Asymmetrical Information

Presumably that tribe is the Evil White Men. (eyeroll)

Perhaps the baseline for comparison is the early Neanderthals, who just threw their dead into a pit and (from all available archeological evidence) didn't have any particular ceremony associated with it.

Of course, since the Neanderthals died out mumble mumble tens of thousands of years ago, nobody should be surprised that a seven-thousand-year-old tribe would have a more "evolved" culture than the old Neanderthals.

Well, the article is nicely content free, but I'm afraid that I haven't kept up since BCE was the rage. What is BP? Before Puce?

BP = British Petroleum Before Present, I believe.

So Jane, when do we get to hear about this job?

Oops, what happened to my tags?

The Maritime Archaic really are (were?) an interesting culture; I don't know how dated it is now, but you may want to check out the NOVA episode that was done on them. Of course, it was heavy into speculation, some of which may have been disproven.

They usually carefully buried their dead, and sprinkled red ochre over the body before interring. They also used quartz from a site in Labrador as toolmaking material all through the eastern part of Canada, so it's assumed they did a lot of trade and travelling.

</blockquote> tags are our friends. Just sayin'. :-D

Robert Wrights Nonzero is a very good meta-discussion of the evolution of culture in game-theoretic terms.

In a nutshell, cultures who adopt non-zero sum behaviours flourish, those that adopt zero-sum or negative-sum ones die out.

I think you'd like it.

By the way, in BP = Before Present, "Present" is defined as 1950. ( http://www.webref.org/anthropology/b/bp.htm ) Try explaining that to today's students.

wtf?? bp?? can't use bce (at least, if they have to be obsessively pc and get their panties twisted over bc and ad.. this from an agnostic)

yeah.. its vs whiteman's evil capitalist materialism.. vs the obviously superior dialectic of the noble essential persons (not savages.. so un pc)

I think I read in a few places that Neanderthals also buried their dead with wild flowers and red ochre.

Just seconding Ralph...

Lots of evidence that Neaderthal practiced funeral rituals, even reburial of the dead.

So quit slagging off the Neaderthal and pick on somebody more deserving... say the DNC?

say the DNC?

You know, I was always wondering about Terry McAuliffe's enhanced zygomatic arch.

Speaking of the proverbial cave men, did everyone catch this when it was on Drudge? "Homo sapiens idàltu"? Out of sight!

As far as non-religious, toss-back-the-fermented-mush-and-watch-contact-sports tribes, I can't think of any that existed. I'd say that all primitive societies had their own interesting way of worshiping natural phenomena and inanimate objects, and building monuments like Stonehenge that blow our minds. American Indians, for example, were an interesting contrast to the colonialist Europeans who came across them - an entire continent caught in the evolutionary slow-motion of a pre-copper society.

Finally, all that tiptoeing around BC and AD is a sad reminder of today's great divorce between scientists and religion, as if the two were unreconcilable. Worst of all, the two alternatives are erroneous. As some historians point out, any "Common Era" that exists anthropologically didn't start up right around the birth of Christ. And BP - why insert (albeit small) error into a dating system? Just because decades or, eventually, centuries don't make much difference to prehistoric times?

And anyone who wants to complain that "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are coercive ought to flip open their pocket planner. Moon Day, Tiw's Day, Woden's Day, Thor's Day - and few of us pay attention to the Solstice or sacrifice goats.

Hmm, if "BP" means "before 1950", I guess the P must stand for... Presley? This is what happens when Tennessee academics come to dominate so many fields...

I tend to agree with Shell, though maybe without the eyeroll. There's an obvious bias in archaeology when studying pre-literate societies. If they didn't leave anything useful in graves, there's probably not much to study. Even in the case of the Maritime Archaics, there's apparently no direct evidence they used boats! That would be a rather crucial question of a society that lived near the ocean; if they did their fishing and harpooning in the surf rather than boats, it'd be no surprise that they'd be replaced by ("give way" to) a more advanced tribe. Though again, we say the tribe changed when it might simply be that everyone switched to a new funeral home...

Regarding the BP/BCE/CE vs BC/AD...

They're preferable in archaeology, paleontology, etc, because there are plenty of scientists in those fields who belong to cultures (or live in countries) that don't use the Gregorian calendar, or who feel that calling present dates years "of our Lord" is wrong. A neutral dating system is, therefore, desirable.

What amuses me is that it is so important to some people that everybody use "BC" and "AD". Settle down, people; Christianity is safe.

There were a few "slackwitted" tribes in North America, the Digger Indians of California come to mind. There's debate as to whether they were really a tribe or just the Native American version of homeless people, after all they lived close to San Francisco. All the other tribes seemed to have a "highly developed" spiritual life. Get a copy of Francis Parkman's "History of France and England in North America". He has extensive descriptions of Native American culture at a time when their contact with Europeans was limited and they were still neolithic cultures. They had a variety of elaborate ceremonies including one where they dug up everyone who had died in the last ten years and excorcised all the evil spirits.

They had no concept of Sunday but for entertainment they would get together and gamble, play lacrosse, and torture captives.

When the Plains Indians were wandering around on foot, they wre fairly uninteresting. But once they got horses, their entire culture perked up. Raiding, stealing horses and captives became more important and a man's reputation rested on how well he did these things.

Any "extensive descriptions of Native American culture at a time when their contact with Europeans was limited" are meaningless for understanding what pre-contact (i.e. pre-Columbian) tribes were like -- post-contact Native Americans were devastated by European diseases with >90% mortality. Death of that magnitude destroyed lots of Native American civilization leaving something that doesn't necessarily bear any resemblance to what came before. Think of your typical "after the [nuclear] Holocaust" movie or book... ain't a lot of normal culture remaining.

What amuses me is that it is so important to some people that everybody use "BC" and "AD". Settle down, people; Christianity is safe.

It's a natural revulsion to the pretentious departure. I find it just as amusing that scientists with impressive credentials are somehow incapable of acquainting themselves with Western concepts like the Gregorian calendar. Turn it around: what was wrong with "BC/AD" in the first place? We use Latin and Greek for scientific terms out of tradition; should that be translated parochially for everyone unfamiliar with Classical languages?

Anyway, since when was a scientist ever bothered by turning concepts upside-down and discomfiting society? Never. They're big boys and girls. I think they can handle the discomfort of referring to an era as "Anno Domini."

The BCE/BP thing is in the same category of college students assuming British spelling or writing in all lowercase. No, it won't wreck the language, but it's doggoned silly.

hi jg,

"What struck me is that I always see the exact same description of the "highly developed" spiritual life of paleo- and neo-lithic tribes, even though, of course, we have very little idea whether they had a highly developed theology or simply preferred to sit around on Sundays playing mumblety-peg."

i think we have more of an idea than you suspect. i point you to the australian aborigine who fits the description of a materially poor culture (by most standards) and yet one with an incredibly rich spiritual one. i am not certian what you mean by "theology" here, but having only scratched the surface of this culture, i am amazed by its richness.

The term "Digger Indians" was used for a wide range of tribes in a certain area, and has no ethnological significance. If you're talking about the Miwok Indians, there were some Coast Miwok who lived north of S.F. in what is now Marin County, and they lived as hunter-gatherers.
There is some indication that some
California tribes performed a kind of silviculture involving fires to clear away land for oaks, which provided acorns that they prepared as a part of their diet.
It would be true to say that with the above exception, Indian tribes in California never practiced anything resembling agriculture as did Indians to the South and East of them.

As to cas's post, I would add that the languages of the tribes you're talking about are very complex and difficult for outsiders to learn. That's why the U.S. goverment chose Navaho for the WWII "Codetalker" project. There was some use of Indians in WWI for radio work as well.

Europe has one language that may have survived from Neolithic times, and it's known as Basque. Liguists still aren't sure what relation, if any, it has to other languages, but brother, it's really difficult to learn.

cas,

I can't speak for Jane, but I don't doubt that the Aborigines have an amazingly rich culture. But I also believe that white suburban Americans have an amazingly rich culture, too.

Odd. Do we have any examples of cultures which show any kind of cultural "evolution" at all? (Please note: cultural, not technological.)

I mean, it must really be a problem -- one minute we want to view society in an evolutionary context, and say we're just so gosh darned much better than we were, and the next minute, we're busy bending over backwards to point out how much more spiritually "enlightened" each newly-discovered "primitive" people-group are than, say, the board of directors at General Electric.
Has anyone else noticed that the idea of the "noble savage" contradicts the idea of "societal evolution", yet is often proffered by the same groups?

Usually, the point of reference for these comparisons is the inhabitants of the British Isles before the Celts arrived, who really were apparently a ferociously stupid bunch.

hi raymund,

i don't doubt for a minute that we are a materially rich culture, but as for being spiritually rich--that is open to debate.

hi tim,

"we're busy bending over backwards to point out how much more spiritually "enlightened" each newly-discovered "primitive" people-group are than, say, the board of directors at General Electric."

i liked the notion of cultural evolution you bring up. on that basis, the nomadic australian aborigine (for the most part) established a way of life that remained relatively unchanged (according to anthropologists and archeologists) for tens of thousands of years. so they did not culturally evolve, in a material sense. then, you appear to move from "cultural" (a vague notion that could be all-encompassing), to "spiritual" (admittedly also vague) as if they were equivalent. i do not grant that.

i think that if you compared the fully initiated aboriginal with a ge executive, that the aborigine has a much more highly developed sense of the spiritual. i don't make this claim because i am harkening back to a romantic notion that they are "noble savages." i do this because if one actually examines aboriginal culture, one sees that the majority of the time spent in that culture was spent not on food gathering and other physical survival tasks (which anthropologists conclude took about 4-6 hours a day) but on other tasks--dancing, painting, initiation, dreaming, ceremonies, transmission of knowledge, etc. the average ge ceo would spend how much time on these tasks and how many on running his material business? in economic terms, aborigines specialized in non-material production. ge executives specialized in material production.

cas, with all due respect, "i don't doubt for a minute that we are a materially rich culture, but as for being spiritually rich--that is open to debate" is simply wrong.

However you want to define "spiritually rich," suburban America has it. A wide variety of religious rituals and religious beliefs? From my office window I can see a Methodist church and a Buddhist temple. A wide range of ways people seek transcendent emotions outside of religious rituals? I can't see anyone reading a relationship self-help book, smoking pot, practicing tantric sex, or listening to electronic music from here, but there are about 50 cars in the movie theater parking lot across the freeway.

The only way to say suburban America isn't spiritually rich is to define "spiritual richness" as "what suburban America doesn't have."

"dancing, painting, initiation, dreaming, ceremonies, transmission of knowledge, etc. the average ge ceo would spend how much time on these tasks and how many on running his material business?"

A better comparison would be with the average non-ceo. (Unless you want to compare Jack Welch with a tribe's shaman/alpha male?) The average American easily spends 10-12 hours a day on "non-material production"--though a lot of it is maintaining a Buffy fansite, playing XBox, or shopping for jeans at the mall.

Plus, let's be realistic--the "non-material production" of aborigines is mostly as banal as ours is. They aren't spending their free time in transcendent contact with some higher power--they're thinking about how boring their spouse is, how sexy that other person is, will their kids learn the tribe's ways properly, won't the next initiation ceremony hurry up because I'm bored, kangaroo meat and grubs for dinner again....

The "Red Ocre" culture actually comprised quite a lot of sites and peoples from Northern Canada to Northern Europe.

Also, the Celts arrived in the British Isles in multple waves over many centuries complete with a highly developed material and spiritual cultures in two distinct linguistic groups. Particularly skilled in metalwork, they produced masterpieces of jewelry, mirrors and othe household implements. They were among the first to develop iron weapons which gave them the ability to expand and eventually dominate Europe from the Atlantic to the Danube.

hi raymund,

"However you want to define "spiritually rich," suburban America has it. A wide variety of religious rituals and religious beliefs? From my office window I can see a Methodist church and a Buddhist temple. A wide range of ways people seek transcendent emotions outside of religious rituals?"

i would ask you to consider that you are perhaps ignoring the roles of intensity and pervasiveness. your examples speak to a diversity of spiritual/religious options that an american has today to "consume". i will grant you this.

"Plus, let's be realistic--the "non-material production" of aborigines is mostly as banal as ours is. They aren't spending their free time in transcendent contact with some higher power"

in any case, yes, aborigines, being human worry about their material circumstances (as we do). but their lives, especially in pre-contact days, where on the average much more spiritually aware than ours. i am not arguing that no american suburban person is as spiritually oriented as an average aborigine. some may well be more so, on a per capita basis. on the whole though, no. as for boredom, sure. but i wonder if you are assuming that aborigines have the same quite rigid separation between their spiritual and physical lives that we mostly do (one of the benefits of the enlightenment). they do not. their world view is based on the reality of the dreamtime which is not like the passing down of god's word in a bible from way back when, that has to struggle with the competition and temptations of daily existence. if you are interested, i can post some work on the significance of the dreamtime and how aboriginal thinking and daily life are based on this living interactive reality. it is not a book one consults and has faith in one's interpretation of--it is reality (even if it is of course, an interpretation).

two questions:
one--when has buying a pair of jeans been a "non-material? act? granted its an act of consumption on our part rather than production, but still... as for posting on a blog, i think of that as material production (hopefully).

two--why do you think that jack welch is any different from suburban american folks? because he is a mover and shaker? because he gets things done? because he has a lot of money and has been a successful businessman? the way he handled his divorce case? i don't follow your argument here. what exactly is it about mr. welch that shows you he is "spiritually enlightened/evolved?" i do not see how he can have the time to put into the task of spiritual development. maybe now he has retired, sure.

in gentleness

cas,

At first I considered Jack Welch differently than the average person on the assumption that he, as a leader of a large organization, spends a lot more time at the office and a lot less time in non-material production than the average person. I assumed he didn't have 10-12 hours a day to maintain a Buffy fansite and play Xbox, let alone other types of spiritual development. Maybe it wasn't clear that I thought he had fewer spiritual riches than the rest of us.

But thinking more about it, I withdraw that thought. I'll assume, from the lessons he's learned, the lessons he's imparted, and his leisure and vocational pursuits, that Jack Welch is about as spiritually rich as any typical American. Maybe a bit more in some ways, a bit less in others.

As for buying clothes at the mall, it's "nonmaterial" in the sense that group of teenage girls doesn't go into the Gap just to exchange money for garments, but for social bonding amongst themselves, self-adornment, etc.

No need to post any URLs about the dreamtime for my sake--I'm not interested enough to read about aborigine culture. Someone else might be, though.

Finally, I'm very curious--how can you claim that we Americans have a "quite rigid separation between" our "spiritual and physical lives?" I've had moments of peak joy, conceptual breakthrough, and ego-dissolving transcendence at school, at work, in creative endeavors, and in relationships. Haven't you? Hasn't everyone?

hi raymund,

"I've had moments of peak joy, conceptual breakthrough, and ego-dissolving transcendence at school, at work, in creative endeavors, and in relationships. Haven't you? Hasn't everyone?"

yes, i understand what you are saying. but, i can't help but feel that you are not picking up on a distinction that i have been trying to make (and clearly unsuccessfully) concerning the role of spirituality in the worldly realm. i don't think, for the most part, that girls buying jeans are engaged in spiritual "production" (for want of a better term). yes, they are bonding, just as i and my mates do down the pub. but i don't consider that spiritual, though spirits are sometimes involved.

aboriginal culture exists immersed in dreamtime. that defines it, from the way they go about finding food, to finding their way, to singing, dreaming, and to the laws that they keep. even to the way in which things are able to change. perhaps you are different, but most of the people i have met, follow a fairly clear separation between church and state, and also do so in terms of worship--a sunday/saturday event. on average. there are those who really do incorporate their religious beliefs into their everyday lives, hassidic jews, amish, some fundamentalist christian and muslim sects, are some examples that come to mind but for the most part, the majority of americans feel very comfortable with a lifestyle that reasonably compartmentalizes what they do in defined ways. we worship at a certain time, say prayers before bed or dinner, and so on. and what we do otherwise isn't really touched by our religious beliefs. it isn't that way for the tribal aborigine.

as for the peak moments, how integrated are they in your life? did it change the way you do things? do you walk around with this spiritual awareness as you go about your normal life? i struggle with all of that.

cas,

I certainly don't live in a continual state of flow, enlightenment, whatever you want to call it. Would I like to? Generally, yes.

But in honesty, I see no reason to believe that aborigines continually live in a state of flow, either. Interpreting a wind as the breath of a god or as a result of differential solar heating of the atmosphere is a trivial distinction. Boredom and banality are where most people live most of their lives, IMHO, and nothing you've said has made me doubt that's true for aborigines as well. Seeking something transcendent is what most people want, too, and that urge is as strong in suburbia as it is among the "noble savages."

Take care.

Any "extensive descriptions of Native American culture at a time when their contact with Europeans was limited" are meaningless for understanding what pre-contact (i.e. pre-Columbian) tribes were like -- post-contact Native Americans were devastated by European diseases with >90% mortality.

I've seen arguments that the nine out of ten mortality rate figure is based on bad estimates, both of the initial population and the number of survivors. How many Indians disappeared into the general population? (Greetings, great-grandmas, from your pastier descendants.) How many Indians really lived in North America before 1492? It's much harder to tell when everyone who isn't a nomad lives in perishable housing. Further complicating things are the boom/busts in Amerindian populations over the years. Consider the collapse of the Anasazi or the Maya, both featuring huge pre-contact population declines.

Certainly the numbers are large. There is no question that imported diseases hammered Amerindian and Pacific Islander populations that had never developed any resistance. This past century a third of the Eskimo population in Alaska died of the Spanish Flu. Or possibly it was two-thirds. I've seen both figures cited, and this was something that happened less than a hundred years ago in the United States!

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

"Boredom and banality are where most people live most of their lives"..and now blogging: the 3 B's of the apocalypse

"for the most part, the majority of americans feel very comfortable with a lifestyle that reasonably compartmentalizes what they do in defined ways. we worship at a certain time, say prayers before bed or dinner, and so on. and what we do otherwise isn't really touched by our religious beliefs."
one of those perilous sweeping judgements that always get one into trouble. i would argue the opposite, really, that because one's religious beliefs do indeed touch all aspects of our lives we compartmentalize, to help us avoid facing up to how much we fall short of those beliefs...

Tim seems to have grasp the eternal BS meme of anthro-social activist con men. That being progressive anthropology is puzzle arrangement to best illustrate their inner dialog of capitalist hatred. cas, do you own more than 5 cats or have you invested in magic crystal securities? Normally I don't find your type outside the phychic channeling sites.
What the writer of this article failed to anticipate is that some would think that "spiritual" development precludes "nutrition and survival" development, considering that the primitives they are unearthing didn't survive. I guess another explanation for the extinction of their culture could be that the unspiritual materialistic tribes got tired of the spiritual panhandlers and moved to a better neighborhood.

hi starbanker, raymund, and jeffrey

"Tim seems to have grasp the eternal BS meme of anthro-social activist con men. That being progressive anthropology is puzzle arrangement to best illustrate their inner dialog of capitalist hatred."

if you want to explain what you mean by this, i wold be interested. at the moment, i have no idea what you mean by this comment.

"cas, do you own more than 5 cats or have you invested in magic crystal securities? Normally I don't find your type outside the phychic channeling sites."

no. i have just travelled, conversed, observed, interacted, and read. one does not have to be having continous transcendent experience to be spiritually active. MINDFULNESS is the key requisite. i am just arguing that the average tribal aborigine is "more mindful" of his environment and his/her place in it (in this sense of dreamtime) than most western folks are in their own environment. i am sorry if this sounds like "crystal gazing" to you, starbanker. you might want to do some reading on the dreamtime, raymund. from my limited understanding, i don't think it operates the way i sense you think it does.

"Interpreting a wind as the breath of a god or as a result of differential solar heating of the atmosphere is a trivial distinction."

except that since we are conversant in the language of science, we would be hard pressed to really understand someone with such an animist or medieval view that you set up here. i disagree with you. i think that if you had a sustained conversation with someone that you portray here, the differences between you would not be "trivial." after all, aren't such distinctions one of the foundations for galileo's heresy and trial? and that had real consequences.

"I guess another explanation for the extinction of their culture could be that the unspiritual materialistic tribes got tired of the spiritual panhandlers and moved to a better neighborhood."

as for estimates of indigenous fatalities, whatever the record in the us, the picture is pretty clear that the introduction of the white fella ended up being an almost complete catastrophe for the australian aborigine. "the fatal shore" by robert hughes gives an heartbreaking account of this process. his chapter called "metastasis" gives a vivid narrative of the complete and "successful" genocide of the tasmanian aborigine.

hi mr. bingley,

"i would argue the opposite, really, that because one's religious beliefs do indeed touch all aspects of our lives we compartmentalize, to help us avoid facing up to how much we fall short of those beliefs..."

that's an interesting way of looking at it. perhaps you are right. i wonder--if you are right--what difference this causality of compartmentalization makes operationally, to the outcomes that we see in american society, with regards to the way people act. i see the current tax cuts and the neglect of the poor as inconsistent with a "christian" belief system; it feels more like a form of social darwinism. i see president bush's faith as compartmentali

thank you for the feedback.

If the Celts were the first to develop iron weapons in Europe, why were they using bronze weapons against the Romans, with fairly disastrous results?

dsquared: knowledge of how to work iron and control of sources of iron are two different things; possession of iron weaponry in quantity usually requires both (with some exceptions related to theft, looting, and/or trade).

Further, the Celts were a large, spread out bunch, so its possible one batch knew something and others didn't.

Not sure why you hate the Picts, though.

Caveat: the above is based on speculation, not actual extensive historic research of Pictish, Celtic or Roman history.

As for modern people being less spiritual.... if that means that I don't see everything around me as being the product of some supernatual force, then sure, that's right.

To me, the issue I have is less why people think primitive = spiritual, than why they think that that spirituality is inherently a good thing regardless of quality.

Yes, there are some spiritualized ways of living that are arguably better than some non-spiritualized ways. But merely being spiritual is not a benefit, and in many cases has been a hindrance, to human activity.

There's a fascination with primitivism that is, in many ways, defined more by being against technology and modernity than by any actual understanding of the primitive cultures in question.

" scientists with impressive credentials are somehow incapable of acquainting themselves with Western concepts like the Gregorian calendar. "

This is a total straw man. We are all using the Gregorian calendar, we all have to deal with these silly before and after eras, even if we aren't Christian. The point is that "B.C." means "Before Christ" and "Anno Dominie" means "in the year of our Lord." He's not my Lord. So we invent two neutral sounding terms for this calendrical division that we can't change at this point because it's too well-embedded in world civilization. End of discussion.

I can't believe people get their panties in a twist about this. It's like all the people who think the end of civilization is nigh if every public school doesn't start the day off with the Lord's Prayer.

I think it's more about taking offense, at the sort of pettiness that has academians of the Left pursuing yet another means to extinguish the non-negative mention of Christianity in histories of the West.

In reference to the lead theme: There is a fellow, a Christy Turner I believe, who did some research on the Hopi people, and on the ancient deserted sites of the Anasazi. At first he was well received - that is, until he found evidence of a savage, cannibalistic war between the two groups, after which he was shunned and banned from further studying the sites.

The Hopi, of course, have a strong oral tradition, and preserve their history in this manner. There are suspicions that, as the Hopi keep such oral transmissions of their history to themselves, that they knew all along about some of the less savory particulars of this ancient war. I expect it's not the sort of thing that sells tourists on the "spiritual people" schtick, however, and as tourism is big business for the Hopi...

"Identities of many descendants of the Anasazi are tied up in perceptions of what the Anasazi were like...There was certainly a trend during the '60s and '70s and into the '80s to perceive Native Americans as having been in tune with the Earth and to have been relatively peaceful and egalitarian..."

"Now, we're beginning to look at evidence that perhaps they were just like any other human beings..."

"Just like anyone else, the Anasazi overfarmed and overhunted and they cut down too much wood, and sometimes they'd have to abandon their areas."

-John Kantner, Georgia State University.

oh dr. cruel, you reactionary fascist! everyone knows the amerinds were in total harmony with nature and eachother until corrupted by the evil christogermwarfarerascists!

oh, and to drift back to the original point:

"Can anyone come up with the reference tribe against which these ones are presumably being compared -- the slackwitted, materialistic tribe that shows evidence of a poorly developed spiritual life and the aesthetic sensibilities of your average strip mall designer?"

i humbly suggest the franks.

hi mr. bingley,

"i humbly suggest the franks."

around 241 c.e. i gather? that wouldn't happen to be the same tribe, ironically, that also spawned pepin and charlemagne, and helped nurture and spread the foundations of western civilization, would it?

i was thinking more 2003 c.e. cas ;)

The defeat of the Celts by the Romans had little to do with their weaponry. Thier tactics of headlong rushes against the disciplined legionares doomed them to suffer enormous casualties. More importantly, their lack of political cohesion and the Roman's superior political and organizational capabilities allowed the Romans to exploit divisions among the Celts. Only when the Romans reached the limits of their logistical capabilities in Northern England-Scotland, were the Celts able to halt the progress of Pax Romana.

hi ni,
"Thier tactics of headlong rushes against the disciplined legionares doomed them to suffer enormous casualties."

bt innovation is possible. consider the germanic tribes who invited the romans into the teutoburger wald in 9 c.e. to play ...

cas,

Of course, it wasn't always so one-sided, the Celts did have some spectacular victories, such as the complete annihilation of a Roman Legion during the Iceni Revolt (basically an ambush along a road in heavily forested terrain) and the burning of Londinium, but alas, these were far too few and the Celts were unable to mount a sustained campaign. The Celts were facing the same problem all of Rome's enemies faced, for every Roman Legion defeated another two could be fielded.

Um... does reading everyone's opinions about the relative spiritual awareness between modern and ancient peoples itself constitute an act of spiritual awareness?

Guess not, but you can see where I was going: we actually have a lot more to think about than our ancient ancestors. Their world was almost entirely spiritual because they had nothing else (science, material trappings, consumerism, archeology, you name it). People are gonna think, you can't stop 'em. And if thier entire world is based on spiritual, mystical concepts, then they're going to spend a lot of time thinking about spiritual, mystical things.

Conversely, if their entire world revolves around Buffy the Vampire Slayer... well, you can see the down side too.

hi ni,

"The Celts were facing the same problem all of Rome's enemies faced, for every Roman Legion defeated another two could be fielded."

early on, i would agree, but... by the time of the disaster of teutoburger wald, rome was no longer able to so easily replace its legions. augustus was said to have rended his garments, almost suffered a break-down, etc., and was purported to have said: "varus give me back my legions!" that is what made tw so decisive (as jfc fuller would say). the romans increasingly relied on auxillaries to fight for them as time went on.

I'm mostly with Yehudit on the BCE/BC/CE/AD business. I have less trouble with BC than AD, because Before Christ more or less implies nothing about Christ other than his existence. OK. But AD really is presumptuous. He's not my lord.

True, it's not earth-shattering, but it's not nit-picking either.

And if you're about to ask me why it's a big deal, ask yourself first.

hi cas,

I'm not so familiar with Roman history, per se, I come to it via my readings about the Celts, so please excuse any deficiencies. It is also important to note that the Celts, like so many other pre-historic peoples, did not refer to themselves as Celts or have any concept of a pan-Europe polity. They regarded themselves as members of various smaller enitities, such as the Parisi, Dumnoni, etc and were vulnerable to divide and conquer stategy. Some groups supported the Romans, some were bought off, some were neutral, but in the end, they were all conquered by the Romans (except Scotland and Ireland). In fact, there is some suggestion that they may not have been ethincally related as much as linguistic and may have comprised Germans, Iberians and other groups as well. The name Celt comes from the Greek Keltoi. The Romans called them Galli, hence Gaul.

And by the time of the Roman assault, they were definitely using iron weapons. Their social organization could not match the Romans. Their military was more of a collection of tribal warriors than any organized force. They relied on individual bravery and single combat which worked well when confronted by similar tribal enemies, but against Rome disaterous.

Great discussing with you.

A television show(probably National Geographic) presented the impressive graves from millenia ago within an immense barren area of Mongolia/Central Asia. They continually reflected on the exquisite care that was part of the burials -- without mentioning that the only graves which would last this long are those few which received such exquisite care.

Duh.... Shoddiness ain't worth a tinker's damn.

hi ni,

"heir social organization could not match the Romans. Their military was more of a collection of tribal warriors than any organized force. They relied on individual bravery and single combat which worked well when confronted by similar tribal enemies, but against Rome disaterous."

i grant all of that, and teutoburger wald actually surports your claim even as the romans were defeated. in the case of the german tribes, arminius understood the roman superiority in open combat, and devised a plan that wold lure the romans into heavily wooded areas where they could not use their cohesion and greater manoevuring discipline to advantage. in the teutobrger wald, it degenerated into exactly the kind of fighting that the germanic tribes were good at...

The myth of the Noble Savage is alive and well in the 21st century: the belief that humans were corrupted by civilization and that only those humans not tainted were somehow more spiritual and in tune with nature. In 19th century England people started to regard the ancient Celts as embodying these virtues and a movement to ressurect the Druids emerged complete with white robes, mistletoe and secret, mystical philosophies. They started to gather at Stonehenge on the solstice to recreate the solemn rites of the ancients. Nevermind that Stonehenge predates the Celts and that no written legacy was left by the Druids who were utterly destoyed on their sacred Isle of Mona by the Romans. These "Druids" still carry on their made up rituals today.

Comments are Closed.