Jangkwan

(I made this post in another discussion but thought it was important enough to have its own thread.)

I want to make the case that certain hunter-gathers had a better food surplus than early agriculturalists due to the fact that some of them were traveling and hunting on horseback and were less susceptible to soil degradation and environmental collapse. And thus, the earliest and most continuous civilizations were equestrian hunter-gatherers.

It's likely that the horserider civilization was the first to reach the metal age, and had nexuses built around ore mines and metalwork settlements.

If I had to pin down the locations of these nexuses, I'd say it was the Altai mountains, for reason that it is an unusual location for Scythian burials, and the fact that its right in the middle of the western and eastern Steppes. (Perhaps there was also one in the Balkans, and also one in Persia, but these would have been later settlements.) They then spread out and -became- the middle eastern, east asian and amerindian civilizations where we see each of these developing unique forms of high yield agriculture. ie. Wheat, Rice, Maize respectively. Thus we can't say it was any one of these three groups influencing the others. Rather, it was a unique phenomena that was intrinsic to the horserider precursor civilization. Likely due to the fact that horseriders could hunt in a solitary unit while other hunter gatherers on foot were required to work in teams by necessity of lower mobility. The horseriders became less social and more introspective in nature, allowing the tendency for philosophers and deeply analytical types. Meanwhile, in non-horserider societies, the introspective would usually find themselves outmaneuvered and becoming dinner when there's a food shortage which would have happened all the time, thus creating a selection pressure that suppresses the "thinker" types.

In summary, first civilizations were developed by horseriders around ore mines and metalwork settlements.

(It should be noted that the amerindians were likely regressed into pre-civilizational state when they lost horses on their way to the New World continent. Meaning they no longer had a food surplus that came from horseriding for the sake of maintaining specialists for things like metal, but they still held onto the agricultural techniques for creating super-crops that was perhaps more relevant for their immediate situation. But despite having agriculture, the amerindians never really went back to metallurgy, which goes to show that for the most part early agriculturalists simply stayed away from the rocky places that contain ores, making it extremely unlikely for them to have been the ones to develop metallurgy.)

tornada

The Sumerians, Harappans and Ancient Egyptians, as sedentary cultures, significantly predate our evidence of horse riding cultures. Moreover, many neolithic cultures had started manipulating copper in various ways, ergo the term Chalcolithic. In some cases, such as the Megalithic culture in Central India, they made the jump straight to Iron use.

Either way, I'm not sure there's much by way of basis to assume that the Horse cultures were the first metal workers. Also, most of these cultures weren't hunter-gatherers. They were hunters yes, but they were agro-pastoralists, not nomadic. They practiced limited agriculture, usually one season at a time, and moved gradually, but they did establish semi-permanent settlements.

Unless by horse riding you mean the early neolithic hunter gatherer cultures, which were also sedentary. They would have mother settlements, with satellite hunter settlements. But since you mention the scythians, I'm not sure if you can mean these communities.

Certainly the horse was critical to civilizational advance in the Old World. But I'm not sure there's reason to suggest that the Horse cultures were unilaterally the first metal workers. intensive culture-wide Metal working infact tends to come with urban settlements, which require a degree of permanence, and the establishment of permanent settlements which allow such non-agrarian crafts to develop. I don't think hunter-gatherers could sustain such a society

Jangkwan

(I had some other important posts about this theory that help explain it)

"Initially, people were hunter and gatherers. They then became companions with animals like dogs and horses to assist in their hunting and gathering because this was all they knew. But the moment they had horses, they were no longer in any real dangers anymore because they were so mobile and far more productive in gathering food. It also allowed a more solitary lifestyle away from the social hunting units, which encouraged introspection. This is what allowed the horseriders to develop modes of thinking that created major leaps in technology and much better ways of doing things. (ie. They became philosophers)"

"Actually, my view on this topic, as my thoughts become more and more developed, is that there was a horserider civilization around the Altai Mountains that was based on efficient hunting and gathering rather than agriculture, with specialist roles and advanced technology for its age. It would have to be the oldest civilization. Benevolent to a fault. Ruled by philosophers and sage kings. The Persians were particularly known for their value of honesty. They were also particularly known for their tolerance of cultures and religions. This reflects deeply on the nature and culture of the civilization of their origin."

TupSum

The timing doesn't agree. Agriculture and copper use pre-dates horse domestication by 5000 years roughly.

You won't see any horses in early Egypt per example.

Haakbus

Nomadic pastoralism is actually a post-agricultural development since it requires domestic animals (other than dogs, which predate agriculture by at least a few tens of thousands of years).

Hakka Nyin

from wikipedia, definition of civilization.

Civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
A civilization or civilisation (see English spelling differences) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, symbolic systems of communication (for example, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming and expansionism.[2][3][4][6][7][8] Historically, a civilization was a so-called "advanced" culture in contrast to more supposedly primitive cultures.[1][3][4][9] In this broad sense, a civilization contrasts with non-centralized tribal societies, including the cultures of nomadic pastoralists, Neolithic societies or hunter-gatherers.

specul8

One has to sort of read this in reverse for it to make sense . 'Certain ' hunter gatherers ? I am sure there were also 'certain' agriculturists that had a much better food supply than hunter gatherers ... thats why, in some places and due to conditions they got into agriculture in the first place ! But with soil degradation and environmental collapse, I guess this is the reference that gives meaning to the first part ?


I dont see how the above lead to this 'and thus' ?

And I wonder what you mean by 'earliest and most continuous' and I especially wonder what you mean by 'civilization' ?


Thats a leap ? How does the previous establish this ? How does the development of metal extraction and use, in many places, well before the arrival of riding horses explain this ?

Origin and spread of metallurgy is different from origin and spread of horse riding .

Now it appears you are saying the origin of Amerindians were not agriculturists but horse riding, metal smiths that went to Americas , loosing horse riding metal smith skills to become pastoralists of 'super crops' ?

Nope , hunters are not always required to 'work in teams' and horse riders often hunt in 'teams' .

And now you have slipped in your seemingly , as yet, unjustified; hose riders were the first philosophers trip. Again without valid reason.

Why is a horse rider more deeper and analytical than a agriculturalist ?

What ? Are you saying ' horse riders' would resort to cannibalize the intellectual , introspective and philosophical when hunting was scarce ?

"In summary" ? ... its like you established those points above ...... nope .


[QUOTE=Jangkwan;2929825]
(It should be noted that the amerindians were likely regressed into pre-civilizational state when they lost horses on their way to the New World continent. Meaning they no longer had a food surplus that came from horseriding for the sake of maintaining specialists for things like metal, but they still held onto the agricultural techniques for creating super-crops that was perhaps more relevant for their immediate situation. But despite having agriculture, the amerindians never really went back to metallurgy, which goes to show that for the most part early agriculturalists simply stayed away from the rocky places that contain ores, making it extremely unlikely for them to have been the ones to develop metallurgy.)[/QUOTE

It might be better to use an example that doesnt show the opposite of what you are trying to prove (and saying well, they were like that but then they lost it and turned into the opposite ) .

Aupmanyav

IMHO, you have a fixation on Altai horse-riders. What about the Egyptians, Sumerians and IVC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic (Copper Age)

Vaderfan

Source: Trust me dude.

Pruitt

The first horses to be domesticated were small. It took selective breeding to get them bigger. Whether or not it was to get more Mare's milk or meat we can't say today. Even early "farmers" could travel as wild food came in to harvest in different areas. The Amazon is famous for its Fruit and Nut trees planted by the residents.

Even when horses came to a useful size they were used by herders. Nomads used them to move their household goods.

Keep in mind that there was metal work being done it the Americas from quite a ways back. One of the enemies of the Aztecs used Bronze weapons. The Great Lakes had a thriving Copper Industry. You can still find float Copper on the ground and in shallow water. Keep in mind that Native Americans used metal and minerals for different uses. Iron was popular as base for red paint.

Pruitt