Talk:Late Bronze Age collapse
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
- 1 Hyksos?
- 2 Robert Drews: Proto-Hoplite What?
- 3 BCE versus BC
- 4 Iron Versus Bronze
- 5 An unthought-through opening
- 6 Judea or Palestine
- 7 Ironworking
- 8 Mycenae
- 9 The name of the article
- 10 more archaeological info
- 11 Who is: Manuel Robbins?
- 12 "Other groups of Indo-European warriors followed into the region, most prominently the Urartians (Armenians), Cimmerians and Scythians. "
- 13 Environmental causes
- 14 Need for differentiation between early and late Bronze Age collapses
- 15 "Rapid climate change did not cause population collapse at the end of the European Bronze Age"
- 16 Nice progress, but needs a bit more Cline
- 17 The Battle at the Bridge
- 18 Earthquakes?
- 19 Needs detail
I am deleting the reference to Hyksos, who were 400 years earlier. The expulsion of Asiatics by Setnakhte at the end of Dynasty 19 is a better reference.John D. Croft (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Robert Drews: Proto-Hoplite What?
In The End of the Bronze Age Robter Drews specifically states that the Chariotry were defeated (in his theory) by "disorganized masses of running skirmishers," (pg 225) which were subsequently outmatched by close-order infantry (i.e. your "proto-hoplites"). The article as it stands is a gross misrepresentation of his thesis. I am going to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
BCE versus BC
Both the use of BC or BCE is alowed in Wikipedia. But BC (Before Christ) applies to Christian dates, and while it may be applicable in discussing a non Christian topic with people who are not Christian, it may be offensive to force a usage of BC and AD, as it implies a Christian POV. To remove this bias, personally I prefer a BCE (Before Common Era) dating system, as this certifies a non POV status.
Could the editor who changed the dates from BCE to BC please return them. Otherwise I will do it myself. John D. Croft 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Iron Versus Bronze
"Leonard R. Palmer suggested that iron, whilst inferior to bronze weapons" Arent iron weapons superior to bronze one? 188.8.131.52 20:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Palmer showed, that until the production of steel (through the deliberate adding of small amounts of carbon to the production of iron), in fact iron weapons were inferior to bronze. (Ever tried using wrought iron against bronze?) The superiority of iron weapons was in their ease and speed of production, which meant that you could field many more soldiers in the battle, than if you were armed only with (comparatively more expensive) bronze.
"The magic of iron: from 1500 BC
The Hittites are the first people to work iron, in Anatolia from about 1500 BC. In its simple form iron is less hard than bronze, and therefore of less use as a weapon, but it seems to have had an immediate appeal - perhaps as the latest achievement of technology (with the mysterious quality of being changeable, through heating and hammering), or from a certain intrinsic magic (it is the metal in meteorites, which fall from the sky).
Quite how much value is attached to iron can be judged from a famous letter of about 1250 BC, written by a Hittite king to accompany an iron dagger-blade which he is sending to a fellow monarch.
The discovery of steel: 11th century BC
By the 11th century BC it has been discovered that iron can be much improved. If it is reheated in a furnace with charcoal (containing carbon), some of the carbon is transferred to the iron. This process hardens the metal; and the effect is considerably greater if the hot metal is rapidly reduced in temperature, usually achieved by quenching it in water.
The new material is steel. It can be worked (or 'wrought') just like softer iron, and it will keep a finer edge, capable of being honed to sharpness. Gradually, from the 11th century onwards, steel replaces bronze weapons in the Middle East, birthplace of the Iron Age. It becomes essential, from now on, to have a good steel blade rather than a soft and indifferent one.
Cast iron in the east: 513 BC
Thus far in the story iron has been heated and hammered, but never melted. Its melting point (1528°C) is too high for primitive furnaces, which can reach about 1300°C and are adequate for copper (melting at 1083°C). This limitation is overcome when the Chinese develop a furnace hot enough to melt iron, enabling them to produce the world's first cast iron - an event traditionally dated in the Chinese histories to 513 BC."
Hope this helps John D. Croft 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- @John D. Croft: Thanks. It would have been a good idea to put in some ref on these informations, so parts of it could be explained in the article. I think many people find the statement that iron is inferior to bronze very odd. The timeline you present is a bit messed up unfortunately. Are you not referring to 11th century AD? And 513 AD in China also? RhinoMind (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing no mention here of the theory that the switch to the iron age was a response to deforestation:
"A third hypothesis to explain the replacement of bronze by iron that has gained some credence is ecological. This hypothesis, proposed by the late Theodore Wertime, suggests that pyrotechnological activites making heavy demands on fuel over a long period, in conjunction with other kinds of human activity such as land clearning and agricultural terracing (Stager 1985:5-9), ultimately led to sever defoestation over much of the Mediterranean. Iron smelting, being significantly more fuel-efficient than copper smelting (Horne 1982:12), became economically more feasible despite technological difficulties and the greater labor intensity involved in producing iron (Wertime 1982, 1983). If it could be shown, therefore, that large parts of the Mediterranean were indeed undergoing heavy deforestation around the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, then the gradual switch from bronze to iron across a broad geographical range would be a reasonable response to a pressing ecological challenge." - 'The archaeometallurgy of the Asian old world', Vincent C. Pigott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnphitz (talk • contribs) 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- This would be a useful addition to the article. I also can remember reading also that there was a shift in morality associated with the end of the Bronze Age. Julian Jaynes thesis suggests that this was the end of the bicameral mind, in which voices previously considered to be "the gods" became seen as an interior conscience, and there was a definite reaction at this period against public nudity in the middle East. In Egypt, servants previously went naked, and it was not uncommon in Mesopotamia either. Only in Greece, and then in the gymnasium, did public nudity survive. John D. Croft (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Shawnphitz:I took the liberty to highlight the key words of the argument. I can attest that deforestation in Denmark (and maybe southern Sweden) was very severe when the Iron Age reached this part of the world. almost all the land was cleared and farmed or grazed. It was a very severe and deep ecological change. A lot of the other points mentioned in the article also applied here as well. Climatic change and break down of long distance trade routes (of bronze fx.). (one of several sources: Jørgen Jensen "I begyndelsen" in Danish)
- However, if this reason is not mentioned or discussed in any credible source, we should not be making Original Research, however obvious it may seem (to us). It could be mentioned though, that iron-working is more fuel-efficient. Do you have a ref on this claim? I mean a ref that goes into a bit more detail? RhinoMind (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
An unthought-through opening
- The Bronze Age collapse is the name of the Dark Age period of history... No, that's not what the Bronze Age collapse is at all. You have to listen to what you're writing. --Wetman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Judea or Palestine
The reference to the area as Judea is anachronistic. Judea did not exist till after the end of the Bronze Age collapse. As this is an archaelogical article it should use the archaeologically accepted name for the region which is Palestine. If chronological accuracy is sought it should be Hatti and Canaan, not Syria and Palestine, although these are the geographic expressions preferred for these regions. John D. Croft (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only is much of the section unreferenced (only a sngle source, and that for one of the earliest claims), but the "scientific" additions of 23 Sept 2008 (everything from "On the other hand..." to the end of the section) read like an overwrought personal essay and contradict the earlier (albeit itself uncited) claim about ironworking not appearing until after the collapse. The various claims really need sourcing;in the meantime I'll try to get rid some of the more obviously inappropriate wording. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Mycenae is not between Troy and Gaza. Confusing concerning timeline and location
11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk)
- Mycenae is south of Troy and North of Gaza. How would you position it? John Croft (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The name of the article
It is true that so called Sea peoples devastated all near east in the 13th century BC . But the name of this article is misleading. Because it gives the impression that the collapse was in the bronze age. But it was not; it was in the iron age rather than the bronze age. Hittites who were strucked most severely during the collapse, were already using and even exporting iron . So the the name Early iron age collapse may be more convenient. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The title needs to reflect what this is commonly called. Looking at Google Books:  the current title seems commonly used. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, the LBIII Period is known for this collapse. The early Iron Age I is more the dark age or stagnant period (depending on POV). The name is wrong though because it talks about one collapse when there were two in this Age. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 27 Kislev 5774 16:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
more archaeological info
Who is: Manuel Robbins?
I ask for the relevance resp. authority of Manuel Robbins, author of the Book Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea.
- The book is self-published.
- The author cannot be found as any professor / PhD at any university. No short biography in the book. No trace at all in the whole internet. Who is he? What did he do to have competence in the field?
- The author is author *only* of this book. No other books, no scientific papers on the topic. Not even a homepage.
- No scientific citations can be found, cf. Google Scholar.
I do not reject self-published authors by principle (I myself am one), but an author should show who he is / why he is competent / and after some time there should be some reactions on his book, citations e.g. And maybe a second book on the topic, or a homepage at least? A review?
On Amazon a funny discussion is going on whether Manuel Robbins is Lord Robbins, and whether this name is right or the other.
I add a comment by a reader whom I asked for his opinion: "Regarding Manuel Robbins, I don't know anything about him beyond what can be guessed from the book. An Amazon review suggests he's an independent researcher. -- The book seems basically reliable in that I didn't spot any major factual errors. Interpretations can of course be argued. The lack of footnotes obviously destracts from its value as a secondary source." --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
"Other groups of Indo-European warriors followed into the region, most prominently the Urartians (Armenians), Cimmerians and Scythians. "
It seems some Armenian nationalists are trying to insert themselves in the page of history through Wikipedia. Urartu, is long thought to be a Caucasian language, probably related to Chechen. I'vent read anywhere that it is Indo-European except for this wiki page. Somebody should take care of this big mistake done in the name of fanatic nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A recent study, perhaps of some use: Kaniewski, D.; Van Campo, E.; Guiot, J. L.; Le Burel, S.; Otto, T.; Baeteman, C. (2013). Petraglia, Michael D, ed. "Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis". PLoS ONE. 8 (8): e71004. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071004. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Need for differentiation between early and late Bronze Age collapses
This article should be titled the Late Bronze Age collapse. There were two collapses, one at the end of the EB and one at the end of the LB. As a result, the name Bronze Age collapse is not only incorrect, but confusing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 27 Kislev 5774 16:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"Rapid climate change did not cause population collapse at the end of the European Bronze Age"
That's the title of a recently published article.. See also "Greek Bronze Age ended 100 years earlier than thought, new evidence suggests" and [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0106672#s5 "Dating the End of the Greek Bronze Age: A Robust Radiocarbon-Based Chronology from Assiros Toumba". Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Doug, the dates given in the article suggest the Greek collapse previously was thought to be 1025 BCE. This is very late. My references suggest before 1100 BCE, which would confirm the dating discovered (i.e. 70-100 years earlier)John D. Croft (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice progress, but needs a bit more Cline
Glad to see this article's getting some love, but it could use a bit more Cline. The man wrote a really good book (along with two on the Trojan War) and loves all things LBA. I don't really want to do it myself though as I am good friends with him and so it might not to be kosher. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tevet 5775 03:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The Battle at the Bridge
By coincidence this piece in Science  was brought to my attention before I looked at this article. I agree that it is all exciting and may change the way we look at this period in Europe, but I am always hesitant to use material from the media for such things rather than archaeological papers. It's looking pretty convincing, but then there's "“If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we're dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps,” says dig co-director Thomas Terberger," and " Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins."
If we do report this it needs to be much more nuanced and tentative, and certainly not mention groups such as the Sardinians who aren't even in Curry's article. And of course it's too early to state it all as fact. Some is, some is hypothesis. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Having just seen through the deletion of the article "Earthquake storm", which was based on Nur and Cline's 2000 theory that the collapse was at least partly due to a sequence of major earthquakes, also referred to as a "seismic paroxysm" by others, I was intrigued to see that it doesn't rate even a mention here. Is that the current understanding? Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)