Dark Ages Treasure Hoard Found

[Warspite]

You guys can babble all you want about nomad metallurgists and what not, but at the end of the day the crowning achievement of civilisation was achieved by Britain: the invention of the dreadnought.

[Agelastus]

You guys can babble all you want about nomad metallurgists and what not, but at the end of the day the crowning achievement of civilisation was achieved by Britain: the invention of the dreadnought.

Are you Neil's spiritual twin?

As for the Mongols, I see their genius being more in knowing how to make use of their subject peoples, how to use the skills of the conquered to expand the strength of the Mongols, a skill that previous nomadic hordes had never really mastered. For example, it seems clear that the Mongols were able to deploy greater strength than previous nomad groups, and this seems to be due to a policy of conquering, ruling and assimilating neighbours, rather than simply driving them off and occupying their lands as previous rulers of the steppe had done.

[Malthus]

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.

A Viking Chief had considerably greater status and self-esteem. True that they lacked hundreds of channels of crap on telly, but they made up for it with looting, discovering America, etc. 

[Malthus]

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.

That's exactly my point - impressive jewelery-work isn't very useful a measure of civilization.

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.

Not sure what point ypu are trying to make. Is it one of radical relativism - that all peoples are equally smart, and so not really different in terms of civilization?

I'll grant that all peoples are equally smart, but I disagree that "civilization" and "progress" are meaningless terms. There is an obvious difference between a person living as an australian aboriginie and one living in the West today - even though both are of equal intelligence.

In addition, you far overestimate the level of organization of steppe society. I recommend reading a translation of The Secret History for a view of how un organized steppe society usually was. The Imperium of the Mongols was a short-lived exception to the general rule.

[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.

A Viking Chief had considerably greater status and self-esteem. True that they lacked hundreds of channels of crap on telly, but they made up for it with looting, discovering America, etc. 

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

[Malthus]

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

This was Detroit we're talking about. 

[jimmy olsen]

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

This was Detroit we're talking about. 

You're not taking my objections seriously.

As you well know, Detroit still has running water, indoor toilets, childhood vaccination programs and modern hospitals. That Viking chief will have half his kids die before the age of 5 and will be lucky to reach 50.

[C.C.R.]

I would like to be a Viking chief in Detroit...

[Malthus]

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

This was Detroit we're talking about. 

You're not taking my objections seriously.

As you well know, Detroit still has running water, indoor toilets, childhood vaccination programs and modern hospitals. That Viking chief will have half his kids die before the age of 5 and will be lucky to reach 50.

I'm not taking your objections seriously because I seriously disagree. The term I'm thinking of from anthropology is 'relative deprivation". In essense, people's satisfaction in life is a function of the society they find themselves in and compare themselves to  - a precolumbian Indian chief or Viking chief may lack medicare and television, but can nevertheless be very satisfied with his existance; similarly a ghetto dweller in Detroit may have these things but be very unsatisfied, knowing as he or she does that they are living on the margins of a wealthy society. In terms of wealth of real experience, fame, confidence in oneself, etc. it would be better to be the Viking chief.

[jimmy olsen]

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

This was Detroit we're talking about. 

You're not taking my objections seriously.

As you well know, Detroit still has running water, indoor toilets, childhood vaccination programs and modern hospitals. That Viking chief will have half his kids die before the age of 5 and will be lucky to reach 50.

I'm not taking your objections seriously because I seriously disagree. The term I'm thinking of from anthropology is 'relative deprivation". In essense, people's satisfaction in life is a function of the society they find themselves in and compare themselves to  - a precolumbian Indian chief or Viking chief may lack medicare and television, but can nevertheless be very satisfied with his existance; similarly a ghetto dweller in Detroit may have these things but be very unsatisfied, knowing as he or she does that they are living on the margins of a wealthy society. In terms of wealth of real experience, fame, confidence in oneself, etc. it would be better to be the Viking chief.

That's because they don't know what they're missing, but we're not talking about a typical Viking chieftain, we're talking about you. You said that "I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit." That's not true, you'd know what you'd be missing and you would be far less satisfied in the position of the chieftain than the ghetto dweller.

[Malthus]

That's because they don't know what they're missing, but we're not talking about a typical Viking chieftain, we're talking about you. You said that "I'd rather be a Viking chief than a ghetto dweller in Detroit." That's not true, you'd know what you'd be missing and you would be far less satisfied in the position of the chieftain than the ghetto dweller.

I disagree. Maybe *you* would rather be a ghetto dweller, and enjoy your TV and free medicare - but not *me*.

[PDH]

Malthus, not to belabor a point...but your Viking vs Ghetto is a case of pretty radical relativism...since it either implies the merits of either totally out of context or some sort of "I would like this and you are wrong for arguing" kind of point...

The whole Dark Ages vs Light Ages is perhaps the same thing - depending on what is decided upon as worthwhile one can make a point that either just might be a pinnacle...when in reality is is neither.

I would not like to live before penicillin, aspirin, or tooth care...just as basic fact - I cannot actually go back and pretend I that person - and any what if is just conjecture and as real as any alt-hist nonsense, and so (as much as it appalls me) Tim is perhaps right (even if he is always wrong by definition).  Now, the argument that the Viking Warleader might have a better relative view of life is really beside the point...

[Malthus]

Malthus, not to belabor a point...but your Viking vs Ghetto is a case of pretty radical relativism...since it either implies the merits of either totally out of context or some sort of "I would like this and you are wrong for arguing" kind of point...

The whole Dark Ages vs Light Ages is perhaps the same thing - depending on what is decided upon as worthwhile one can make a point that either just might be a pinnacle...when in reality is is neither.

I would not like to live before penicillin, aspirin, or tooth care...just as basic fact - I cannot actually go back and pretend I that person - and any what if is just conjecture and as real as any alt-hist nonsense, and so (as much as it appalls me) Tim is perhaps right (even if he is always wrong by definition).  Now, the argument that the Viking Warleader might have a better relative view of life is really beside the point...

Not at all. The original issue I was pointing out was that *if you got to choose who you were* in the past, any age *could* be "best" (or worst). I don't think that's very objectionable - as one could always "choose' the best possible position (back then) vs. the worst possible position (now). 

It is for exactly this reason that one would tend, a la Rawls, to take the "veil of ignorance" approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position

Naturally, if you *could not choose who you were going to be*, no person in their right mind would want to live during the Viking Age rather than now.

[Pat]

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.

A Viking Chief had considerably greater status and self-esteem. True that they lacked hundreds of channels of crap on telly, but they made up for it with looting, discovering America, etc. 

Indeed. When it was remarked on the abject poverty in a Swiss village they were passing through on their way to Gaul, Caesar is said to have replied: "I would rather be the first among them than the second man in Rome."

[BuddhaRhubarb]

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.

A Viking Chief had considerably greater status and self-esteem. True that they lacked hundreds of channels of crap on telly, but they made up for it with looting, discovering America, etc. 

I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.

Which is yet another reason why you'd make a terrible Viking.