Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Seriously I am. I mean the comments from all of you. I cannot roll my eyes back into my head far enough.

Pro tip, smart people don't need to tell others that they're smart, it shows. It doesn't in your posting.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.

No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.

Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?

There is a guy that said Jesus was Chinese.
Big E could have totally been Jesus in one of his previous lives.

Therefore The Emperor of Mankind is Chinese.

You can't argue with that.

Well his kids certainly were made in China

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Seriously I am. I mean the comments from all of you. I cannot roll my eyes back into my head far enough.

Pro tip, smart people don't need to tell others that they're smart, it shows. It doesn't in your posting.

Cliche, I can say whatever I want. "It doesn't in your posting." we both know that is nonsense.

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Seriously I am. I mean the comments from all of you. I cannot roll my eyes back into my head far enough.

Pro tip, smart people don't need to tell others that they're smart, it shows. It doesn't in your posting.

DC be like-

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Seriously I am. I mean the comments from all of you. I cannot roll my eyes back into my head far enough.

Pro tip, smart people don't need to tell others that they're smart, it shows. It doesn't in your posting.

DC be like-

Talking to you:





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm enjoying this, but I haven't slept in 2 days, so I'll continue with this tomorrow.

Uruk isn't "the very first city". There had been cities and proto-cities for at least a couple thousand years by the time Uruk was founded. It's not even the first 'true city' (i.e. with central planning, unlike proto-cities) in Mesopotamia. That would probably be Eridu.

Also, the rather well-described burial practices of the Emperor's people in MoM, with the clay-covered skulls and stone eyes? That's specifically a Neolithic practice. Nobody was doing that any more by the Bronze Age. To be fair, though, it was a Levantine thing. AFAIK, it wasn't done in Anatolia at any time.

If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I haven't slept in 2 days

We'd never have guessed...

 Duskweaver wrote:


If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.

Wonder when we're gonna get the "Doombreed was totally Hitler/Ghengis Khan/Stalin/Mao/Atilla the Hun etc." thread?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?

Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.

What makes it obviously not a mistake?

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?

Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.

What makes it obviously not a mistake?

DC's unswerving desire to be "proved" correct? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine at this point. I have no idea why anyone would focus only on the knife and not the other details. Nothing in the passage in question would indicate one is any more important than the other. I also really don't get why it's so hard to grasp that the author may simply not have known exactly what he was talking about as far as ancient history goes. I have no problem with that since these details really aren't important, no matter how much emphasis certain posters seem to put on them.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Uruk isn't "the very first city". There had been cities and proto-cities for at least a couple thousand years by the time Uruk was founded. It's not even the first 'true city' (i.e. with central planning, unlike proto-cities) in Mesopotamia. That would probably be Eridu.

Also, the rather well-described burial practices of the Emperor's people in MoM, with the clay-covered skulls and stone eyes? That's specifically a Neolithic practice. Nobody was doing that any more by the Bronze Age. To be fair, though, it was a Levantine thing. AFAIK, it wasn't done in Anatolia at any time.

If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.

I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"

I'm not saying it was aliens, but...

The knife came from ancient aliens.

Problem solved.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not saying it was aliens, but...

The knife came from ancient aliens.

Problem solved.

don't be silly, the ancient aliens only drove human technological advancement when we reached Mars

@Delvarus Centurion

You are running this thread off the rails.

You have a history of being rude, and you can't seem to help yourself. You violate Rule #1 along the traditional lines of "just saying it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth". You're not the first, and is not a reason to act like a jerk.

You seem to take great pride in your level of education, so you should realize that these are discussions. You don't convince people by saying, "Nuh-uh, YOU'RE wrong!". Give them evidence. Provide proof. If they don't agree, then either they have a fully formed opinion based on the evidence OR you're not doing a good enough job and convincing people that you're correct.

You should also realize that there are quite a few very intelligent people on Dakka Dakka. Assuming that people are below you doesn't strengthen your position, or make people believe you. They just think you're a jerk, and don't want to hear what you have to say.

Also, if you're not going to actually listen to people's points and properly debate them, why are you here? Just go to the park and yell at squirrels.

If you continue this behavior, it will result in a temporary suspension from Dakka Dakka.

Keep in mind that archology isn't a precise science, all we can do is look at the remnaints we can find and make con jecture. new finds are being made all the time, tomorrow we could find a bronze knife and a new city that dates back to the time of neanderthuls.

I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.

Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".

The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.

Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".

The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.

I agree about the Emperor and think it's more interesting to not see things from his point of view. How others react and relate to him is more interesting IMO.

Small point of clarification: the murder the Emperor shows Ra is him murdering his uncle, not the first murder, which was much earlier.

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.

Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".

The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.

I agree about the Emperor and think it's more interesting to not see things from his point of view. How others react and relate to him is more interesting IMO.

Small point of clarification: the murder the Emperor shows Ra is him murdering his uncle, not the first murder, which was much earlier.

Although IIRC we see that murder in the prologue

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?

Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.

What makes it obviously not a mistake?

All the evidence makes it not a mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.

Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.

As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.

You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.

This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.

Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?

Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.

What makes it obviously not a mistake?

DC's unswerving desire to be "proved" correct? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine at this point. I have no idea why anyone would focus only on the knife and not the other details. Nothing in the passage in question would indicate one is any more important than the other. I also really don't get why it's so hard to grasp that the author may simply not have known exactly what he was talking about as far as ancient history goes. I have no problem with that since these details really aren't important, no matter how much emphasis certain posters seem to put on them.

Nonsense I actually admit that I'm wrong when I am, I'm absolutely right in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lorek wrote:
@Delvarus Centurion

You are running this thread off the rails.

You have a history of being rude, and you can't seem to help yourself. You violate Rule #1 along the traditional lines of "just saying it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth". You're not the first, and is not a reason to act like a jerk.

You seem to take great pride in your level of education, so you should realize that these are discussions. You don't convince people by saying, "Nuh-uh, YOU'RE wrong!". Give them evidence. Provide proof. If they don't agree, then either they have a fully formed opinion based on the evidence OR you're not doing a good enough job and convincing people that you're correct.

You should also realize that there are quite a few very intelligent people on Dakka Dakka. Assuming that people are below you doesn't strengthen your position, or make people believe you. They just think you're a jerk, and don't want to hear what you have to say.

Also, if you're not going to actually listen to people's points and properly debate them, why are you here? Just go to the park and yell at squirrels.

If you continue this behavior, it will result in a temporary suspension from Dakka Dakka.

I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass. But I'm the only one that ever gets warnings and bans, no one else gets warnings. So I'll end up getting perma banned and the mods can continue either being biased or protecting their friends, its either of those two.

Wait, you always act civil but you you're also the biggest ass? Didn't you just contradict yourself? Also, it says a lot about your lack of self awareness if you somehow see yourself as the victim here. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone disagrees with you (and for the most part more politely, no one has been nearly as rude or haughty as you have been, like you said, you take great pride in being ass), there might be something they're saying that's worth considering?

Then again, with you being so smart all this must come off as drivel to you. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

Del, if your argument is swaying no-one, have you actually considered that you are either wrong, or need more evidence to sway people over?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your arguments aren't compelling, and when they essentially boil down to "because I said so", or "you're stupid if you think this because you are", then it's really not very civil.

Lorek isn't coming in to "defend his friends", and doesn't seem biased - if you think that someone calling you out for being confrontational and obtuse is "bias", then maybe that says more about your own security.

@Slipspace, yep, my bad!

BrianDavion wrote:I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"

The Shakespeare thing is plausible as that. All but three of his plays being lost, so that nobody knows any longer that he wrote more, is something that could happen over time. Likewise, his name being misspelled as (IIRC) 'Shakespire' could happen. If Fulgrim had called the ancient poet 'Guillim Blayke', of course that would just be William Blake with his name mangled by the ages. But 'Cornelius'? That's not a plausible effect of time mangling someone's name, that's a different guy. Who nevertheless wrote some of the poems that William Blake wrote in our history. Cornelius is also described as having lived in a time of particular oppression, which doesn't fit 'our' Blake (who lived in an age of revolution and romanticism in the most liberal country in the world at that time).

I'm not strongly attached to this theory, BTW. I just think it is something that some BL authors seem to want to suggest.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.

This is a really good point, and something I'd not thought of before. Ra might have seen a bronze knife in that scene simply because he doesn't know the Emperor's childhood predated bronze knives.

Memory doesn't work like a photograph. You conjure scenes up afresh in your mind each time you remember them, so details can change. If it were actually possible to psychically project a memory into someone else's mind so that they could 'experience' it (as the Emperor is doing here), that would insert yet another layer of potential error. Ra would see things filtered not just through the Emperor's memory (which for the sake of argument we can say is as perfect as memory can ever be), but also through Ra's own psyche and limited knowledge. He's not seeing the scene like a perfect video recording, but rather as his own interpretation of ideas projected into his brain by the Emperor.

 Duskweaver wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"

The Shakespeare thing is plausible as that. All but three of his plays being lost, so that nobody knows any longer that he wrote more, is something that could happen over time. Likewise, his name being misspelled as (IIRC) 'Shakespire' could happen. If Fulgrim had called the ancient poet 'Guillim Blayke', of course that would just be William Blake with his name mangled by the ages. But 'Cornelius'? That's not a plausible effect of time mangling someone's name, that's a different guy. Who nevertheless wrote some of the poems that William Blake wrote in our history. Cornelius is also described as having lived in a time of particular oppression, which doesn't fit 'our' Blake (who lived in an age of revolution and romanticism in the most liberal country in the world at that time).

Why isn't "Cornelius" plausible? Remember that what they speak in the 40K or 30K universe is not modern English, but many thousands of years distant. A mutation of William to Guillim is a nod and wink to English readers, but that does not mean it literally was a few letters in the word mutating. The script could be entirely different. The English rendering of Gilgamesh is very different from cuneiform for example. Things only get rendered as English or faux Latin because Low Gothic is to High Gothic as English is to Latin. Is Gothic even alphabetic? Over thousands of years, the names of writers can be mis-remembered, forgotten, or their works might be mistakenly attributed to others perhaps with similar names or that have more fame.

In the novels, things have to be different enough yet similar enough for readers to be able to catch the reference. If instead of Guillim Blayke, it was Gargl Fargl or something alien to modern English reader eyes, how many people would catch the reference?

Cornelius Blake could also represent an amalgamation of historical figures, much like like Robin Hood is a single figure whose feats are actually attributed to several real individuals. A huge amount of accurate detail is bound to be lost over 28000 years, especially with ages of strive and darkness factored in.

They've previously conflated Albert Einstein and Sergei Eisenstein into being the same individual as far as 40k history is concerned - the ship Eisenstein is named after a famous scientist and remembrancer of old Earth. Cornelius Blake could well be the same phenomenon.

Over the thousands of years in the setting the histories get distorted as they naturally would. The onager dune crawler is based on the MULE designed by Land. He modelled it on insect like beasts of burden from ancient terra, mules. In the history they have been distorted in to insects. And why not. 40000 years have passed. We get history wrong from 50 years ago. So not a great deal of what we hear in 40k is reliable. It’s the nature of the setting and a great part of it. Del will always think he’s right and everyone else is wrong beacaue only he can read. Can’t believe the conversations are still going on.

'William Blake' to 'Cornelius Blayke' is not a plausible phonetic shift in the way 'Shakespeare' to 'Shakespire' is.

It's totally possible that Cornelius Blayke is meant to be an amalgam of William Blake and some other poet, though.

I still think some BL writers want us to at least consider the possibility that 40K isn't actually our future, but the future of a history parallel to ours. And logically, you'd expect the existence of the Warp and the Chaos Gods to have had some influence on Earth's history that would make things different to our reality.

I can't imagine the Western liberal democracy we're all used to living under in this world working in a setting where there are literal daemons whispering in people's souls, magnifying their selfish desires and dark impulses, for example. And that in turn makes the Emperor's favoured style of enlightened despotism seem a lot more reasonable.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass.

You realise you just managed to contradict yourself within the space of one sentence, right? The reality is, you don't debate at all. What tends to happen in threads you're involved in is there's an argument between you and everyone else, then eventually people end up ignoring you, at which point an interesting discussion often breaks out. If you constantly find yourself being the only one defending a point in an argument that's not a good sign and maybe you need to re-evaluate how you debate? The discussion about the bronze knife is a great example. Other posters have logically laid out their reasons for believing the timeframe for that passage is earlier than the Bronze Age, while also admitting there are a bunch of contradictory details in the passage. You assert that the knife means it's the Bronze Age but you never provide anything substantial to back up this point, despite others in the debate providing reasoning for their conclusions. When this is pointed out you insult people's intelligence and simply keep making the same assertion without any evidence to back up your claim. It's frustrating and, as Lorek says, pointless. If you're not interested in debate and discussion why not start a blog instead?


As for the William/Cornelius Blake thing, it's an interesting theory that we're operating in some sort of alternate timeline. There's nothing to disprove it but not really much backing it up either. I think the immense amount of time that's passed since Blake lived makes it more likely the history has become confused and maybe his works and those of other poets have been conflated over the millennia. It's almost impossible for us to really understand how a span of 30,000 years would affect our understanding of the past, even when that past is recorded in some way.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass. But I'm the only one that ever gets warnings and bans, no one else gets warnings. So I'll end up getting perma banned and the mods can continue either being biased or protecting their friends, its either of those two.

Act like a victim, get treated like a victim.

See you in a week.

Anachronism can also be explained away by time travel.

Alternatively bronze may have been invented earlier than current archaeology suggests. If the technology was lost shortly after it was discovered there would be little chance of finding evidence 10k years later.

Indeed, iron had many false starts. it was repeatedly discovered, but it was manufactured with inappropriate methods, such as casting instead of beating, so it didn't catch on.

Considering the false starts iron had it would be suprising for bronze not to suffer similar teething problems and have a few false starts before being lost again in preference for better understood technology.

nareik wrote:
Anachronism can also be explained away by time travel.

Alternatively bronze may have been invented earlier than current archaeology suggests. If the technology was lost shortly after it was discovered there would be little chance of finding evidence 10k years later.

Indeed, iron had many false starts. it was repeatedly discovered, but it was manufactured with inappropriate methods, such as casting instead of beating, so it didn't catch on.

Considering the false starts iron had it would be suprising for bronze not to suffer similar teething problems and have a few false starts before being lost again in preference for better understood technology.

Steel is also similer too, I recall reading somewhere that all those stories of "super light and strong swords" (the archtypical fantasy Mithril) owe their orgin most likely to smiths who when making iron impleiments created steel at the forge in a freak accident