNA to au-DNA.


I know very well who my people are. Descendants of the mighty Medes, by culture (Iranid), race/DNA (Iranid, closely related to other Iranid people like Persians and Alanians), language (Iranid), religion (Iranid), homeland (Zagros has been native homeland of the Medes too, Iranid) etc. My people are from all view of points allround Iranid people.



Settle down who are you people. Who are your people? Or don't you know who your people are? Otherwise you were never that confused...
 
did they have bronze or something similar, because pure copper weapons are useless as well ?

I don't think pure copper weapons are useless (as long as they are axes, arrowheads or spearpoints - because copper swords would be useless indeed). They are just not so much better than stone ones. And when it comes to the Aztecs and the Incas - I may be wrong, but AFAIK they did not have bronze (only pure copper). Producing bronze requires mixing copper with tin, and I'm not sure if there even were tin ores in Mexico and in the Andean Region ??? Either they didn't have access to any tin at all, or just didn't figure out that it is good to mix it with copper. But the Aztecs did have very good stone - obsidian. They produced very sharp obsidian blades, which could even cut off a horse's head (not to mention an unarmoured human head).

Bronze allowed the development of real swords. Copper could only be used to make daggers, axe blades, spearpoints, arrowheads.

But during the Copper Age, copper surely was precious and expensive - so most of weapons were still made of other materials.

For example, I would not waste my copper to make arrowheads, when I can use cheaper stone to make almost as good ones.
 
But the Aztecs did have very good stone - obsidian. They produced very sharp obsidian blades

This two-bladed club with obsidian blades was the deadliest of Aztec close-combat weapons (link):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEKhfxdA9A#t=5m52s

=================================

Aztec Jaguar warrior versus Zande warrior:

The actual duel starts at 31:34 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atEKhfxdA9A#t=31m34s


The Zande had iron weapons, unlike the Aztecs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zande_people#/media/File:Richard_Buchta_-_Zande_throwing_knives.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zande..._Vol.III,_by_Prof._Friedrich_Ratzel,_1898.jpg
 
@Tomenable,

Your interest seems to be mainly Corded Ware. In that regard, the point is that the Corded Ware people didn't have bronze weapons either, not until the very end of the Corded Ware period. All they had was copper, and not very much of that either. Neither did they have "cavalry" or mounted warriors; that's a much later development, which required the invention of the stirrup. As has been pointed out, chariots were invented a thousand years later and far to the east.

We've discussed all of this numerous times, with all the relevant citations. You can find them through the search engine if you didn't save them. As Bicicleur has pointed out, there isn't even evidence of much violent conflict as far as the advance of Corded Ware is concerned.

You can't transpose technology into different time periods and locations. Whatever happened in central Europe had very little to do with a large advantage in weapons technology, other than the horse giving them more mobility.

The New World encounter is a totally different thing altogether. The Europeans not only had steel in terms of swords, they had guns and even canon for goodness' sakes. This was hardly a "fair fight". Then add in mass epidemics and it was over.
 

This thread has been viewed 44909 times.

Back
Top