So exactly what the hell were Europeans doing during the Bronze Age?

Not much outside of Mediterraneans.

>And guess from who are Indo-Germanic NORDIC volks descended?
Hunter Gatherers (WHG, EHG, CHG) and EEF. But blue eyes were more common among WHG than among Indo-European steppe populations.
>Wrong. It was at least at 40% level in Cordeds and Andronovians.
Source? Because most Cordeds were dark haired and very few of them had dark blond hair.
Andronovo are 1000 years younger than Cordeds and their culture flourished in Late Bronze Age.

Sure

>Hunter Gatherers (WHG, EHG, CHG) and EEF. But blue eyes were more common among WHG than among Indo-European steppe populations.
This is because "Indo-European steppe populations" were 60% mutts.
>Source? Because most Cordeds were dark haired and very few of them had dark blond hair.
Nope, they were blond and brown haired predominantly like Andronovo people, and autosomally closest to Scandinavians. They had also Nordic skulls.

Modern reconstructions are shit because they are made by ignorant retards with 0 knowledge on race, or openly denying racial types for their agenda.

Michael Cera bottom right

>Nope, they were blond and brown haired predominantly
Source?
>closest to Scandinavians
Estonians actually. But modern populations are irrelevant.

>Nope, they were blond and brown haired predominantly like Andronovo people, and autosomally closest to Scandinavians.
Scandinavians as you know them weren't even a thing back then lmao. Why are you lying?

>Source?
Pic related. CWC was 75% Nordic influenced. :)
They are closest to *modern* Scandinavians, I though you don't have a m*Diterrenean IQ, but perhaps I was wrong.

>They are closest to *modern* Scandinavians, I though you don't have a m*Diterrenean IQ, but perhaps I was wrong.
They're closest to Estonians and Finns. Norwegians, Danes and Swedes are more farmer than Yamna.

>pic related
1 out of 4 was blonde
>Cordeds in Scandinavia
>2 individuals, 1 was black-haired, the other had blond hair
Motala were blond 3000 years before Cordeds so it's likely that many SHG were already blond before the arrival of Indo-Europeans.

This is really far away from your picture of blond-haired Nordics conquering the whole of Europe.

>Norwegians, Danes and Swedes are more farmer than Yamna.
Wrong. Norwegians are in fact the most Indo-European+CHG volk in Europe.
>1 out of 4 was blonde
2 out of 4 and brown hair is also caused by blond genes, so 3 out of 4 were Nordic influenced.
>Motala were blond 3000 years before Cordeds so it's likely that many SHG were already blond before the arrival of Indo-Europeans.
There was a Nordic (EHG) migration to Scandinavia even dated back to like 10000 BC. But it doesn't change anything. Cordeds were still Nordisch.

Building mammoth tanks, driving primitives out of valleys, mining 'or,' playing soccer, and being absurdly French.

>Wrong. Norwegians are in fact the most Indo-European+CHG volk in Europe
No, they're not. Estonians and Finns are. On top of that, they aren't ENF like Norwegian shitskins with orange Germanic skin.
>volk
Cringe.

...

So the earliest bronze tools are from 3800BC.

What were they doing for thousands years? They didn't accomplish shit.

Karelian EHG had Y-haplogroup J1. Is J1 a Nordic haplogroup?
And why EHG? Apparently EHG got their genes for blond hair from Afontova Gora so maybe it was that Caucasoid-Mongoloid hybrid that was truly Nordic? Or maybe it was the Mal'ta Buret brat that was the real Nordic? You're going full retard at this point claiming that prehistoric ancient populations that were distant ancestors of Indo-European were more Indo-European than the actual Indo-Europeans (who were Yamna mutts or merely "Nordisch" Cordeds).

>g*rmanics actually believe this
Sorry boys slavs will always btfo you and will reclaim the clay

Before that they used copper and before copper they used stone tools. Vinca culture from Serbia experimented with Bronze already 4500 BC.

>4500BC
Yeah, I know there was an experimentation period, but what were the earliest tools made of bronze?

The earliest sword?
The earliest bronze shield?

What were they doing for thousands years that the earliest sword is from 1500BC. Literally 2200 years of doing shit until they figured it out?

This is how Nordic Indo-Germanic volk looked like. Sieg heil 14/88 :)

Being civilized in the south

Being barbarians in the north

>No, they're not.
Yes, they are.
>Estonians and Finns are
Nope, they are ugly mongoloid mongrels who have no place in Europe (or maybe under rightful Swedish rule as they used to be).
Maybe one had J1, but who cares if the most of them had R1a and R1b.
Slavs were Nordic in the metal ages and early medieval.

So you have no argument besides "N-NO THEY WEREN'T"

Yes, they are. Estonians and Finns are more Yamna and less ENF than Norwegians, meaning they're closer to what Corded Ware would look like.

I think the oldest bronze sword was found in Maikop culture and it's a bit older than that.

No it’s a copper sword

Link?

Nope, it's you denying the facts fingols and estongols are subhuman brachyfolk, not Aryans

Fun Fact: There was a massive battle in Tollenseetal during that time period and don't know anything about who fought against whom.

Brachy skulls developed in europe with cromagnons, meanwhile long smaller skulls came from the middle east and africa. Why do you deny this?

>fingols and estongols are subhuman brachyfolk, not Aryans
And yet they're more Yamna/steppe than Norwegians lmao.

swords

These are from the 2nd century BC. What were they doing for 2000 years?

They didn't do shit.

What was the cause of brachycephalization in Europe if most populations were strongly dolichocephalic or at least mesocephalic right up until the Middle Ages?

They are not you illiterate.
Nope, they developed in mongolia and were brought to europe by asiatic groups like finns and turks.

carps tongue swords go back to the 9th century BC and the Atlantic Bronze Age, this example is illustrative
pic related is an example of the design in Sardinia

>they developed
Wrong. There are mesocephalic and brachycephalic skulls in cromagnons from europe.

You are stupid.

>They are not you illiterate.
Apparently you ignore newest studies and still use 2015 outdated crap to fit your ideology.

ESTONIANS AND FINNS ARE MORE YAMNA THAN NORWEGIANS. I repeat.

...

Oh shit, I meant 2nd millenium BC.

Nice, these are some even older models from Sardinia, 14-12th century bc

Statuette of a chief holding it

...

It's eerily similar to pre-contact North America.
While you have large civilizations in the warmer regions to the south (Maya, Aztec, Inca, and their precursors in America; Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. in Asia/Africa), there are loose tribal confederations and smaller city-states in the North, with varying levels of farming and hunter-gathering. I'm convinced that the Americas were at the same level technologically and socially (albeit with cultural variations) at contact, as Eurasia was during the Bronze Age.

Trading amber and tin with the Phoenicians.

I meant to quote this guy

>the Americas were at the same level technologically and socially (albeit with cultural variations) at contact, as Eurasia was during the Bronze Age
lol no

sword from central Italy 13-12th century bc

Are nordics not just northern germanics? Or is that just a linguistic classification?

How so?

Why are people so fascinated with nordics?
They are pure shit.

Because of the mutt and european media. Also exotic hair and eyes.

see it's you who has the burden of proof.

Anyways, you mean Eurasia during the late Chalcolithic.

>you mean
It means eurasia during 3000BC, more or less.

no you're wrong. The Incas were literally JUST beginning to experiment with tin-alloy bronze at time of contact.

>The earliest tin-alloy bronze dates to 4500 BCE in a Vinča culture site in Pločnik (Serbia).[10]
so you're going to have to adjust your chronology to deal with the fact that most of the Americas were in the actual Neolithic at the time.

Besides you're ignoring something, that the archaic North American and Eurasian Chalcolithic periods were actually concurrent for a significant length of time, and that the North American copper age predated the introduction of maize agriculture by millennia which is unique. Specifically referring to the Great Lakes here btw.

...

I'm not going to comment at the Andes since I'm not too informed on them, but Mesoamerica was mostly bronze age and iron age tier, with some notable deviations either ahead or behind those areas.

Using the Aztecs as the main example:

>Metallurgy and Maritime/boating being Chalcolithic level
>Mathematics and economics on par with bronze age cultures
>political/diplomatic complexity, legal, bureaucratic, and municipal systems, social complexity,
>public education, city sizes, agriculture, hydroengineering, and hygienic practices on par with or ahead of complementary 16th century Europe

The Arts, poetry/philosophy, and military complexity would either be bronze or iron age level, I'm not sure which because I don't really have enough of a comparsion with a lot of Eurasian bronze or iron age cultures to compare. I know about ancient greece and rome but I don't know how those things were like in Mesopotamia, ancient egypt, or other bronze age cultures. I'd hazard a guess that the Aztecs were ancient greece level in terms of military complexity; and were ahead of most pre-collapse bronze age culture in the arts but not greek level.

Also maritime wise they might be outright bronze age level rather then chalcolithic, but I know nothing about boating and maritime shit so I don't know enough to judge.

>no
Moche people were experimenting with tin, arsenic, gold, silver alloys already. Tiwanaku culture continued the experimentation and made the earliest tin-copper alloy in 700AD.

The tin-copper tools and weapons were spread all over the incan empire. And there were tin-copper alloys in west mexico at the time. Aztecs also had some, but with low tin content.

I would say they were like 3000BC eurasia.
>ignoring
North-America has suffered several disasters. Just so you know, they populated the east coast and missisipian region massively, however it seems the deglaciation consequences fucked them up. The southamerican and mesoamerican neolithic revolution happened c. 3000BC, nevertheless the northamerican neolithic revolution was in 1000BC approximately.

> and were ahead of most pre-collapse bronze age culture in the arts but not greek level.

No, they weren't Minoans and Myceneans had much better art than the Incas and so did the Egyptians

Considering they were similar to 3000BC eurasia, what artistic arctifacts are dated from 3000BC?

Who said they were? Anyway Egyptian sculptures from 2600 bc are far better than anything the Inca ever made

>400 years doing this
Anything from 3000BC?

>>political/diplomatic complexity, legal, bureaucratic, and municipal systems, social complexity,
This got cut off, was meant to be end in ".... were iron age level"

I'm talking about the Aztecs/Mesoameirca. They were insanely skilled goldsmiths, muralists, stoneworkers, and sculptors; and especially featherworking. There's paintings made during the colonial period that weren't even painted, but were made of feathers using traditional methods, it's pretty insane shit, pic related

Ruling the world from Atlantis

>iron age tier
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mesoamerica isn't the Americas btw

Copper maces and axes were extremely common all over the Incan empire, their early bronze was reserved for elites. They had the most advanced metal armor in the Americas.
>I would say they were like 3000BC eurasia.
>Considering they were similar to 3000BC eurasia, what artistic arctifacts are dated from 3000BC?
>Anything from 3000BC?
>It means eurasia during 3000BC, more or less.
autist

The bronze arctifact tools were used in all the empire not just the elites. The weapons were used mainly by elites, however higher ranks of soldiers could already use bronze, the elites could use bronze helmets.

Now, what was the situation of bronze use back in 3000BC eurasia?

>autist
It seems the sculpture is from 2500BC. 500 years is a big difference, user. I'm not trying to deny everything you have. I actually am trying to compile info for parallelism comparisons, so if you don't mind... Tell me more about 3000BC artistic arctifacts and bronze use in eurasia.

I'm not even that guy, it's not like there are only two people in this thread

you're heavily exaggerating the ubiquity of it's distribution, and actually misrepresenting the situation of class
the vast majority of what they were commonly using was just copper

Pic related is from a Maya site in 600-900 AD.

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's accurate though. Adminstrative and political complexity and social/domestic systems in Mesomamerican soceity were absolutely on par with the late classical era and medivial europe.

The Aztec had a full bureaucratic government, ranging from a municipal level with city wards, "mayors" and per district/ward schools, (calpolli/calpulli, calpuleh and telpochcalli), all the way up to the cihuacoatl, which oversaw all domestic affairs directly under the city's king (the emperor, in the case of Tenochtitlan). The Aztec legal system had multi-tiered levels of courts with judges, again, ranging from the calpulli level all the way up to a high court persided over by the cihuacoatl. There were fleets of civil servents that did stuff like swept streets, washed buildings, and collected garbages, There was an insanely complex class system, libraries, political marriages amongst nobles and royalty, and tons of other complex domsetic shit, especially where the class systems intersected with state bureaucracy or military structure (which was also highly formalized and hierarchical with a rank system and seperate military orders/guilds), where you got stuff like merchants or highly decorated military veterns accrueing social power by being granted land or the right to display wealth which then allowed them to marry into higher social classes

Given that you into Inca stuff, I don't see why you'd be so skeptical of Mesoamerica being iron age tier in terms of social/government/political complexity since the Inca infamously had insanely complex administrative, roadway, and economic systems.

>Mesoamerica isn't the Americas btw
You fucking what?

The vast majority of uses were copper, however the tin-copper alloys were consistent and were spread in the form of tools for agriculture, art or just weapons all over the incan empire. I believe the spread of bronze tools wasn't that different against eurasia in 3000BC. But I could be mistaken, so If you got some info about the spread of bronze tech from that time, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Oh, come on. I'm trying to understand the events that triggered the changes of the early bronze age from both craddles of civilization.

>You fucking what?
you must be an idiot, the Americas is two entire continents. Eurasia is massive, and it's not close to accurate that Mesoamerica was "iron age tier" because that qualifier is meaningless.

>The Aztec had a full bureaucratic government, ranging from a municipal level with city wards, "mayors" and per district/ward schools, (calpolli/calpulli, calpuleh and telpochcalli), all the way up to the cihuacoatl, which oversaw all domestic affairs directly under the city's king (the emperor, in the case of Tenochtitlan). The Aztec legal system had multi-tiered levels of courts with judges, again, ranging from the calpulli level all the way up to a high court persided over by the cihuacoatl. There were fleets of civil servents that did stuff like swept streets, washed buildings, and collected garbages, There was an insanely complex class system, libraries, political marriages amongst nobles and royalty, and tons of other complex domsetic shit, especially where the class systems intersected with state bureaucracy or military structure (which was also highly formalized and hierarchical with a rank system and seperate military orders/guilds), where you got stuff like merchants or highly decorated military veterns accrueing social power by being granted land or the right to display wealth which then allowed them to marry into higher social classes

this describes Sumer almost as well.

It's a racial classification.

>Wrong. There are mesocephalic and brachycephalic skulls in cromagnons from europe.
There is one brachy "cro-magnon" skull, and it's not cro-magnon, but early alpinoid (mongol) immigrant.

>alpinoid
>mongol

Norwegians are White Nordics, fingols and estgols are TÜRAN subhumans

They look TÜRAN, they have TÜRAN measurements, and they behave like TÜRAN. Why do you think they are white then?

>tools for agriculture
do you have an example? If you don't have any info on the spread of bronze in Eurasia why do you claim the situation in the Americas was similar at time of contact?

>the tin-copper alloys were consistent
actually the proportional tin content in those early bronze alloys did vary somewhat.

Besides, you're forgetting the bronze ceremonial objects.

>literally no genetic evidence
Nope. Cro-magnon from harsh conditions developed brachy skulls.

You are definitely stupid, maybe it's your long small head?

You wish. :)

Baltic people and Finns are the most Aryan folk in Europe. Deal with it :)

OP's pic is probably a Babylonian artifact, Babylonians spoke Akkadian, a Semitic language.

Ancient Egyptians weren't either "Aryan" utter brainlet. They spoke an Afroasiatic language. Just like their neighbors in the Near East.

>why do you claim
I think it's the default statement. If the tin-bronze alloys were made consistently since 700AD by tiwanaku, and cultures in eurasia did the same in 3800BC, then I supposed 800 years later both sides may be similar in progress.

>vary
The tin proportion has high tin content in most tiwanaku and inca cases in their respective late periods, the recycling of past low tin content material is also present in eurasia.

>you are forgetting ceremonial objects
Care to explain?

>agriculture
Basically maces, small blades, also that ceremonial stuff which was used for sacrificing llamas, if i remember correctly (that's not agriculture though).

>you must be an idiot, the Americas is two entire continents. Eurasia is massive, and it's not close to accurate that Mesoamerica was "iron age tier" because that qualifier is meaningless.

I don't get your point. I'm talking about the level Mesoamerica was at as a specific part of the Americas.

>this describes Sumer almost as well.

I'd be interested then if you could post about it.

Worth noting I also forgot to mention explictly (I only implied it) that schools were completely state/municipally run and all kids, regardless of social class or gender, were educated, though nobility went to higher class schools and the curriculum boys and girls got differed in secondary school.

Would also probably be worth reading ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805201/pdf/bullnyacadmed00097-0071.pdf which details their civil saniation systems.

>cultures in eurasia did the same since 4500 BC
ftfy, also I'm not finding anything about Tiwanaku and tin-bronze in the year 700
besides, just think about China in 3000 BC

Quite ironically, the buildings from Scandinavia are the only ones that aren't in ruin.

>literally no genetic evidence
Genetic evidence for skulls? Really made me think...

He was described as early alpinoid individual, not CM.
Go back to mongolia subhuman.

they didn't have iron
the qualifier you call accurate isn't, the Mesoamericans didn't really use bronze

>Go back to mongolia subhuman.
Excuse me? Baltics are more ANE and more Yamna than Scandinavians. You should worship them.

...

...

...