• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Overview of Varna, its stratification, and its demise.

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




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


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
 
Alan said:
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.
Click to expand...

so what does it take to form a civilization instead of a culture?
 
bicicleur said:
so what does it take to form a civilization instead of a culture?
Click to expand...

urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.
 
Alan said:
urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.
Click to expand...

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,
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...

Also, if that is true, it's important, no matter what. And I don't think that MILAN=Roger S. Bagnall
 
Alan said:
urbanization, city building, huge settlements with large population size, trading routes with other civilizations, conquest, stratification, science, castes/hierarchy.
Click to expand...

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
 
bicicleur said:
in metallurgy, old Europe certainly was ahead of Mesopotamia
Click to expand...
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[SUB][/SUB]
 
base-map11.gif




A copper awl from Cayönü, Northern Kurdistan.

cayonu-awl.jpg



" 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

asikli-bead.jpg


can-hasan-mace-head.jpg


"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/2015/08/30/a-primer-on-old-world-metals-before-the-copper-age/
 
bicicleur said:
in metallurgy, old Europe certainly was ahead of Mesopotamia
Click to expand...
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


abc.jpg
 
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
 
@ 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
 
We discussed the different centers of metallurgy in this thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30625-David-Anthony-on-Metallurgy?highlight=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.
 
@ 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.
 
Angela said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Goga said:
@ 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.
Click to expand...


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,
 
Yetos said:
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)
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,
Click to expand...
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/cat56/sub363/item2216.html


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

abvc.png



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.
 
@ 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/article/pii/S1296207405000610

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...3928&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0003598X0004984X

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,
 
@ 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top