Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[Legbiter]

I think it is interesting that at a moment when history of more documented/textual times is particularly interested in coercion and coercive power, that archaeology and less documentary history is instead proposing interepretations of their period that increasingly are absent of coercion. Whether the pyramids or the challenge to the theory of agriculture leading to social hierarchy and the start of repressive state functions.

British colonial administrators in India observed natives building megalith monuments in the 1930's and made direct comparisons to Stonehenge.

Moving megaliths: the Stonehenge-Asia link

Here's a  clip of people moving a very heavy megalith along a track from Sumba in Indonesia. Very cool to watch. Concludes with animals sacrifices and feasting.  If you're squeamish I'd skip the last couple of minutes.

[Jacob]

You go and try build a pyramid that will stand for thousands of years, with volunteers who gathered to have a good time. I am sceptical.

The capability to organize big celebrations (and the logistics, material goods, and organizational ability to provide the food, drink, shelter, and ritual components) and the capability to organize big work projects are not that far from one another.

The notion that social prestige is significantly predicated on the ability to organize celebrations and giving gifts is not uncommon. Two examples are Germanic magnates (Norse, Saxon, Anglic, etc) as gift-givers, with the mead-hall as the seat of power; and Haida chieftains and the potlach rituals.

It doesn't seem that big of a jump to me to propose that the social status of ancient Egyptian elites was (at least partially) predicated on the ability to organize vast religious rituals with mass participation, nor that this prestige was deployed on further enhancing the prestige by organizing monumental construction efforts.

"Come spend the non-productive part of the agricultural season eating and drinking stuff provided to you, participate in lavish religious ceremonies for the good of the community, and participate in the construction of a sacred monument that cements our relationship with the divine (and your own social position in your community)."

... that sounds relatively persuasive to me, with no direct coercion or enslavement required.

Tangentially - apparently the Egyptians were into big drunken orgiastic sex festivals as a component of their religious activities as well.

[Valmy]

Tangentially - apparently the Egyptians were into big drunken orgiastic sex festivals as a component of their religious activities as well.

That would certainly have gotten me eager to volunteer.

[Tamas]

You go and try build a pyramid that will stand for thousands of years, with volunteers who gathered to have a good time. I am sceptical.

In both cases I'm sure it's very interesting and adding to our understanding but as with all history is at least as revealing of our times and preoccupations as of the period they're studying.

For sure.

[crazy canuck]

I worded it poorly, I was talking about the theory of how the pyramids where built by tax labour rather then group gatherings as mentioned by sheilbh

 

[The Minsky Moment]

Which still leaves a big question of why.
London is the capital and biggest city of Britain for very logical geographic reasons of being on the controlling point of this large river facing south east towards Europe.

But "Europe" as we understand it didn't exist then.

Based on articles previously distributed here, there is evidence that: (1) there was a period of centuries where neolithic farmers in what is now northern France existed at the same time as the mesolithic inhabitants of Britain, but without direct cultural transmission and (2) many of the neothlithic settlers from Britain came from Iberia.  That would suggest that the cross-channel patterns of interaction we are so familiar with may not have been as dominant in the neolithic; it would also suggest a possible migration pattern along the west coast of Britain, which if followed continuously along the coast, would eventually lead to Orkney.

The neolithic Iberians themselves traced back to the Aegean; these were descendants of people who for many centuries settled along coastlines, pushing further and further each generation.

I believe 3000-1500 BCE was a warm period climatically, which would have made settlement farther north more palatable.

[Josquius]

Which still leaves a big question of why.
London is the capital and biggest city of Britain for very logical geographic reasons of being on the controlling point of this large river facing south east towards Europe.

But "Europe" as we understand it didn't exist then.

Yes. Exactly.
Why is everyone expecting the same rules as today to determine the neolithic world?
The entire point is some different rule would have logically led to different places being important then. But I don't think we have much of a clue what these rules were.

Based on articles previously distributed here, there is evidence that: (1) there was a period of centuries where neolithic farmers in what is now northern France existed at the same time as the mesolithic inhabitants of Britain, but without direct cultural transmission and (2) many of the neothlithic settlers from Britain came from Iberia.  That would suggest that the cross-channel patterns of interaction we are so familiar with may not have been as dominant in the neolithic; it would also suggest a possible migration pattern along the west coast of Britain, which if followed continuously along the coast, would eventually lead to Orkney.
 

This would explain Orkney being inhabited by the same people you find along the coast but still leaves a mystery for why it would be so important.

[Legbiter]

A study comparing Viking Age violence between Norway and Denmark.

Comparing Viking Age Norway and Denmark, the article examines the primary proposition that as centers of authority become progressively more robust, violence will be proportionately contained. The article introduces a new approach in using indications of violence as a focal point to elicit broader social practices. The disciplines employed in this study – archaeology, osteology, philology, and sociology – are used together in the study of covariance of different indicators across a societal range.

The indicators for assessing violence include skeletal trauma and weapon frequency. For assessing the steepness of the social pyramid, we use runestones, indicating variations in social stratification, and monumental constructions as a measure of power to command labor.

Among the findings: weapons and interpersonal violence in Norway was much more widespread than in Denmark, and the social pyramid in Denmark was progressively steeper and more complex than in Norway. "Official" executions accounted for the preponderance of violence in Denmark, while rare in Norway. Denmark was evidently a more "civilianized" society than Norway.

...Numerous entries in European annals attest to the actual malevolent deeds of Scandinavians from the 8th to 11th century CE. Thus, it is almost tautological to say that Vikings were violent, even if their peaceful entrepreneurship is well attested. Still, it came as a surprise to observe the extraordinary extent of trauma revealed in an osteological analysis of 30 human skeletons from across Viking Age Norway. Why did this selection of skeletons, originally chosen for their good prospects of DNA preservation, show such an excessive presence of violence?

Violence as a lens to Viking societies: A comparison of Norway and Denmark

The Dane-led Great Heathen Army that knocked out all the Anglo Saxon kingdoms except Wessex was in this light a successful channeling of pent up Viking aggression. 

[Josquius]

More evidence against libertarianism then.

[The Minsky Moment]

This would explain Orkney being inhabited by the same people you find along the coast but still leaves a mystery for why it would be so important.

Imagine we have no written records of antiquity or the middle ages, but were able to discern from archaeology that Jerusalem was a place of great cult significance across many centuries.  Why?  It was never the seat of a great empire or any political entity of substance.  It was never a great trading entrepot. It was a glorified watering hole in some dusty backwater hill country.

You can never predict why human beings will attach significance to some place.

[HVC]

To paraphrase Jay from modern family " Vikings died out and became Swedes! Hip, hip, hooray for socialism and seasonal depression"

[HVC]

This would explain Orkney being inhabited by the same people you find along the coast but still leaves a mystery for why it would be so important.

Imagine we have no written records of antiquity or the middle ages, but were able to discern from archaeology that Jerusalem was a place of great cult significance across many centuries.  Why?  It was never the seat of a great empire or any political entity of substance.  It was never a great trading entrepot. It was a glorified watering hole in some dusty backwater hill country.

You can never predict why human beings will attach significance to some place.

I solved it earlier in the thread. Sun

[Josquius]

This would explain Orkney being inhabited by the same people you find along the coast but still leaves a mystery for why it would be so important.

Imagine we have no written records of antiquity or the middle ages, but were able to discern from archaeology that Jerusalem was a place of great cult significance across many centuries.  Why?  It was never the seat of a great empire or any political entity of substance.  It was never a great trading entrepot. It was a glorified watering hole in some dusty backwater hill country.

You can never predict why human beings will attach significance to some place.

Judaism and it's offshoots rising to such prominence was indeed bizare. Seems to be very much a fluke of history.
But even there I'm sure working backwards a logical story could be pieced together - Judaism really taking religion in the modern sense of the word seriously and not playing nice with others would naturally lead to it rising above more flexible indigenous beliefs.

The Jews themselves becoming like so... Again I do think there's a logical story behind this though it's really outside my area. Something about a bunch of tribes practicing mononaltry being there first?
And I suspect their being at the crossroads of empires and constantly conquered had some role in their development....pushing them towards this endogamous and racially conscious outlook in an age where most didn't give a shit, which helped strengthen the religion with it.

The geography of Palestine is scarcely known to me but I'd imagine Jerusalem has reasons behind it being one of the major cities and it's cult happened to be the one that won.

Anyway. All going way off topic.

For a lot of history there's very much a dice role at work. It could equally be one of a few things that happen.
But I do believe this potential divergence tends to be a lot smaller than many imagine.
And even if logical outcome A happens instead of logical outcome B, there is still a base logic that can be figured out from it.

And no evidence but the sun idea sounds a decent one to me.
Or something related to astronomy (given how stone Henge is related to that) - pole stars or so?

[Legbiter]

More evidence against libertarianism then.

The Norwegian death rate makes perfect sense if the young men are Valhǫll-maxing. 

[viper37]

The Dane-led Great Heathen Army that knocked out all the Anglo Saxon kingdoms except Wessex was in this light a successful channeling of pent up Viking aggression. 

It's as good a theory as any!