- Jul 8, 2019
Discern between the many other possible causes should be doable in all kind of societies if it is a significative factor. Proper samppling is needed, if the studies are not broad and deep enough to separate the factors then there are not conclusive evidence.There can be no perfect match in different conditions. As the most straightforward factor: in order to make it profitable to protect the population, population must produce enough surplus product to make control profitable instead of slaughter. Even the "iron revolution" does not always lead to sufficient profits. For example, if you still have hoe farming on unproductive lands, the result is predictable.
Elaborate the direct comparison.Actually, where you can trace the written tradition, that's exactly what happened. Moreover, due to the relative scarcity of an already profitable population, the semi-barbarians are at least in one case more humanistic than the Bronze empires. See Zoroastrianism in the ideological plane and Cyrus the Great in the practical.
The Late Bronze Age Collapse dont help to sustain the role of iron since...Uhm… So, on the one hand, we have population growth and direct indications of a change in ethics in historical sources. On the other hand, the statement that ethics has not changed, the change of rhetoric occurred from scratch and at the same time the growth of armies magically did not result in total genocide. Moreover, with an acute desire to cut out the defeated, they were cut out almost to zero in the Bronze Age, and not only on the scale of a separate settlement – see the genetic map of western Europe. The "Bronze Age disaster" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse also looked impressive, although military violence is not the only factor there.
1- Iron weapons were not yet common or superior to bronze ones, therefore this technology did not produced an opportunity for armies to broke the supposed balance. The change to Iron as predominant metal was later, stimulated by the depleted sources and broken trade networks that provided Bronze.
2- Both negative environmental changes and population migrations are more concise factors, these added to the degraded economy and fragile demography. Also, jump to blame supposed "unethical" bronze age cultures would be a mistake since they had over 2K years under that model.
The role of the many different groups of peoples invading from the margins of the civilized world is also obvious (these again point to the importance of the study of "iron revolution" in the ethics of tribal peoples). Urban societies already have formal laws and institutions to work in order, the chaotic element is easier to be found in the influx of barbarian newcomers.
The point is not if ethics change, is to determinate the weight of the introduction of iron for such changes. Overrate one element generalizing without solid proofs also contradicts science. There are not objetive universality, synchrony or magnitude in the role of iron for these changes.In other words, the version of immutable ethics contradicts elementary logic. In science, such hypotheses are naturally not considered as an alternative – otherwise, you can endlessly refute anything.
Demostrate that "some reason" is needed, not every technological change have the same effect or weight, others factor could be more relevant. By the way show me an study that compare the level of possible "genocide efficiency" between Bronze and Iron societies, and these vs for example different innovations in guns.It is curious how the mechanism, clearly visible for some weapon revolutions, could not work in the case of iron – despite the fact that for some reason there was no total self-genocide.