(no title)
akssri | 5 months ago
(Note: the above is obviously a caricature, but current versions of theory don't change the structure, only the emphasis on "race").
No one would care about a copper-smelt site from 500 BC.; nor would they care about this one if the Indian archaeological claims were accepted (but that one also destroys centuries of Western history-making about India, and all the social-theories that depend on it).
This is all a digression from the main claims, so I'd prefer that people don't pull on this thread. For more information on how 'race' was ingested into Indology, I'd refer the interested reader to the excellent book by Adluri/Bagchi [0].
[0] https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/120/3/1132/197...
card_zero|5 months ago
You want to say your piece and get no back-chat?
Romans started to hit people with iron swords at a certain date, influencing the history of Europe substantially, so the origin of that iron age is interesting. Elsewhere, a copper smelting site of 500 BC would be interesting: consider the Moche, in Peru, who independently had a sort of bronze age around that time while Europe was into iron. (I don't think they did anything much with their bronze because they were too preoccupied with body fluids and erotic pottery.)
noduerme|5 months ago
WhereIsTheTruth|5 months ago
Tutankhamun's dagger, for example, was crafted from iron and was probably a diplomatic gift from Mitanni (modern day Syria/Turkey)
Way before your Roman Empire