Dark Ages Treasure Hoard Found

[BuddhaRhubarb]

No +5 holy avengers. 

An intelligent dancing +5 Holy Avenger of Saxon Slaying.

[Malthus]

That's a claim but not a very convincing one- alfred was important but he was not some colossus single-handedly dragging a backwards people into a radically new era.  Rather, he built on already existing institutions and foundations.  Alfred's life story as we have received it is basically propaganda he wrote or had others write at his direction and he both emphasized the adversity he had to face and his success is overcoming.

But if one takes an early A-S monarch like say Offa - then you have someone over a century before Alfred who far from being hunted in swamps is a major player in European diplomacy, mints silver coinage, erects very substantial fortifications, and founds many new churches and monasteries.

I'm well aware of Alfedian propaganda - hence my statement that it was not mere Alfredian propaganda. No doubt Alfred tooted his own horn, but there was some substance to it.

The adversity at least was no mere invention of his - the invasion of the Vikings, their looting of whatever the saxons had been able to build, wasn't a figment of royal pangyric. 

Certainly there was monastic foundations and powerful kings prior to Alfred. What there was not was anything that resembled the high civilization that had preceded the Saxons - Roman Britian.

We had this discussion before.  No question that the aggregate level of material culture was higher in Roman Britain.  But given the choice between being a free pesant proprietor, and a being bound slave or colonus but having access to some decent quality manufactured pottery, I personally think I would prefer to go without the decorative pots.

Of course given the choice, I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit. What you are overlooking I think is that plenty of people living in dark ages England were hardly hobbit-like free peasant proprietors - the Saxons certainly had the institution of slavery; and many of them ended up as slaves to the Vikings.

Sure but that requires interpretation based on solid facts, not wild guesses and suppositions.  When professional archaeologists in this field start drawing conclusions, I will pay attention, but that is not anywhere near happening.

Appeal to authority. You are making "wild guesses" as much as I - about how the fact that a pile of decorated sword-hilts indicates something about the culture.

Except that these items were manufactured locally.

... as were the magnificent examples of "steppe art" - such as gold made into swirling animal motifs - found in the graves of siberian chiefs. Is that proof that the tundra culture of steppe nomadism is "not backwards"?

Now you are arguing against yourself.  You concede that pre Viking invasion A-S England had a literate, sophisticated elite culture but then seek to claim that such culture existd only after Alfred.

I don't dispute the Viking invasions had a terribly negative impact on A-S civilization but that happened after the period of this find.

Not at all. Civilization isn't a binary question. There are degrees and shades of "darkness". Following the invasion of the Saxons there was a very "dark' time indeed, with Roman Britain reduced to an extremely low material and social culture. The Saxons gradually absorbed some of the trappings of "civilization" - accepted Christianity and founded monestaries - but still at a level of chaos and violence, and lack of urbanism, which contrasted poorly with what came before and what was to come after. Then the Vikings invaded. They looted and destroyed whatever stirrings of civilization they could find and reduced England to near the level of anarchy and misery that had existed right after the Saxons invaded. The inflection point was Alfred, who stemmed the tide of Viking invasion and founded many a burg; thereafter those Danes who still settled in England (and indeed back in Denmark and Norway) rapidly enculturated - accepted Christianity themselves - and urbanism begain to flourish. Subsequent Danish interventions had nowhere near the same impact - Knute was as "civilized" as any Saxon.

The trajectory here is - invasion by "hard" barbarians, that is warrior-bands who do not share in the religion and respect for literacy and interest in urban civilization - tends to lead to disaster and a 'dark age" where that civilization is either in decline already or very weakly established. 

[The Minsky Moment]

... as were the magnificent examples of "steppe art" - such as gold made into swirling animal motifs - found in the graves of siberian chiefs. Is that proof that the tundra culture of steppe nomadism is "not backwards"? 

These finds are at a higher level than "swirling animal motifs".  Including psalmic inscriptions.

Not at all. Civilization isn't a binary question

On that we can agree.

Following the invasion of the Saxons there was a very "dark' time indeed, with Roman Britain reduced to an extremely low material and social culture.

Maybe, maybe not.  Truth is that we know very little from that time period.  Our main written source is Gildas, who is writing a jeremiad and thus can't be taken at face value.  His account does suggest however that Romano-British culture was still vibrant and holding its own into the early 6th century (and ultimately forms the origin point of the Arthur romances).  The archaeological evidence does show a collapse in imported manufacturing goods and decline in coin circulation.  There are also ash layers in various towns and settlements, which are traditionally interpreted as evidence of sacking and abandonment, but might also be evidence of continuing settlement, but with wood construction replacing stone.

Certainly there is a significant decline in material culture and in settlement density but what the real impact was on "social culture" remains an open question.  To the extent this find suggests that long-range trade or exchange networks were operative as of the early 7th century, it may lead to reassessment of this period.

Of course given the choice, I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit. What you are overlooking I think is that plenty of people living in dark ages England were hardly hobbit-like free peasant proprietors - the Saxons certainly had the institution of slavery; and many of them ended up as slaves to the Vikings.

Taken as a whole, Roman society was far more stratified than A-S society, and free peasant tenures were far more common in A-S England than in the late imperial west.  One of the reasons Roman imperial culture fell apart in northern europe so quickly (as opposed to the Italian and Southern Gaulish urban core) is that the peasantry voted with their feet - and chose either membership in a barbarian horde or flight to a lawless area over the brutal agrarian laws and harsh taxation of the late imperial system

[Malthus]

These finds are at a higher level than "swirling animal motifs".  Including psalmic inscriptions.

Compare and contrast.

http://www.fotuva.org/history/archaeology.html

Some of these treasures look not unlike anglo-saxon ones - in particular, the treasures which flank the site title.

Maybe, maybe not.  Truth is that we know very little from that time period.  Our main written source is Gildas, who is writing a jeremiad and thus can't be taken at face value.  His account does suggest however that Romano-British culture was still vibrant and holding its own into the early 6th century (and ultimately forms the origin point of the Arthur romances).  The archaeological evidence does show a collapse in imported manufacturing goods and decline in coin circulation.  There are also ash layers in various towns and settlements, which are traditionally interpreted as evidence of sacking and abandonment, but might also be evidence of continuing settlement, but with wood construction replacing stone.

Certainly there is a significant decline in material culture and in settlement density but what the real impact was on "social culture" remains an open question.

The available evidence certainly suggests the sort of decline which could properly be considered a "dark age". You would not expect much in the way of written evidence for such times - as few would be able to write, or have the leasure to preserve written materials.

To the extent this find suggests that long-range trade or exchange networks were operative as of the early 7th century, it may lead to reassessment of this period.

Long-range trade in precious items is not always arrested by 'barbarism". The Vikings were qintessential long-range traders, despite being in some cases very barbrarous indeed.

Taken as a whole, Roman society was far more stratified than A-S society, and free peasant tenures were far more common in A-S England than in the late imperial west.  One of the reasons Roman imperial culture fell apart in northern europe so quickly (as opposed to the Italian and Southern Gaulish urban core) is that the peasantry voted with their feet - and chose either membership in a barbarian horde or flight to a lawless area over the brutal agrarian laws and harsh taxation of the late imperial system

One of the main contrasting points between the situation in much of Europe and the situation in England was that England had the misfortune to be invaded by people who were "hard" barbarians indeed - not Christian for one (unlike most of the "barbarians" who invaded the Western Roman Empire). The Vikings too were, at least pre-Alfred, "hard" barbarians - one of Alfred's accomplishments was in insisting on the conversion (symbolizing enculturation) of the Vikings of the Danelaw.

This means that there was, so to speak, more of a 'clash of cultures" aspect to the invasions of England. Contrast the Vikings, for example, in their habits vis. monestaries with the "barbarians" who generally left the Church alone in Italy ...

What evidence exists indicates that the pagan Saxons were more similar to Vikings in their effect - on learning, on urbanism, on civilization as a whole.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course given the choice, I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit.

Really? I find this statement patently absurd.

A shitty apartment will have running water, toilet, television, etc. You'll have access to modern health care through medicaid, etc.

[Ed Anger]

Of course given the choice, I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit.

Really? I find this statement patently absurd.

A shitty apartment will have running water, toilet, television, etc. You'll have access to modern health care through medicaid, etc.

I find you absurd.

A viking chief gets to rape nuns on a raid. Fag.

[The Brain]

A Viking chief has it all. A ghetto dweller has... I don't know what he has and frankly I don't want to know.

[PRC]

Viking Chief is a dream come true, you can keep your Detroit ghetto.

[Queequeg]

Some of these treasures look not unlike anglo-saxon ones - in particular, the treasures which flank the site title.

It is called "The Animal Style", derives from late Indo-European (or more properly early Indo-Iranian) steppe designs, and it is the main reason designs from Zhou Dynasty China to Russia, Ireland and Armenia can look really similar. 

What evidence exists indicates that the pagan Saxons were more similar to Vikings in their effect - on learning, on urbanism, on civilization as a whole.

Looking at civilization as a binary equation is largely meaningless.  The Spanish discovered cities far larger  than any that had existed in Iberia with a highly regulated, complex economy.  The Aztecs also lacked the wheel, gunpowder, iron, large domesticated animals and they sacrificed millions to their Gods.  Similarly, the cultures the Indo-Europeans conquered in SE Europe and India were complex and agriculture based, but we have reason to believe that the nomadic Indo-Europeans invented poetry and some early form of theater, domesticated the horse, used copper very effectively and mastered remarkably complex chariots, end ended up birthing Zoroastrianism directly, and Hinduism indirectly. 

The nomadic Siberians you criticized, for instance, were often better and more innovative metallurgists and weapon smiths than settled peoples, and often (as most obviously in the case of the Mongols) far more organized than settled societies. 

[PDH]

The nomadic Siberians you criticized, for instance, were often better and more innovative metallurgists and weapon smiths than settled peoples, and often (as most obviously in the case of the Mongols) far more organized than settled societies.

But they didn't write stuff down so they sucked.

[Queequeg]

But they didn't write stuff down so they sucked.

This seems to be the common belief, if not often expressed. 

That said, it is actually really silly when you think about it.  The Indo-Europeans had early versions of the Avestas and the Mahabharata.  I fail to see why their culture would have been so much improved by having scratched records of how many goats they sacrificed to Anu. 

[Faeelin]

Looking at civilization as a binary equation is largely meaningless.  The Spanish discovered cities far larger  than any that had existed in Iberia with a highly regulated, complex economy.  The Aztecs also lacked the wheel, gunpowder, iron, large domesticated animals and they sacrificed millions to their Gods.  Similarly, the cultures the Indo-Europeans conquered in SE Europe and India were complex and agriculture based, but we have reason to believe that the nomadic Indo-Europeans invented poetry and some early form of theater, domesticated the horse, used copper very effectively and mastered remarkably complex chariots, end ended up birthing Zoroastrianism directly, and Hinduism indirectly. 

The nomadic Siberians you criticized, for instance, were often better and more innovative metallurgists and weapon smiths than settled peoples, and often (as most obviously in the case of the Mongols) far more organized than settled societies.

Is it fair to say the Mongols were more organized? In what sense? That they had awesome raiding parties?

IMO we can lean too much towards propagating a myth of the noble savage as well; I would be far more impressed if the Aztecs had developed amazing cities in a climate and terrain similar to Castille, for instance.

[Queequeg]

Is it fair to say the Mongols were more organized? In what sense? That they had awesome raiding parties?

Their system of communication was on par with the West during the Victorian period and easily superior to the Romans.  They were masters of the siege as much as anything else, an amazing accomplishment for a people poor even by the standards of Nomadic Pastoralists   They were very, very smart. 

IMO we can lean too much towards propagating a myth of the noble savage as well; I would be far more impressed if the Aztecs had developed amazing cities in a climate and terrain similar to Castille, for instance.

I did no such thing.  I went out of my way to state that the Spanish were morally (no mass human sacrifice, though the exploitation of the Native Americans ranks as among the worst chapters in our species history it is different) and technologically superior, even though the Aztecs had the more impressive cities.  Similarly, the Mongols were very impressive in some regards, but their society was totally dependent on genocide.

[Admiral Yi]

They were masters of the siege as much as anything else, an amazing accomplishment for a people poor even by the standards of Nomadic Pastoralists   They were very, very smart. 

Were they?  I thought they just drafted Chinamen who were good at it.

[HisMajestyBOB]

They were masters of the siege as much as anything else, an amazing accomplishment for a people poor even by the standards of Nomadic Pastoralists   They were very, very smart. 

Were they?  I thought they just drafted Chinamen who were good at it.

They were very innovative at taking advantage of new technologies and putting the Chinamen to work at building siege engines. More importantly, they (or at least Genghis and a few of his generals) had a very good strategic picture and could wage war on a scale that was unthinkable until the 19th/20th century. Genghis's reorganization of the Mongol tribes into tumens (10,000), subdivided into units of 1000, 100, and 10, and using that organization to coordinate the movement of armies hundreds of miles away converging on a single city was a feat unmatched until the invention telegraph.