Woah.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/8272058.stm
http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/artefacts/
To my mind, very cool.
They'll just spend it on booze.
That is some cool shit right there.
I've been looking for buried metal hordes around Rochester, but apparently the local Irondequoit sucked at the creation and burial of gold hordes. Losers.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 09:07:03 AM
That is some cool shit right there.
I've been looking for buried metal hordes around Rochester, but apparently the local Irondequoit sucked at the creation and burial of gold hordes. Losers.
I guess finding a buried treasure of squash, maize and beans just isn't the same.
I once found an arrowhead. It was rock shaped, but inside was a POTENTIAL arrowhead.
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2009, 09:10:23 AM
I once found an arrowhead. It was rock shaped, but inside was a POTENTIAL arrowhead.
:D
I once worked for a summer season at a Huron site just north of the city of Barrie, Ontario.
The most impressive thing I discovered was a small bit of brass sawed off something else. The reason: it was in a site dated earlier than European influence was supposed to exist in the area; it must have been traded from the coast very early on.
Ironic thread title given the nature of the find.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Ironic thread title given the nature of the find.
Heh, one of the key features of 'dark ages' is burial of treasures. ;)
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2009, 09:10:23 AM
I once found an arrowhead. It was rock shaped, but inside was a POTENTIAL arrowhead.
I might have found an arrow head once. Shaped like one, seemed to have had some grooves where maybe it had been worked into shape. Couldn't really tell for sure though, and no idea where it is now.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Ironic thread title given the nature of the find.
Heh, one of the key features of 'dark ages' is burial of treasures. ;)
Yup. The Dark Ages brought back the Indo-European fetish of bringing loot into the next life. The Romans and Greeks were often clever enough to enjoy loot in their own time. :lol:
I hope they return it to the descendants of its rightful owner.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 24, 2009, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Ironic thread title given the nature of the find.
Heh, one of the key features of 'dark ages' is burial of treasures. ;)
Yup. The Dark Ages brought back the Indo-European fetish of bringing loot into the next life. The Romans and Greeks were often clever enough to enjoy loot in their own time. :lol:
More to the point, it would appear many of the people hiding treasures were doing so *exactly* so that they could later enjoy them in this life - but were disappointed in that ambition.
That is, they were burying them not as grave-goods, but to hide them from nasty guys with swords, hoping to pick them up when the heat was off.
Sutton Hoo was clearly an organized burial with grave-goods (it was in an elaborate ship burial), but lots of hordes appear to have been more spur-of-the-moment affairs.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 09:07:03 AM
That is some cool shit right there.
I've been looking for buried metal hordes around Rochester, but apparently the local Irondequoit sucked at the creation and burial of gold hordes. Losers.
You just have been looking in the wrong places. The local denizens find and pillage buried metal hordes around Rochester all the time. It's a dangerous business though because the police keep arresting them as they exit the abandon houses with their loads of copper piping. :D
I saw this. Is there a list yet of what they have found?
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 09:30:22 AM
Ironic thread title given the nature of the find.
Heh, one of the key features of 'dark ages' is burial of treasures. ;)
Like vaults, and safe deposit boxes . . .
Quotebut to hide them from nasty guys with swords, hoping to pick them up when the heat was off.
No reason to think that was at play here.
OTOH the need to hide treasure from nasty armed people is hardly a unique feature of this period; the 20th century saw more than enough of that.
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 09:37:32 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2009, 09:10:23 AM
I once found an arrowhead. It was rock shaped, but inside was a POTENTIAL arrowhead.
I might have found an arrow head once. Shaped like one, seemed to have had some grooves where maybe it had been worked into shape. Couldn't really tell for sure though, and no idea where it is now.
There have been a large number of arrowheads (all the way back to Clovis points) found in the fields behind my parents' house; I don't know how many I've found over the years, but probably triple-digits.
We were discussing this story at work. Hating the phrase "metal detectorists" we decided to rename them "metal spotters" as they are just trainspotters with gadgets.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 09:56:30 AM
I saw this. Is there a list yet of what they have found?
The second link I posted has a full list, but it is annoyingly tempermental - it isn't working for me now.
Quote from: Brazen on September 24, 2009, 09:59:16 AM
We were discussing this story at work. Hating the phrase "metal detectorists" we decided to rename them "metal spotters" as they are just trainspotters with gadgets.
I want to be that old guy in his 60's roaming through the the park with a metal detector, wearing plaid shorts, black socks and sandals.
Quote from: ulmont on September 24, 2009, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 09:37:32 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2009, 09:10:23 AM
I once found an arrowhead. It was rock shaped, but inside was a POTENTIAL arrowhead.
I might have found an arrow head once. Shaped like one, seemed to have had some grooves where maybe it had been worked into shape. Couldn't really tell for sure though, and no idea where it is now.
There have been a large number of arrowheads (all the way back to Clovis points) found in the fields behind my parents' house; I don't know how many I've found over the years, but probably triple-digits.
Interesting, good stuff. So that must be a site that was in use over a long period of time, to go back so far. Eastern, Southern and Mid-Western Native Americans had permanent towns and villages, so all kinds of artifacts should be found. As opposed to the western tribes which were more nomadic and followed game herds, buffalo, etc.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 09:56:30 AM
I saw this. Is there a list yet of what they have found?
The second link I posted has a full list, but it is annoyingly tempermental - it isn't working for me now.
I downloaded the zip list. over 100 gold fragments/plates from swords. :)
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 09:56:30 AM
I saw this. Is there a list yet of what they have found?
The second link I posted has a full list, but it is annoyingly tempermental - it isn't working for me now.
I downloaded the zip list. over 100 gold fragments/plates from swords. :)
Heh. Just like a peaceful bank vault or safety deposit box, eh Minsky? ;)
Very interesting :)
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 24, 2009, 09:56:30 AM
I saw this. Is there a list yet of what they have found?
The second link I posted has a full list, but it is annoyingly tempermental - it isn't working for me now.
I downloaded the zip list. over 100 gold fragments/plates from swords. :)
No +5 holy avengers. :(
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Heh. Just like a peaceful bank vault or safety deposit box, eh Minsky? ;)
They are decorative elements. :mellow:
Apparently the hoard is from the heart of the Kingdom of Merica, dating to a time of relative stablility.
The only conclusion that can firmly drawn from the find as this point is to confirm that Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship was as of high quality as previous finds have suggsted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Heh. Just like a peaceful bank vault or safety deposit box, eh Minsky? ;)
They are decorative elements. :mellow:
Apparently the hoard is from the heart of the Kingdom of Merica, dating to a time of relative stablility.
The only conclusion that can firmly drawn from the find as this point is to confirm that Anglo-Saxon craftsmanship was as of high quality as previous finds have suggsted.
The key word here is "relative". ;)
Agree that nothing so far can be definitively stated. However, it seems a reasonable supposition that people somehow forgetting where they put 6 kg of gold, largely consisting of decorative bits ripped off of swords, indicates a - certain lifestyle, which would not inaccurately be termed "dark ages".
Quote from: Strix on September 24, 2009, 09:50:54 AMThe local denizens find and pillage buried metal hordes around Rochester all the time.
One Joseph Smith, for example. Maybe he should start checking the hills south of Henrietta for gold plates.
The commentary notes that there is a distinct lack of "feminine" artifacts, brooches, jewellery, the lot. this seems to indicate it's some warlord's horde.
anyhow, Mercia is not far from Wales, if one is looking for regular fighting/looting.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
The key word here is "relative". ;)
To put it concretely, late 7th century/early 8th century Mercia was probably considerable more stable than Europe in the first half of the 20th century. ;)
QuoteHowever, it seems a reasonable supposition that people somehow forgetting where they put 6 kg of gold, largely consisting of decorative bits ripped off of swords, indicates a - certain lifestyle, which would not inaccurately be termed "dark ages".
There are a lot of suppositions buried in there - and not all of them are reasonable.
We appear to be dealing with someone who was not a king or ruler and yet has what even by modern standards has very impressive wealth. And not just raw gold, but beautifully crafted items. This the reasonable supposition is that we are looking at a society which is probably enjoying some signigificant level of material prosperity, and which is capable of sustaining a sufficiently complex economy and social structure to allow for the activity of a signigicant number of highly skilled and artistically talented craftsmen and artisans.
Beyond that, I one might advance such tentative suppositions as: the owner may have been a high-status war leader and the items the accumulated trophies of victory over a successful military career. Such a career would hardly be unique to this time and place and history.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
No +5 holy avengers. :(
How would anyone know? :D
most people would burn at touching the holy avenger, no? I know all of Languish would. :p
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 11:24:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
The key word here is "relative". ;)
To put it concretely, late 7th century/early 8th century Mercia was probably considerable more stable than Europe in the first half of the 20th century. ;)
QuoteHowever, it seems a reasonable supposition that people somehow forgetting where they put 6 kg of gold, largely consisting of decorative bits ripped off of swords, indicates a - certain lifestyle, which would not inaccurately be termed "dark ages".
There are a lot of suppositions buried in there - and not all of them are reasonable.
We appear to be dealing with someone who was not a king or ruler and yet has what even by modern standards has very impressive wealth. And not just raw gold, but beautifully crafted items. This the reasonable supposition is that we are looking at a society which is probably enjoying some signigificant level of material prosperity, and which is capable of sustaining a sufficiently complex economy and social structure to allow for the activity of a signigicant number of highly skilled and artistically talented craftsmen and artisans.
Beyond that, I one might advance such tentative suppositions as: the owner may have been a high-status war leader and the items the accumulated trophies of victory over a successful military career. Such a career would hardly be unique to this time and place and history.
The existance of a high-class war leader with a considerable hoard of accumulated trophies indicates a lifestyle of conflict; the fact that this hoard was lost to his heirs indicates that success in this manner was rather unstable. The fact that this was hardly unique indicates that warfare and instability were a way of life for many. The fact that this "significant wealth" was mainly bestowed on objects of interest to the warrior elite rather than on items of civilian use also indicates the sort of society under discussion.
Isn't this sort of warlord-hoard exactly what one would expect from a "dark age"? Particularly when compared and contrasted to the sorts of remains of Roman Britian, where the treasures were commonly of a more
civilian caste.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 24, 2009, 12:19:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
No +5 holy avengers. :(
How would anyone know? :D
most people would burn at touching the holy avenger, no? I know all of Languish would. :p
I'm a Paladin with 18 charisma and 97 hit points. I can use my helm of disintegration and do one D4 damage as my half-elf mage wields his plus-five holy avenger.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 12:41:09 PM
The existance of a high-class war leader with a considerable hoard of accumulated trophies indicates a lifestyle of conflict
Which would describe any society from beginning of civilization to early modern period.
Quotethe fact that this hoard was lost to his heirs indicates that success in this manner was rather unstable.
We don't whether "he" had heirs or whether it was lost assuming he had them. If success in that "manner" were unstable, we would not expect to see this find in the first place.
QuoteThe fact that this was hardly unique
What are you claiming here was not unique?
QuoteThe fact that this "significant wealth" was mainly bestowed on objects of interest to the warrior elite rather than on items of civilian use also indicates the sort of society under discussion.
It indicates that it was a society where "those who fought" could obtain wealth and status - which would be the case of the entire medieval period, the Rennaissance (condottierri), the ancient world in the era of high Hellanism.
QuoteIsn't this sort of warlord-hoard exactly what one would expect from a "dark age"? Particularly when compared and contrasted to the sorts of remains of Roman Britian, where the treasures were commonly of a more civilian caste.
Except that other finds from Anglo-Saxon Britain are indeed of a "civilian" caste - or, to be more accurate ecclesiastical caste. What this find indicates is that kind of craftsmanship and wealth was not the preserve of a few politically-favored monasteries or powerful kings.
Just to contribute my 2-groats worth.........
Anglo-Saxon Britain did indeed enjoy periods of great wealth and stability........one of the reasons why the Danes found it such a tempting target :D
The hoard apparently dates from the 7th century, we await more precise dates. Mercia was still pagan for at least the first half of that century under the rule of the redoubtable King Penda (626-655). In wars with the (christian) Northumbrians he was responsible for the death of both King Edwin and King Oswald. He was finally killed in battle by King Oswy of Northumbria (not personally). His death more or less marked the end of paganism as a significant force in England.
So, maybe the hoard dates from the first half of that century......we'll find out sooner or later.
Damn, Joans got Malthus on the ropes. ^_^
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
Which would describe any society from beginning of civilization to early modern period.
Certainly every society had conflicts. But there is a difference between a society characterized by the warrior's mead-hall and one which contains organized armies.
QuoteWe don't whether "he" had heirs or whether it was lost assuming he had them. If success in that "manner" were unstable, we would not expect to see this find in the first place.
Generally, absent extraordinary situations or deliberate grave-offerings, people do not allow kilos of gold to simply vanish. It isn't a stretch to assume that a hoard composed of a warrior's acquisitions was lost to a warrior's fate - hidden to be recovered and not recovered because of defeat and death of the leader and all followers who knew where it was.
QuoteWhat are you claiming here was not unique?
The career of a war-leader which you referenced. The "not unique' was your characterization.
QuoteIt indicates that it was a society where "those who fought" could obtain wealth and status - which would be the case of the entire medieval period, the Rennaissance (condottierri), the ancient world in the era of high Hellanism.
It was not a society characterized by the *other* outputs of the ages you refer to - the great cities and high arts of Hellenism and the Renaissance.
That's exactly why the age was "dark". Lots of nifty gold - worked into sword-hilts and found in a warrior's hoard; wealth exclusively devoted to the violent.
QuoteExcept that other finds from Anglo-Saxon Britain are indeed of a "civilian" caste - or, to be more accurate ecclesiastical caste. What this find indicates is that kind of craftsmanship and wealth was not the preserve of a few politically-favored monasteries or powerful kings.
How do you know who it belonged to? It could easily have been the hoard of a 'powerful king'. Evidence lacks.
Quote from: Jaron on September 24, 2009, 05:33:28 PM
Damn, Joans got Malthus on the ropes. ^_^
Better watch out Joan. Jaron agrees with you, pretty good evidence I'm right. :D
More neat treasure porn: http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2009, 05:44:50 PM
Certainly every society had conflicts. But there is a difference between a society characterized by the warrior's mead-hall and one which contains organized armies.
It depends what you mean by "organized armies". The Roman legions I would grant are worthy of the title, but what of the feudal levies or "Free Companies" of high medieval Europe or the aforementioned condottieri bands? Other than swapping mead for plundered tuns of wine, we are talking about similar phenomena.
The Anglo-Saxons interestingly enough seem to come up with the idea of an organized militia (the fyrd) farily early on and under Alfred (somewhat later than the period of this find) put in place a very well organized military structure complete with a standing professional force, garrison troops, and militia.
QuoteIt was not a society characterized by the *other* outputs of the ages you refer to - the great cities and high arts of Hellenism and the Renaissance.
But that area of the world had never known great cities - there were market centers and large garrison settlement, but nothing like the great urban centers of the East. Even Roman London became fairly large in relative terms only because it an administrative-military center and complex implanted by a colonizing empire. It was a city based on a functionary economy.
We know that late Anglo-Saxon England was a urbanized society in the sense that it was covered by a dense network of connected towns that peformed urban functions; this would prove a more stable platform for long-term urban growth and development than the Roman colonial model. The question is how far back those towns go back into A-S history; the evidence is incomplete. This find is suggestive as to that very question. You keep focusing on the mysterious owner of this horde (assuming there is a single person). What is more interesting IMO is what the very existence of these items implies about the underlying society that made them. In particular it suggests that there existed a socio-economic infrastructure in place capable of producing high quality items in significant quantities - a fact not consistent with a backwards, entirely rural, subsistence economy.
QuoteThat's exactly why the age was "dark". Lots of nifty gold - worked into sword-hilts and found in a warrior's hoard; wealth exclusively devoted to the violent.
But that is not so - we know that the monasteries and churches of A-S England were well-endowed with treasures of a very different sort. So the overall picture is one of a varied society.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2009, 06:14:59 PM
It depends what you mean by "organized armies". The Roman legions I would grant are worthy of the title, but what of the feudal levies or "Free Companies" of high medieval Europe or the aforementioned condottieri bands? Other than swapping mead for plundered tuns of wine, we are talking about similar phenomena.
The Anglo-Saxons interestingly enough seem to come up with the idea of an organized militia (the fyrd) farily early on and under Alfred (somewhat later than the period of this find) put in place a very well organized military structure complete with a standing professional force, garrison troops, and militia.
Alfred is interesting exactly because his career marks the inflection-point of the dark ages in England - from being hunted through a swamp by bands of Vikings, to establishing proto-urban centres (the burgs) ... and re-introducing literacy outside of purely religious settings.
QuoteBut that area of the world had never known great cities - there were market centers and large garrison settlement, but nothing like the great urban centers of the East. Even Roman London became fairly large in relative terms only because it an administrative-military center and complex implanted by a colonizing empire. It was a city based on a functionary economy.
Roman Britian had urban centres, paved roads, central government and centuries of relative stability. Where would a rational person prefer to live - in Roman Britain circa 200 A.D., or in Anglo-Saxon Mercia circa 700 A.D.?
QuoteWe know that late Anglo-Saxon England was a urbanized society in the sense that it was covered by a dense network of connected towns that peformed urban functions; this would prove a more stable platform for long-term urban growth and development than the Roman colonial model. The question is how far back those towns go back into A-S history; the evidence is incomplete. This find is suggestive as to that very question. You keep focusing on the mysterious owner of this horde (assuming there is a single person).
I focus on it because in the practice of archaeology, the *setting* of a find is just as suggestive of information as the *identity* of a find.
Archaeologists do not record the precise location of finds merely for the purpose of dating them, but rather to glean what information they can from the setting. A treasure buried with due ceremony as grave-goods differs from a treasure buried as a jumbled, furtive hoard.
QuoteWhat is more interesting IMO is what the very existence of these items implies about the underlying society that made them. In particular it suggests that there existed a socio-economic infrastructure in place capable of producing high quality items in significant quantities - a fact not consistent with a backwards, entirely rural, subsistence economy.
This is not true in the least: hoards equally rich in workmanship have been recovered from the graves of Siberian nomads. No-one accuses them of failing to be 'backwards" compared with settled civilization.
The presance of high-quality luxury goods does not indicate a lack of barbarism. Barbarians love high-quality luxury goods, and will pay well for them: often in the form of slaves taken from rivals. The mediteranian world's supply of slave-labor was well-stocked from this exact trade.
QuoteBut that is not so - we know that the monasteries and churches of A-S England were well-endowed with treasures of a very different sort. So the overall picture is one of a varied society.
... and nearly every single centre of monastic wealth was systematically sacked by the Vikings, nearly extinguishing literacy in England.
There is no doubt that by the
late Anglo-Saxon period, particularly following the remarkable career of Alfred, Anglo-Saxon England was rebuilding an urban civilization and could not be characterized as 'dark ages'. But note the word
rebuilding. England was
recovering from absorbing two waves of highly destructive invaders - first the Saxons, then the Vikings. Between the two they had very nearly extinguished urbanism, literacy, central government, peace and order over long periods of time, etc. from the land; it is not mere Alfredian propaganda that portrays his reign as a return to civilization.
This is not to deny that there was a recovery of sorts following the initial Saxon invasions, conversion to Christianity, monastic establishment, etc. with writers like the Venerable Bede. But it was shallow and soon under attack by "hard' barbarians who very nearly succeeded in stamping it out. Alfred himself was reduced at one point to living in a hut in a swamp while Viking bands looted and killed over Wessex at will. That's what a 'dark age' looks like.
Even at their worst, the Nazis never threatened to actually eliminate literacy from Europe. In some ways of course they did
worse than that. What makes the period from the fall of Roman Britian to the rise of Alfredian England properly characterized as a "dark age" is the reality of, and realistic threat of, absolute collapse of many of the indicia of what we consider 'civilization". Mind you, I'd probably rather live in a 'dark age" than under the Nazis!
The television report I saw on this last night mentioned that the gold used in the pieces was likely from Byzantium and the gems from Sri Lanka.
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 09:25:05 AM
Alfred is interesting exactly because his career marks the inflection-point of the dark ages in England - from being hunted through a swamp by bands of Vikings, to establishing proto-urban centres (the burgs) ... and re-introducing literacy outside of purely religious settings.
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.
QuoteWhere would a rational person prefer to live - in Roman Britain circa 200 A.D., or in Anglo-Saxon Mercia circa 700 A.D.?
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.
QuoteI focus on it because in the practice of archaeology, the *setting* of a find is just as suggestive of information as the *identity* of a find.
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.
QuoteThe presance of high-quality luxury goods does not indicate a lack of barbarism. Barbarians love high-quality luxury goods, and will pay well for them: often in the form of slaves taken from rivals. The mediteranian world's supply of slave-labor was well-stocked from this exact trade.
Except that these items were manufactured locally.
Quote... and nearly every single centre of monastic wealth was systematically sacked by the Vikings, nearly extinguishing literacy in England.
There is no doubt that by the late Anglo-Saxon period, particularly following the remarkable career of Alfred, Anglo-Saxon England was rebuilding an urban civilization and could not be characterized as 'dark ages'. But note the word rebuilding. England was recovering from absorbing two waves of highly destructive invaders - first the Saxons, then the Vikings. Between the two they had very nearly extinguished urbanism, literacy, central government, peace and order over long periods of time, etc. from the land; it is not mere Alfredian propaganda that portrays his reign as a return to civilization.
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.
Quote from: PRC on September 25, 2009, 10:53:27 AM
The television report I saw on this last night mentioned that the gold used in the pieces was likely from Byzantium and the gems from Sri Lanka.
If true that would be very interesting b/c it would suggest that is generally understood to be true of the later period (that there was long-range trade and exchange going on - at least in precious non-bulky items) was also going on in the 7th and 8th centuries as well.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 10:21:18 AM
No +5 holy avengers. :(
An intelligent dancing +5 Holy Avenger of Saxon Slaying.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2009, 11:16:29 AM
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.
QuoteWe 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.
QuoteSure 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.
QuoteExcept 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"?
QuoteNow 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
... 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.
QuoteNot at all. Civilization isn't a binary question
On that we can agree.
QuoteFollowing 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.
QuoteOf 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
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2009, 01:28:45 PM
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.
QuoteMaybe, 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.
QuoteTo 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.
QuoteTaken 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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.
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.
Viking Chief is a dream come true, you can keep your Detroit ghetto.
QuoteSome 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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 27, 2009, 08:04:37 PM
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.
Quote from: PDH on September 27, 2009, 08:41:29 PM
But they didn't write stuff down so they sucked.
:lol:
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 27, 2009, 08:04:37 PM
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.
QuoteIs it fair to say the Mongols were more organized? In what sense? That they had awesome raiding parties?
:rolleyes:
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 27, 2009, 11:02:44 PM
:rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 02:25:41 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 27, 2009, 11:02:44 PM
:rolleyes:
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.
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.
Quote from: Warspite on September 28, 2009, 05:54:40 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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. :D
Quote from: Queequeg on September 27, 2009, 08:04:37 PM
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.
QuoteLooking 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:16:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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. :D
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:33:54 AM
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
This was
Detroit we're talking about. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:36:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:33:54 AM
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
This was Detroit we're talking about. :lol:
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 would like to be a Viking chief in Detroit...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:36:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:33:54 AM
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
This was Detroit we're talking about. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:47:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:36:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:33:54 AM
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
This was Detroit we're talking about. :lol:
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:54:35 AM
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*.
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...
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:16:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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. :D
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."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:33:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:16:42 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2009, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 25, 2009, 12:59:37 PM
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. :D
I'd be more concerned with the health issues than entertainment options.
Which is yet another reason why you'd make a terrible Viking.
I can totally see why Health Issue McTim makes third rate modern medical care a top priority, but why does he consider a healthy person's preference for being a Viking chief absurd?
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2009, 12:38:12 PM
I can totally see why Health Issue McTim makes third rate modern medical care a top priority, but why does he consider a healthy person's preference for being a Viking chief absurd?
Maybe he thinks battleaxes are uncool?
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:54:35 AM
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*.
Maybe you could live with the risks for yourself, but what about Carl? :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:54:35 AM
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*.
Maybe you could live with the risks for yourself, but what about Carl? :yeahright:
Contrary to popular belief having a dad who was a Viking chieftain was considered pretty cool in 9th century European playgrounds.
Tim, here's a piece of wisdom for ya: it's about living, not surviving.
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2009, 03:24:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:54:35 AM
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*.
Maybe you could live with the risks for yourself, but what about Carl? :yeahright:
Contrary to popular belief having a dad who was a Viking chieftain was considered pretty cool in 9th century European playgrounds.
We're talking about time travel here. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 03:39:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 28, 2009, 03:24:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 02:28:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:54:35 AM
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*.
Maybe you could live with the risks for yourself, but what about Carl? :yeahright:
Contrary to popular belief having a dad who was a Viking chieftain was considered pretty cool in 9th century European playgrounds.
We're talking about time travel here. :contract:
Elaborate.
Another one for Tim: the best you can hope for in life is uncertainty. Everything that is certain is bad.
Candygram for Mr. Mongers! :mad:
I want to be:
Olaf, the nun raper
Quote from: Armyknife on September 28, 2009, 03:33:59 PM
Him and his wife, in such a different context, would probably have conceived a dozen or more times.
In addition to the dozens he fathered while out raping and pillaging.
Quote
That's exactly my point - impressive jewelery-work isn't very useful a measure of civilization.
Metallurgy isn't? :huh:
Quote
but I disagree that "civilization" and "progress" are meaningless terms.
For the vast majority of people, it most certainly is useless before the Industrial Revolution.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F%7Epkrugman%2Fmalthusian.png&hash=c3484c5c753b7defad4080d1c6a84f91abae237c)
I think it is possible to talk of proto-progress since maybe the Neolithic, and early Progress during and after the late medieval period, but Progress as in "everything always getting better in Europe" is very, very recent and would not have been shared by the most optimistic Romano-Britain, let alone the Saxon.
Thus I tend to look at statements of one society being "more civilized/advanced" than the other with a bit of skepticism. The average nomad was well fed on a diet of meat and cheese supplemented by some grains, and combine this with a high mortality rate and I it is most certainly the case that the average Mongol was probably healthier and smarter than the average Indian, Roman, Chinese or Arab farmer from any pre-modern period, where malnutrition would have been near constant.
Quote
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.
I doubt that Mongol society was any more chaotic than the Rome of Marius and Caesar, or the Europe of Brusilov and Guderian, or the Italian city states of the renaissance. Violence and creativity are not only not incompatible, but often seem to foster each other.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 28, 2009, 04:15:43 PM
Metallurgy isn't? :huh:
Depends on what that metalurgy is
for, doesn't it?
Pretty well every human culture produces beautiful jewelry. Gold, which is ductile and easy to work in other ways, is frequently used for this. Ergo, gold-work is a poor indicator of "civilization".
QuoteFor the vast majority of people, it most certainly is useless before the Industrial Revolution.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.princeton.edu%2F%7Epkrugman%2Fmalthusian.png&hash=c3484c5c753b7defad4080d1c6a84f91abae237c)
I think it is possible to talk of proto-progress since maybe the Neolithic, and early Progress during and after the late medieval period, but Progress as in "everything always getting better in Europe" is very, very recent and would not have been shared by the most optimistic Romano-Britain, let alone the Saxon.
Again, in your opinion there is no difference between the technology and life-ways of a Roman and an Australian Aborigine in terms of "progress"?
I beg to differ.
I also beg to differ that the Roman era was not an advance over what came before, that the Renaissance era was not an advance over the Roman, etc.
Certainly, there were dark ages and collapses - that's the origin of this whole debate: whether what passed after the fall of the Roman empire in England and prior to the re-establishment of urbanism can properly be considered a "dark age", or just business as usual.
QuoteThus I tend to look at statements of one society being "more civilized/advanced" than the other with a bit of skepticism. The average nomad was well fed on a diet of meat and cheese supplemented by some grains, and combine this with a high mortality rate and I it is most certainly the case that the average Mongol was probably healthier and smarter than the average Indian, Roman, Chinese or Arab farmer from any pre-modern period, where malnutrition would have been near constant.
I suspect this is so much romantic mythology. The life of a pastoral nomad is every bit as nasty, brutish and short as any farmer. What makes the lifestyle attractive is comparative freedom, not material prosperity.
QuoteI doubt that Mongol society was any more chaotic than the Rome of Marius and Caesar, or the Europe of Brusilov and Guderian, or the Italian city states of the renaissance. Violence and creativity are not only not incompatible, but often seem to foster each other.
Even Marius never personally murdered his own brother over a fish. Temujin (the future Ghenghis Khan) did, ironocally enough for your thesis, while his entire family was busy starving to death. Unfortunately for the world, Temujin lived.
Jewish greed + Viking savagery would make a fiercesome opponent.
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Jewish greed + Viking savagery would make a fiercesome opponent.
Our kosher mead hall will need an entertainer. :)
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Jewish greed + Viking savagery would make a fiercesome opponent.
Our kosher mead hall will need an entertainer. :)
Then teach Carl how to tap dance. <_<
Quote
Depends on what that metalurgy is for, doesn't it?
Pretty well every human culture produces beautiful jewelry. Gold, which is ductile and easy to work in other ways, is frequently used for this. Ergo, gold-work is a poor indicator of "civilization".
You said goldwork, I said metal working in general, armor specifically. The barbarian 'steppe' societies produced a type of warrior that would eventually make the legionary and phalangist totally obsolete, and was widely copied by all settled societies.
Quote
Again, in your opinion there is no difference between the technology and life-ways of a Roman and an Australian Aborigine in terms of "progress"?
Once again, you are twisting my argument. New Stone Age-Copper Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age are all periods of material improvement, but again I don't think it is fair to call it all "progress" as in every single case the period from material age to age was caused by invasion of barbarian peoples, usually from the Steppe.
Quote
I also beg to differ that the Roman era was not an advance over what came before, that the Renaissance era was not an advance over the Roman, etc.
This is the difference between Milan and Barcelona, not the difference between modern Mumbai and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. You are seriously overestimating the difference; during the Roman period, the Germanic peoples adopted Celtic and Roman agricultural techniques and ironworking, and by the time of the collapse of the West the line between degenerated Roman and Barbarian was very blurry, as much due to the rise of the Barbarians as anything else.
Quote
I suspect this is so much romantic mythology. The life of a pastoral nomad is every bit as nasty, brutish and short as any farmer. What makes the lifestyle attractive is comparative freedom, not material prosperity.
I said that the average living Mongol presumably of an advanced age would be in better health than a farmer, partially
because a lot more Mongols died violently. Less people on a given period of land without modern improvements in agriculture means more calories a person.
Quote
Even Marius never personally murdered his own brother over a fish. Temujin (the future Ghenghis Khan) did, ironocally enough for your thesis, while his entire family was busy starving to death. Unfortunately for the world, Temujin lived.
This probably wouldn't have been totally unheard of among the lowest Plebes, though granted this is particularly pathetic.
Valued at $5.5 million.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34166439/ns/technology_and_science/
Bullshit Psellus. Quit trying to glorify steppe nomads. Right place, right time. Nothing more than that.
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Jewish greed + Viking savagery would make a fiercesome opponent.
Our kosher mead hall will need an entertainer. :)
Vikings with out pork??, you are mad!...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on November 27, 2009, 02:46:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 28, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 28, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Jewish greed + Viking savagery would make a fiercesome opponent.
Our kosher mead hall will need an entertainer. :)
Vikings with out pork??, you are mad!...
Shhh! It's not pork. It's "dwarf beef". ;)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2009, 11:26:44 PM
Valued at $5.5 million.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34166439/ns/technology_and_science/
Sweet.
Monty haul campaign. :rolleyes: