I'm starting up my 2nd current campaign, which is a Bronze Age-type game, borrowing heavily from a lot of the themes in Greek Myth (with a decent dollop of fantasy).
I've heard of folks running them before with their system/game of choice (d20, Agon), but for this outing I'm using the Epic RPG system (http://epicrpg.com/) (one of my gems/favorite rules-medium RPGs of choice). I have to say, its a really exciting premise.
I'll be upfront and say a lot of my fantasy games (including my current homebrew, where the world is just entering their equivalent of the Renaissance), there's always been the Great Old Fallen Empire that was Really Awesome. Many of the things the players have done are the result of the actions of epic villians and heroes that ruled in ages past. And there's nothing wrong with that--in a sandbox, it's a pretty common feature, I think, and gives you plenty of material. Hell, its worked for me this whole time.
But here, in this alternate fantasy Bronze Age--with iron weapons virtually unheard of, any sort of fancy weaponry and armor being an amazing luxury, with the world still young, with all the heroes of legend not yet the heroes of legends, with the myths of the world not yet written--well, it's just cool. Again, you don't have to play in a Bronze Age-setting to have this type of premise, but its great for getting you in the mindframe. So to speak, you aren't reading ages later about Jason, Herakles, Paris, Hector, and Achilles--hell, a couple of them owe you some coin, and you know who really defeated Atlas.
I also have to say I like the whole rival burgeoning city-states angle. Trade, poetry, drama, warfare--each city-state finds its own identity. The world outside your city-state is a strange, ill-defined place. Yeah, maybe it is a bit "Points of Light", but I prefer the idea of that surrounding darkness also being pretty glorious, in a primitive, hazy way.
So, what experience has anyone had with this type of game or running a Bronze Age campaign? Further ideas on how they might differ?
QuoteSo, what experience has anyone had with this type of game or running a Bronze Age campaign? Further ideas on how they might differ?
I have a buttload of notes on a Bronze Age game I've always been going to run, but it hasn't happened yet.
I'd like to play up the mercilessness — what George Orwell called "the stony cruelty of antiquity". Those people were brutal.
Player expectation has been a problem in the past. It seems that people have very different ideas about what should be included in the setting. For some, Bronze age is like the film Troy (gods don't walk about), whereas others would take more of an Illiad stance (gods walk about and cause mischief).
What part will the gods play in your campaign? Do they get stuck in like the gods in Homer, a sort of powerful soap opera?
Sounds fun! If you can find it, Mythic Greece - The Age of Heroes, is a good sourcebook for that era. 1988, by Aaron Allston, published by ICE, for Rolemaster/Fantasy Hero, but the source material would be good for any game.
Quote from: Rob LangWhat part will the gods play in your campaign? Do they get stuck in like the gods in Homer, a sort of powerful soap opera?
They'll have influence, but their manifestation will be far from an everyday thing. They will have the full range of pettiness, foibles, and weaknesses that we've come to expect. Most types of magic are considered holy, or a sign of divine favor/influence/parentage.
Oh, and thank you for the tip, Callous!
Will the players be able to call upon the Gods for help/guidance? Is Magic the only way of doing that?
Quote from: Rob LangWill the players be able to call upon the Gods for help/guidance? Is Magic the only way of doing that?
Often, when calling upon/beseeching the gods for help, that "help" takes its form in magic. I think I will allow for some visitations by the gods, especially since the players are favored heroes (including a few who believe they have "divine" ancestry) but don't want to focus exclusively on that.
Quote from: Rob LangWill the players be able to call upon the Gods for help/guidance? Is Magic the only way of doing that?
I also give priests a heavy dollop of psychological power in such a setting as well. If they do an exceptional job of invoking the favor of the gods (appropriate sacrifices with bad ass theology rolls), I give folks a small bonus for the rest of the day or the next encounter that the sacrifice was geared towards.
Of course, botched sacrifices can have unfortunate psychological consequences. ;)
I've also instituted the Will Ferrell Principle at the table ("By the Mighty Hammer of Thor!"). Invoking the gods in everyday fashion kind of amps up their ever-presentness, so whosoever tops a previous invocation gets some experience. The current one to beat involves the gray-thatched pubes of the death goddess.
The Mazes and Minotaurs (http://mazesandminotaurs.free.fr/revised.html) Maze Masters Guide has some advice on running campaigns in a bronze age Greek setting. Nothing really deep as far as historical simulation goes, but it's great for putting together a game that has the feel of Jason and the Argonauts. Look for the section on adventure elements, where you mix and match places, quest objectives, and challenges.
Quote from: ReimdallI've also instituted the Will Ferrell Principle at the table ("By the Mighty Hammer of Thor!"). Invoking the gods in everyday fashion kind of amps up their ever-presentness, so whosoever tops a previous invocation gets some experience. The current one to beat involves the gray-thatched pubes of the death goddess.
That sounds like a lot of fun!
Maybe even minor bonuses for particularly great invocation.
Zachary, I'd be interested in hearing how you plan to modify the equipment list in Epic to have a bronze age flavor.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstSo, what experience has anyone had with this type of game or running a Bronze Age campaign? Further ideas on how they might differ?
A bronze age world is actually more composition than the early iron age. This is because on Earth deposits of tin and copper are widely scattered. So in order to have the materials for bronze in any quantity you need to trade.
The introduction of iron will eventually cause a collapse of this trade and trigger a dark age. This because iron, on Earth, was plentiful in most regions. The first "Dark Age" wasn't the one after the fall of Rome. It occurred around 1500 BC caused by a series of natural disasters and barbarian invasions. The Dark Age was sustained by the introduction of iron which only the Hittites had. This caused a reduction of trade. Around 800 BC the Mediterranean began to reemerge, and reignite trade. This started the classical period of history.
If you are doing a Fantasy Bronze Age you may want to consider one culture or race, like the Dwarves, having iron. The manufacture of which is a high secret.
Also compared to later periods of history, the Bronze Period have many wildly different cultures all coming into sustained contact with each other for the first time. It also a time of stress where people are living in large urban areas for the first time.
Wow, I'd never heard that theory of iron per se causing a reduction in trade. Is that your own hypothesis, Rob?
Quote from: Elliot WilenWow, I'd never heard that theory of iron per se causing a reduction in trade. Is that your own hypothesis, Rob?
I actually just heard or read something very similar - though for the life of me I can't recall the source...
Ahhh yes...the font of knowledge in todays existence..
From the Bronze Age article in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_age):
QuoteOne theory says that as iron tools became more common, the main justification of the tin trade ended, and that trade network ceased to function as it once did. The individual colonies of the Minoan empire then suffered drought, famine, war, or some combination of these three factors, and thus they had no access to the far-flung resources of an empire by which they could easily recover.
Interesting, unfortunately there's no reference for that specific paragraph, and efforts to google the information simply turn up the same text again and again. One forum did have a discussion where someone suggested that the switch to iron (or rather steel) was a reaction to the disruption of bronze trade routes by barbarians, rather than a cause of it, which is also an interesting hypothesis, but lacking references. (Not that archaeologists are much more qualified to speculate on the scanty evidence than Rob or anyone else, but it'd still be nice to see where the idea came from and if it has any champions in scholarship.)
Yeah, Elliot, I got the same sense - maybe why it stuck in my head. I did not intend to provide the info as any sort of research backed opinion, so I apologize if it came across that way.
Both are, however, interesting hypotheses, and, if nothing else, interesting for thinking about making them real histories in a fantasy world (which was why I was looking at Bronze Age anyway - for Dunfalcon (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=47)).
Quote from: Elliot WilenWow, I'd never heard that theory of iron per se causing a reduction in trade. Is that your own hypothesis, Rob?
No one really knows what caused the dark ages at the end of the Late Bronze Age, other than there are reports of roving Sea Peoples who were sacking cities. There are all sorts of theories from disease and famine to iron and changes in warfare. The evidence in pretty sparse and there is a lot of speculation in that area. Also bear in mind that bronze remained desirable and was in some way still superior to the rough iron of the period. In fact, note that the hoplites of the Classical period wore bronze breastplates even though iron was available.
Quote from: KazZachary, I'd be interested in hearing how you plan to modify the equipment list in Epic to have a bronze age flavor.
Sure! I want to answer in a little bit of detail as far as cost and defense/attack modification, so let me snag my notes and come back to it for that. Short answer, a lot of metal weaponry goes bye-bye, or at least is much less commonplace. We see spears, swords, and anything with a bronze tip becoming much rarer. I envision "shield and spear" becoming a much more common basic array for a warrior, along with the short sword. The short sword would be the main sword you'd see, due to longer swords (like a longsword) not being reliable due to the limitations of bronze.
Leather armor becomes much more prevalent, along with bronze breastplates (and shin guards). Obviously, wooden weapons are still very much in play. The bow & arrow does exist, but is seen more in hunting than in combat. The sling is a widespread melee weapon.
For a lot of costs and whatnot, I still need to flesh things out. Fortunately, I have the
...And A 10 Foot Pole sourcebook from Iron Crown to help, when in doubt. Trade will be in barter or rough metal ingots.
Quote from: John Morrow[...]
Yeah, what I was referring to was specifically the hypothesis that the replacement of bronze with iron directly contributed to a withering away of trade routes and long-distance communications, and perhaps indirectly because of this, the onset of the Aegean Dark Ages.
However the fact, which you point out, that bronze by no means ceased to be a desirable material, argues against this hypothesis. Aside from its continuing use in armor, I would be very surprised if bronze wasn't sought after as a material for luxury goods (urns, personal accessories, etc.) so that even if locals melted down all their bronze swords for recycling, there still ought to have been enough demand to support lively trade.
I have an archaeological survey by Peter S Wells entitled Villages, Towns and Cities, which investigates the changes that occurred during the transition to the Iron Age in Europe. My memory is spotty (I haven't cracked the book for about 8 years or so), but I remember that there was quite a growth of trade centers and population concentration during the early Iron Age.
Wells didn't really put it down to a single cause (I think he subscribes to a multicausal view of historical development), but there definitely was a change in patterns of trade and commerce at the advent of the age.
Sorry I couldn't be more specific; I haven't read my archaeology books since college. Might be interesting to pull the book out again and see what can be seen, though.
Quote from: Elliot WilenYeah, what I was referring to was specifically the hypothesis that the replacement of bronze with iron directly contributed to a withering away of trade routes and long-distance communications, and perhaps indirectly because of this, the onset of the Aegean Dark Ages.
My reason for mentioning that was that the reason why there are so many theories like that one about the end Late Bronze Age is because nobody really knows the answer, so you'll find books that suggest all sorts of causes that range from the plausible to the absurd, just like you do for things like the Kennedy assassination. I would consider the theory about the copper and tin trade unlikely. If the trade routes collapsed, I think it was more likely caused by the fall of the "great powers" of the period and a return to a more subsistence-oriented level of living (it requires organization and food surpluses to get that ~10% surplus of food necessary to have things like dedicated craftsmen, warriors, priests, merchants, etc.). I can't see the copper and tin having gone out of demand for the reasons that I stated.
Quote from: KenHRI have an archaeological survey by Peter S Wells entitled Villages, Towns and Cities, which investigates the changes that occurred during the transition to the Iron Age in Europe. My memory is spotty (I haven't cracked the book for about 8 years or so), but I remember that there was quite a growth of trade centers and population concentration during the early Iron Age.
The exact dating of "The Bronze Age" varies by region and the Aegean and Mediterranean Bronze Age aren't the same as the Northern European Bronze Age. The Shang, for example, also had a Bronze Age with yet another mix of technology (the Shang bronzes castings can be pretty amazing).
Quote from: Zachary The FirstShort answer, a lot of metal weaponry goes bye-bye, or at least is much less commonplace. We see spears, swords, and anything with a bronze tip becoming much rarer.
I think that depends on how you define rare and which Bronze Age you are talking about (Aegean, Hittite, Egyptian, Shang, Northern European, etc.). There seem to be plenty of examples of bronze swords, spears, and axes out there and the Egyptians and Hittites, for example, equipped fairly large armies with them. And, again, look at how much bronze was used by the Classical period hoplites, both in their armor and things like spearheads. It is correct to point out that bronze was significantly more rare than iron (the tin being the bigger problem than the copper), but the Uluburun shipwreck (14th Century BC), for example, was carrying 10 tons of copper and another ton of tin (in the correct proportions to make bronze), and that was just one ship that didn't make it to its destination. As this PDF points out (http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/education/cargoes/Cargoes_Chapter4.pdf), it "was carrying enough copper and tin to make 3,000 spearheads, 3,000 bronze swords, 300 bronze helmets, and 300 bronze corselets." In other words, enough to equip an small army with bronze gear. The later Cape Gelidonya shipwreck (around 1200BC) was also carrying copper and tin, though in smaller amounts. Overland trade accounts from the Bronze Age talk about moving tons of tin around.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstI envision "shield and spear" becoming a much more common basic array for a warrior, along with the short sword. The short sword would be the main sword you'd see, due to longer swords (like a longsword) not being reliable due to the limitations of bronze.
You'll see spears and axes because they are cheaper to make and the wood doesn't bend like bronze does and is lighter than bronze. Of course you'll see hafted weapons during later periods for the same reason even when the metal is iron. But there were periods where longer thrusting swords made of bronze were made (often called "rapiers") and they've been found in the archaeological record. So if you have a long thin sword, it's going to be a thrusting weapon. And while bronze does bend, it can also be straightened back out without snapping it by applying some pressure from your foot (there are accounts of people doing that in battle) but parrying with bronze swords (or even iron swords that are not steel) is probably not a good idea.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstLeather armor becomes much more prevalent, along with bronze breastplates (and shin guards). Obviously, wooden weapons are still very much in play. The bow & arrow does exist, but is seen more in hunting than in combat. The sling is a widespread melee weapon.
The composite bow was the primary (though very expensive) weapon of the chariot (used as a mobile archery platform) and was very much used in combat. 5,000 chariots were said to have been involved in the Battle of Kadesh in 1299 BC.
A lot of archaeologists seem to like to downplay the homicide in ancient societies but lets not forget that even the Copper Age Oetzi had an arrow hole in his back and the even earlier Kennewick Man in the Americas had a Clovis point embedded in his pelvis. So the line between "hunting weapon" and "combat weapon" was often not as sharp in ancient times as it has become in more recent times. The same goes for a lot of "tools" like axes and hammers (there is a funny bit in Lawrence Keeley's book
War Before Civilization where he talks about a tribe that carries axes described by anthropologists as "tools" everywhere they go, in case they have the sudden urge to chop down a tree).
You are correct that the sling was extensively used, but it was used into later periods, as well. It just isn't as sexy or cinematic as the bow, so you rarely see it in military battles in movies.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstFor a lot of costs and whatnot, I still need to flesh things out. Fortunately, I have the ...And A 10 Foot Pole sourcebook from Iron Crown to help, when in doubt. Trade will be in barter or rough metal ingots.
Trade was often in metal weight if not barter and in some of the shipwrecks that have been found, there were weight stones for various systems of measure used by the various major cultures and great powers of the day. For things like gold, they would sometimes create a coil of gold wire and then would cut off gold of the appropriate weight from the end as needed. Some governments attempted price controls and, for example, in this Hittite law code (circa 1650-1500 BC) (http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIENT/1650nesilim.html) has several prices and exchange rates specified in it (see items 176, 178, 181-182, and 200). And given that, "Four pounds [~160 shekels] of copper cost one half-shekel of silver; one tub of lard, one half-shekel of silver; two cheese one half-shekel of silver; a gown twelve half-shekels of silver; one blue woolen garment costs twenty half-shekels of silver; breeches cost ten half-shekels of silver." one should not overestimate the value of copper (you could get 4 pounds of coper for the cost of a tub of lard or two cheeses). With tin, I found a 15:1 ratio between tin and silver in Assur (4 shekels of silver for a mina or 60 shekels of tin) so that was more expensive.
Basically the Hittites set copper at a 320:1 ration to silver while in Assur, tin to silver was only 15:1. Mixing apples and oranges (Hittites and Assur) and rounding off, that would make tin about 20 times more valuable than copper, but we could still get the tin needed to turn those 4 pounds of copper into 10:1 bronze (16 shekels) for about a shekel of silver or another two tubs of lard or, put another way, three sheep could get you enough copper and tin for over 4 pounds of bronze, more than you'd find in a Naue Type II bronze sword (http://www.larp.com/hoplite/BAweapons.html). (There are a variety of proportions between tin and copper that might be used depending on how you want the alloy to behave.)
Fantastic stuff, John. I can't thank you enough. You've given me a lot to review. :) Anything else you (and the rest in this thread) have, I'll gladly take a look at. My thanks!
Fabulous stuff, John.
Thanks much!
- K
Quote from: Zachary The FirstFantastic stuff, John. I can't thank you enough. You've given me a lot to review. :) Anything else you (and the rest in this thread) have, I'll gladly take a look at. My thanks!
If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend getting a copy of Michael Wood's
In Search of the Trojan War on DVD. While it's a bit dated (e.g., it doesn't mention the lower city of Troy that's recently been found) and one can quibble about accuracy in places, it presents a quite compelling take o the Aegean Bronze Age that led to my interest in the subject. It's also shaped my view of what a Bronze Age RPG setting should look like.
In terms of inspirational artwork, I highly recommend Peter Connolly's children's books on the Aegean Bronze Age including
The Ancient Greece of Odysseus (originally
Legend of Odysseus) (the Google Books sample here (http://books.google.com/books?id=3sZHlOR24uQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r) shows, the artwork is not dumbed down or sanitized for children). His
Greek Legends : The Stories: The Evidence is also excellent if you can find it (it was Barnes & Noble only). These books are not expensive and have some great information in them.
Some other book recommendations:
The Hittites by O. R Gurney (Excellent practical overview of Hittite society, the Mycenaean's neighbors to the East.)
Civilization Before Greece and Rome by H.W.F. Saggs (Good overview of various subjects from the Bronze Age.)
Life in the Ancient Near East, 3100- 332 B.C.E. by Daniel C. Snell (Outside of the Aegean but worth a look for daily life type material.)
Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context by Bruce G. Trigger (An excellent resource if you want to create your own ancient-style civilization because it looks at what they have in common. He also wrote the much expanded
Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, but the thin paperback is a good overview.)
Lionel Casson wrote several books on travel and ships in the ancient world worth looking at.
The World of Odysseus by M.I. Finley (While I don't actually agree with the entire argument presented by this book, it makes some interesting points that are worth reading about the perspective of Bronze Age Greeks.)
The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. by Robert Drews (This is one of those "end of the Bronze Age" books I was talking about. Even if you don't buy his theories, the ideas he has about Bronze Age warfare make great fodder for a Bronze Age RPG.)
Online, Project Troia (http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/index.html) has some interesting material on Troy, including some virtual reconstructions. If you want to go Egyptian tomb diving in the Bronze Age, The Theban Mapping Project (http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/) is a must-visit site. The Bronze Age reenactment sites (http://www.larp.com/hoplite/bronze.html) have some interesting practical information. Morris Silver has written some excellent but quite expensive books on ancient economies and economics. He does address a few topics on a web site here (http://sondmor.tripod.com/index-html) that are worth reading.
If you tell me exactly what you are interested in, I might have some information on it.
I suppose I should add a recommendation for Between the Rivers by Harry Turtledove, a Bronze Age quasi-fantasy (the gods are real) that some people find a bit quirky but I found pretty interesting and worth mining for ideas. The names and details also show that Turtledove has a pretty good grasp of the source material (e.g., I think he uses the terms wannax and lawagetas which are Mycenaean terms).
Quote from: KenHRI have an archaeological survey by Peter S Wells entitled Villages, Towns and Cities
Farms, Villages, and Cities--sitting on the book shelf right in front of where I'm typing. But I can't remember anything I read in it (if I read it, too many books on my shelf unread).
That's the one. But as John pointed out (and I forgot...I should just keep my mouth shut more often), it's not speaking of the Bronze Age that Zachary seems to have in mind.
Quote from: KenHRThat's the one. But as John pointed out (and I forgot...I should just keep my mouth shut more often), it's not speaking of the Bronze Age that Zachary seems to have in mind.
Well your point was still a valid point in response to the argument that iron would cause trade to stop. But it's interesting what gets included in the "Bronze Age" sometimes. Depending on whether your focus is the Aegean, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Northern Europe, the Shang, the Indus Valley, etc. the "Bronze Age" in question can have a very different feel. My personal take, influence by Michael Wood's show, is very Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean influenced, and has a Mycenaean, Minoan, and Hittite flavor. Some people go for a more pre-Roman Northern European feeling while others focus on the grand architecture civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Then there are the Shang, which I wish I had more information on. That's part of what makes the Bronze Age so cool. There is a lot of variety in there.
Quote from: John MorrowWell your point was still a valid point in response to the argument that iron would cause trade to stop. But it's interesting what gets included in the "Bronze Age" sometimes. Depending on whether your focus is the Aegean, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Northern Europe, the Shang, the Indus Valley, etc. the "Bronze Age" in question can have a very different feel. My personal take, influence by Michael Wood's show, is very Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean influenced, and has a Mycenaean, Minoan, and Hittite flavor. Some people go for a more pre-Roman Northern European feeling while others focus on the grand architecture civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Then there are the Shang, which I wish I had more information on. That's part of what makes the Bronze Age so cool. There is a lot of variety in there.
Bang on. That variety give you that feel, almost Conan-esque. There's a mystery as to what that civilization across the sea/mountain range/desert looks like...
BTW - just wanted to say - who the fuck are you people? You're fucking brilliant, the lot of you...
Quote from: Elliot WilenWow, I'd never heard that theory of iron per se causing a reduction in trade. Is that your own hypothesis, Rob?
No I read it several books about Ancient History. Note the situation is more that trade readjusts. Long range trade is the hardiest hit. As the centuries continue and the recovery from the barbarian invasion speeds up new long range trade routes are formed around different products.
Quote from: Elliot Wilenbut it'd still be nice to see where the idea came from and if it has any champions in scholarship.)
I will try to find it. It wasn't on the web but in several of my history book I collected over the years. My impression was that the discovery of iron wasn't one of thes cause of the dark age but rather it prolonged the recovery because it removed the primary driver for long range trade. Cultures became more "local"
It was my understanding that because bronze is such a useful material that it was worth hauling large quantities of tin great distances. That it dwarfed the other products, mostly luxury, in long distance trade.
Quote from: KenHRI have an archaeological survey by Peter S Wells entitled Villages, Towns and Cities, which investigates the changes that occurred during the transition to the Iron Age in Europe. My memory is spotty (I haven't cracked the book for about 8 years or so), but I remember that there was quite a growth of trade centers and population concentration during the early Iron Age.
You have to be careful about what you mean by "Europe". North of the Mediterranean Littoral the indigenous people made the leap from a Neolithic culture to the Iron Age without an intervening Bronze Age.
Quote from: John MorrowMy reason for mentioning that was that the reason why there are so many theories like that one about the end Late Bronze Age is because nobody really knows the answer
My impression from reading about the time is that the leading theories it was invasion of barbarians combined with natural disaster particularly the Thera explosion. That recovery was delayed due to that fact that use of iron became widespread. The use of iron made the demand for long distance trade much less due to the fact that bronze was no longer the only choice for a useful metal to make tools with. Without the scale of bronze age long distance trade cultures became more insular.
Quote from: John MorrowI suppose I should add a recommendation for Between the Rivers by Harry Turtledove, a Bronze Age quasi-fantasy (the gods are real) that some people find a bit quirky but I found pretty interesting and worth mining for ideas. The names and details also show that Turtledove has a pretty good grasp of the source material (e.g., I think he uses the terms wannax and lawagetas which are Mycenaean terms).
I second this. This was an excellent read.
QuoteNorth of the Mediterranean Littoral the indigenous people made the leap from a Neolithic culture to the Iron Age without an intervening Bronze Age.
I don't think that's true, it may just be more a matter of selection bias as archeologists' attention shifts from the Aegean to north-central Europe when the study of the former starts to be dominated more by historians.
See this section in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age#Central_Europe). The Urnfield/Hallstatt transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Central Europe is something I remember from college archeology class.
One thing to emphasize if it hasn't been already: the definition of Bronze Age outside of the Aegean/Near East is problematic because it refers to a technology, not a time period, and also carries implications of social development. So the Bronze Age in different regions occurs at different times, depending on your perspective.
Quote from: John MorrowThat's part of what makes the Bronze Age so cool. There is a lot of variety in there.
I will add that you need to remember that this is the beginning of human civilization. That while some ideas spread from an origin point (notably Mesopotamia) Every civilization of the time was trying out things for the first time. So you had a incredible variety of things happening.
Plus another thing is that all of this was not occurring in an empty world. Surrounding these bronze age civilization were a another equally huge variety of neolithic cultures. Remember that human development is like a spectrum. While these neolithic cultures were primarily defined by their use of stone tools doesn't mean they were all brute cavemen people. They had a culture that in someway were as developed as any of the ancient civilizations.
Another thing is that much of their artifacts were of wood, hide and other perishable materials. What we seeof ancient times is slanted towards cultures that left durable artifacts behind.
The primary difference between Bronze age world, and the Neolithic world was that the agricultural revolution allowed a greater concentration of people with more organization. With fertile grounds for an exchange of ideas locally and sometimes internationally.
Point of clarification here, the Neolithic is generally associated with the agricultural revolution, so farms and villages--but also pastoral nomads--basically replace small bands of hunters & gatherers.
Urbanization postdates agriculture by thousands of years, and for some reason, not entirely clear, it roughly coincides with (or shortly follows) the beginning of metal technology. One possible connection is that metals were the first "status symbols" the pursuit of which led to social hierarchy...but urbanization was also a product of the development of economic activities that benefitted from large-scale organization, such as long-distance trade (possibly connected to metallurgy) and irrigation-based agriculture.
(Edit: by thousands of years I mean that agriculture starts maybe 9000 BC while the first cities are around the 4th millenium BC, along with the Bronze Age in the Near East & Mesopotamia.)
Quote from: estarI will add that you need to remember that this is the beginning of human civilization.
Well, it depends on how you define "civilsation". The Bronze Age is a broad period that represents a great leap forward in human civilisation, but certainly not the beginning. Your point regarding Mesopotamia is well taken. As the ideas and accomplishments of civilsation spread, though, an increasing number of peripheral groups began to assimilate them, neatly skipping many of the early stages of development. Meanwhile, some cultures were establishing true innovations for the first time known.
!i!
In an archeological context, civilization = urbanization.
Jericho was a pre-Bronze Age "city", a very unusual case.
Quote from: estarMy impression from reading about the time is that the leading theories it was invasion of barbarians combined with natural disaster particularly the Thera explosion.
The Thera explosion happened several hundred years before the end of the Late Bronze Age so I'm skeptical about that as an explanation, too. Like I said, there is a lot of speculation because there is very little hard evidence of what actually caused it. Another theory on Wikipedia blames it on the deforestation of Cyprus, Robert Drews blames it on changes in warfare and the Naue Type II sword infantry, Tom Slattery blames disease, others blame weather or the breakdown of Hittite society. About all they know for sure is that "Sea People" were attacking settlements along the coast, and nobody is even sure if they were Mycenaeans or some other ethnic group or why they were on a rampage.
Quote from: estarThat recovery was delayed due to that fact that use of iron became widespread. The use of iron made the demand for long distance trade much less due to the fact that bronze was no longer the only choice for a useful metal to make tools with. Without the scale of bronze age long distance trade cultures became more insular.
It's an interesting theory but I don't personally find it very compelling. Like I said, bronze was still being used extensively during the Classical period in Greece in hoplite armor and weaponry so there was still a demand for it and likely was all along.
My own guess is that the end of the Bronze Age was caused by a combination of various factors with no one definitive cause. And while the loss of Thera was a huge blow to the Minoans (I like the idea of Thera as "The Hong Kong of the Bronze Age Mediterranean" and do think it was the model for Atlantis), I don't think it caused the end of the Bronze Age or the following Dark Age.
Quote from: estarI will add that you need to remember that this is the beginning of human civilization. That while some ideas spread from an origin point (notably Mesopotamia) Every civilization of the time was trying out things for the first time. So you had a incredible variety of things happening.
Sure, and some of those solutions were surprisingly modern, especially when compared to what came immediately afterward.
Quote from: estarPlus another thing is that all of this was not occurring in an empty world. Surrounding these bronze age civilization were a another equally huge variety of neolithic cultures. Remember that human development is like a spectrum. While these neolithic cultures were primarily defined by their use of stone tools doesn't mean they were all brute cavemen people. They had a culture that in someway were as developed as any of the ancient civilizations.
Well, there is a fairly famous fresco depicting Mycenaeans fighting barbarians (http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~warfare/Lectures/Images/1.30/22_c_pylos_river_fight.JPG) that shows the barbarians as skin-wearing savages right out of a Hollywood caveman movie. ;)
But I do think that the "points of light" is an exaggeration and the lands were actually pretty full of people. I'm probably going to get gasps of horror for saying this but if you remove the cheese and anachronisms, I think that Hercules and Xena (and in particular Xena) actually do a pretty decent job of getting the feel right in that regard.
Quote from: estarAnother thing is that much of their artifacts were of wood, hide and other perishable materials. What we seeof ancient times is slanted towards cultures that left durable artifacts behind.
True, but that doesn't mean that they don't find wood or the evidence of it, not only the wooden objects found in King Tut's tomb, for example, but also what's carved into stone reliefs and what's inventoried in clay tablets, including the administrative tablets of Mycenaean sites written in Linear B.
And sometimes the other materials were better. For example, the Mycenaean boar's tusk helmet is actually a pretty amazing invention.
Quote from: estarThe primary difference between Bronze age world, and the Neolithic world was that the agricultural revolution allowed a greater concentration of people with more organization. With fertile grounds for an exchange of ideas locally and sometimes internationally.
The key to organization is that it gives you a food surplus and that's what you need for things like an aristocracy, trade missions, and dedicated craft workers. Most ancient societies could get up to about 5-10% of their people away from dedicated food production, but that wasn't easy and required organization. If you are dealing with subsistence living, you aren't going to have the same sort of social stratification, specialization, and ability to create or trade for luxury goods.
If you want some more novel recommendations: Henry Treece's book The Golden Strangers is a good bloodthirsty look at the clash of a Neolithic English village with bronze-using people. Also, his books Jason, Oedipus and Electra are set in a primitive Bronze Age Greece. Great stuff.
Quote from: John Morrow...that doesn't mean that they don't find wood or the evidence of it, not only the wooden objects found in King Tut's tomb, for example, but also what's carved into stone reliefs and what's inventoried in clay tablets, including the administrative tablets of Mycenaean sites written in Linear B.
I think estar is referring to artifacts from much earlier periods...or the lack thereof. Not only wood, but textiles as well. Every so often, researchers will find an imprint of woven cloth on a clay potsherd, or a piece of statuary that suggests intricate adornment with non-durable materials. Many of these indirect artifacts date to Neolithic or even Mesolithic eras.
This brings me to the sort of Bronze Era adventure I'd really be interested in -- playing members of a Neolithic culture that is peripheral to an emerging Bronze Age culture. Do you and your people want to rush in and embrace technological and social advance, or do you shun it as a corruption of your traditional way of life?
Speaking of which... (http://www.10000bcmovie.com/) :D
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI think estar is referring to artifacts from much earlier periods...or the lack thereof. Not only wood, but textiles as well. Every so often, researchers will find an imprint of woven cloth on a clay potsherd, or a piece of statuary that suggests intricate adornment with non-durable materials. Many of these indirect artifacts date to Neolithic or even Mesolithic eras.
True. Underwater archaeology, particularly in the Black Sea, holds some promise in that area, though. And there are always finds like the Copper Age Ice Man Ötzi, who was found in pretty good shape.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSpeaking of which... (http://www.10000bcmovie.com/)
Yes, I really want to see that. I'm sure it's going to have plenty of wince-inducing anachronisms but if I can watch it the way I watch movies like Scorpion King, it looks like it could be a lot of fun and great source material.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThis brings me to the sort of Bronze Era adventure I'd really be interested in -- playing members of a Neolithic culture that is peripheral to an emerging Bronze Age culture. Do you and your people want to rush in and embrace technological and social advance, or do you shun it as a corruption of your traditional way of life?
Or do you run away as fast as you can before you are impaled on the end of a Mycenaean spear like the fur-wearing guys in that fresco. :p
Quote from: John MorrowTrue. Underwater archaeology, particularly in the Black Sea, holds some promise in that area, though. And there are always finds like the Copper Age Ice Man Ötzi, who was found in pretty good shape.
He had a fairly good toolkit on him which really wouldn't been preserved under normal conditions.
Quote from: John MorrowOr do you run away as fast as you can before you are impaled on the end of a Mycenaean spear like the fur-wearing guys in that fresco. :p
I would argue that the Myceanaens would be a bit bias in their own art. ;-) How many of them would get run through with a flink knapped spear. Remember by the Neolithic stone tool making had been honed to a high art.
My feeling that a Neolithic warrior would have a lot of spares as flint is not as durable (or repairable) as bronze weaponry. And certainly would have their hands full against an armored warrior.
Quote from: John MorrowLike I said, there is a lot of speculation because there is very little hard evidence of what actually caused it.
I believe one of the characteristics of the Dark Age was that a lot of people who were writing stopped. Not everyone but enough that many areas went "dark" so to speak. Also the Dark Age has a lot to do with the perspective of the Greeks. We had Mycenae writing, then nothing, then the Classical Greeks writing. We also know that it was a interregnum period between large empires in the middle east. So how dark was the dark ages.
Quote from: John MorrowMy own guess is that the end of the Bronze Age was caused by a combination of various factors with no one definitive cause.
I know I talked a lot about iron and bronze collapsing trade but even if I am correct I agree it is only one of many factors.
Quote from: estarI would argue that the Myceanaens would be a bit bias in their own art. ;-) How many of them would get run through with a flink knapped spear. Remember by the Neolithic stone tool making had been honed to a high art.
The barbarians in that fresco are conveniently unarmed. ;)
Bronze Age art could get pretty funny at times, like the Egyptian stone carving that depicts the enemy throwing their arrows at the Egyptians because the artist didn't want to depict an archer pointing a bow at the Pharaoh, which could have appeared to have been endangering him. Point taken about propoganda.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080215-egypt-coffin.html