That is still one of your most 'friendly' posts about me, so i am happy with that and will quit while ahead?
Anyway, peoples. My argument is that the (very real, but secondary to language or thought) phenomenon of abusing terms and/or connoting them in unsavory manner (eg racist) is itself a symptom not of an ill to having terms in the first place. Terms and language exist regardless of any individual's stance on things, cause they themselves (terms etc) are approximations or stabilisations of thinking elements or relations in thought. So 'barbarian' again is only on the surface about some specific group of people or a person.
If you had bothered to read on archetypes i would not have to tire my fingers more on the same note there :\ The books already exist, y'know. You might then have counter-arguments on the notions, but at least not be oblivious of the examination having happened already and published.
That is still one of your most 'friendly' posts about me, so i am happy with that and will quit while ahead?
Anyway, peoples. My argument is that the (very real, but secondary to language or thought) phenomenon of abusing terms and/or connoting them in unsavory manner (eg racist) is itself a symptom not of an ill to having terms in the first place. Terms and language exist regardless of any individual's stance on things, cause they themselves (terms etc) are approximations or stabilisations of thinking elements or relations in thought. So 'barbarian' again is only on the surface about some specific group of people or a person.
If you had bothered to read on archetypes i would not have to tire my fingers more on the same note there :\ The books already exist, y'know. You might then have counter-arguments on the notions, but at least not be oblivious of the examination having happened already and published.
I don't really understand the point. Are you saying that 'barbarian' doesn't necessarily refer to any given group of people, but could be used of anyone? And are you then saying that the above shows that it's not necessarily a bad term, since the irrational hatred and chauvinism could be applied to anybody you like
I only know the one about Thucydides and baseball, m'fraid.
I don't really understand the point. Are you saying that 'barbarian' doesn't necessarily refer to any given group of people, but could be used of anyone? And are you then saying that the above shows that it's not necessarily a bad term, since the irrational hatred and chauvinism could be applied to anybody you like
Not really, i mean that like any other term, Barbarian also (in the context it means some relative difference, not just 'not greek') is not tied inherently to any case in the external world. Eg you may claim that the Goths were barbarians, the Huns, the X, Y, Z etc, but those are all particular cases and thus are not needed for the term to exist in the first place.
As a Category, though, Barbarian connotes an relation between more and less civilized. To argue that the term itself is 'bad', 'false' or other such trite things is close to claiming that it is bad to have a term for fat, cause it gets connoted negatively. Yeah, the term is not the problem there; moreover the notion would keep existing even if one tried to ban terms
Not really, i mean that like any other term, Barbarian also (in the context it means some relative difference, not just 'not greek') is not tied inherently to any case in the external world. Eg you may claim that the Goths were barbarians, the Huns, the X, Y, Z etc, but those are all particular cases and thus are not needed for the term to exist in the first place.
As a Category, though, Barbarian connotes an relation between more and less civilized. To argue that the term itself is 'bad', 'false' or other such trite things is close to claiming that it is bad to have a term for fat, cause it gets connoted negatively. Yeah, the term is not the problem there; moreover the notion would keep existing even if one tried to ban terms
You're still arguing that there's some objective means of measuring "civilization" and "barbarism," and then you smirk and claim that I'm inferior and stupid because I dared to disagree with you. While you still haven't described the mechanism for measuring civilization and barbarism.
Not really, i mean that like any other term, Barbarian also (in the context it means some relative difference, not just 'not greek') is not tied inherently to any case in the external world. Eg you may claim that the Goths were barbarians, the Huns, the X, Y, Z etc, but those are all particular cases and thus are not needed for the term to exist in the first place.
As a Category, though, Barbarian connotes an relation between more and less civilized. To argue that the term itself is 'bad', 'false' or other such trite things is close to claiming that it is bad to have a term for fat, cause it gets connoted negatively. Yeah, the term is not the problem there; moreover the notion would keep existing even if one tried to ban terms
I don't think anyone's advocating 'banning' it, just recognising that it's not useful in history - just like it's not useful to art history to describe paintings as 'ugly'.
EDIT: TF has put it in much more nuanced terms below.
I certainly can't imagine anyone banning it: the term "barbarian" is an eminently useful one, it's just that its utility is describing how people thought about themselves and one another, not about how people actually were. There are plenty of words like that: "patriot" is not a very useful analytical term, for example, but if we were somehow prohibited from using it, my undergrad dissertation would fall apart. The issue isn't whether words are good or bad, but whether the categories they describe are useful, and the objection being raised is that the categories of "barbarism" and "civilization" used by the OP and defended by Kyriakos are at best useless and are more likely pernicious, because they function less to describe any actual historical dynamics and more to excuse sloppy, chauvinistic thinking.
Kyriakos earlier hinted that it may have something to do with urbanization and sedentary agriculture, and that might be a starting point, but it's an argument which requires development- especially in light of the fact that colloquial use of the term "barbarian" does not map readily onto either category, as plenty of non-urban peoples are not usually regarded as "barbarians", while plenty of "barbarian" cultures were sedentary agriculturalists. Look at popular depictions of early Medieval England: the Anglo-Saxons were "civilized" and the Danes "barbaric", despite having almost identical material cultures, simply because the Anglo-Saxons were Christian and some of them had books, while the Danes were pagan and had no books. (The Britons, Picts and Gaels, of course, manage the impressive feat of being Christian and barbaric, which just goes to show that you can achieve anything if you put your mind to it.)
You're still arguing that there's some objective means of measuring "civilization" and "barbarism," and then you smirk and claim that I'm inferior and stupid because I dared to disagree with you. While you still haven't described the mechanism for measuring civilization and barbarism.
First of all you are projecting, ok? I don't smirk nor think anyone is "stupid", i am not in my teens..
Secondly:
It is one thing to argue a term has value due to being a category tied to relatives and differences (eg most of the terms out there, including barbarian), and quite another to argue that if we are to use this term we should have now a fully distinct exegesis of what 'civilization' is. Surely the latter is merely futile, cause such an over-term is not to be sufficiently closed up in a small definition.
That said, your own issue is not with such matters of language or thought, but with 'chauvinism', racism and so on. I did try to note time and again that those are still a different parameter in this all, and that from a somewhat more purely mental point of view (i mean a non-societal one) they don't really have any load they get if they are tied to unsavory people in the actual reality of our world. Racism is a notion made up from various bits, most of them again indistinct, but the point is that the issue of seeking fault with terms themselves is not really tied to trying to cancel racism or related phenomena cause they aren't tied as you think.
In simpler terms: a young person is not likely to like others but then read a book on 'high culture' and start hating them. One has to be tied enough to human observation to note that if he starts hating that would be a result of other factors and not a sense of extremes in culture, as there are theoretically in any other idea or sense humans have
I don't think anyone's advocating 'banning' it, just recognising that it's not useful in history - just like it's not useful to art history to describe paintings as 'ugly'.
Surely depends on the scope of the characterisation? If i detest something i am not very likely to write a full treatise about its traits i detest. I would be prone to do so for something i enjoy. If you find yourself in a room with a bad smell you won't tend to stay there till you fully are confident you can describe it, and thus explain elaborately just why you did not like it. But if you smelled a perfume you liked you might want to examine it more and learn more about why you liked it, and so on
Not sure why is sedentary agriculture the requirement for being considered "civilized", according to Kyriakos.
Some pastoralist societies (e.g. Scythians) had more sophisticated material cultures than many sedentary agriculturalists.
There are also no obstacles for pastoralists to have walled centers of exchange, commerce and production (which is the definition of a city).
Not only this, but even hunter-gatherers had a town - Qaramel in Syria. The area was so rich in wild plants and animals, that they could afford a town:
Hunting and gathering is generally so inefficient as a means of obtaining food, that hunter-gatherers cannot afford any large concentrations of people.
But there are exceptions - that particular area abounded in wild sources of food, so the population density could increase.
Well, Scythians were hardly civilized next to their neighbors who did the actual transport of stuff in the Crimea. Or the Greek merchants. Again while civilization is a pit of blurs, it still does not mean there is no greater proximity to some more distinct lines there, and the Scythian civ had no math, philosophy, systematic teaching of art or tied festivals, monument architecture (iirc Herodotos claims there was only one actual city in Scythia, and that was virtually all wooden), trade routes or exploration, accounts of foreign cultures and some study of those, or any other quantifiable progression of human co-operation in the boundaries of a knowledge which progresses in some field form (eg math, physics, law system, water systems, mapping etc etc).
So yeah, to argue that all cultures are the same or there is nothing to separate them into more civilized or not is really close to one arguing the Cyclops island is just as cultured as any human civ there anyway
Not sure why is sedentary agriculture the requirement for being considered "civilized", according to Kyriakos.
Some pastoralist societies (e.g. Scythians) had more sophisticated material culture than many sedentary agriculturalists.
There are also no obstacles for pastoralists to have walled centers of exchange, commerce and production (pretty much the definition of a city).
Not only this, but even hunter-gatherers had a town - Qaramel in Syria. The area was so rich in wild plants and animals, that they could afford a town:
So yeah, to argue that all cultures are the same or there is nothing to separate them into more civilized or not is really close to one arguing the Cyclops island is just as cultured as any human civ there anyway
But who is making that argument? Nobody here has claimed that "all cultures are the same", only that "civilization" is not a useful or even well-defined metric for distinguishing them.
Well, Scythians were hardly civilized next to their neighbors who did the actual transport of stuff in the Crimea. Or the Greek merchants. Again while civilization is a pit of blurs, it still does not mean there is no greater proximity to some more distinct lines there, and the Scythian civ had no math, philosophy, systematic teaching of art or tied festivals, monument architecture (iirc Herodotos claims there was only one actual city in Scythia, and that was virtually all wooden), trade routes or exploration, accounts of foreign cultures and some study of those, or any other quantifiable progression of human co-operation in the boundaries of a knowledge which progresses in some field form (eg math, physics, law system, water systems, mapping etc etc).
To be clear - I did not claim that Scythians were more civilized than Greeks. Another thing is that the Proto-Scythian civilization already flourished when Proto-Greek was experiencing its Dark Ages (ca. 1100 - 800 BC), and during that period Greeks did not possess all the advantages over Scythians (or their direct ancestors) mentioned by Kyriakos - Greeks developed those things only later. The Scythian civilization at its peak covered practically the whole of the Eurasian steppe:
The elite Siberian Scythians in the remote outskirts of the Eurasian Steppe had access to fine Chinese silk, Persian rugs, and Greek pottery [Rudenko, 1970; Polosmak, 2001; Parzinger, 2006]. Their prosperity allowed them to have slaves, possess lavish golden outfits weighing many kilograms, and elaborate their burials with mummified bodies, dozens of horses, and wooden chambers replicating dwellings. (...) The archaeological artifacts decorated with distinctive animal-style art of Scythians found in burial sites remain the best evidence confirming the existence of interconnected cultural communities across the Eurasian Steppe. Mobility associated with horseback riding was the key element to the wealth and social development of these tribes [Levine et al., 2003]. The Scythian economy heavily depended on livestock breeding (horses, cattle, sheep, and goats). The Siberian Scythians inhabited mountainous landscapes that offered diverse seasonally used vertical pastures. Multiple lines of archaeological evidence demonstrate vertical seasonal migration of Scythian horse breeders in central Asia based on settlement pattern.
The use of land by the Scythians in the Altai region was more efficient than by anyone after them (more Scythian sites than from other periods combined):
The total number of Scythian structures surveyed within Altai's river basins varies between 64% and 45% of total registered archaeological and historical structures. This is strong evidence for high occupational density of Siberian Scythians in the studied area. Burial grounds of Siberian Scythians follow a common landscape pattern: rows of kurgans and stone enclosures associated with them were established on grasslands overlooking rivers (Figure 7A). A typical cemetery would have over a dozen kurgans organized in a single row, extended family assembly (Figure 7). Each kurgan has a dualor group burial (three to four human skeletons); single burials are a less common feature of the cemeteries [Kubarev, 1991; Derevyanko and Molodin, 2000]. Besides kurgans of commoners, this part of the Russian Altai has large kurgans of Pazyryk warriors (Ak-Alakha-3) and higher noble elite (Pazyryk-5).
During Scythian times population density in the region was higher than ever after that, very likely even higher than today:
Overall, the burial grounds of Siberian Scythians are more spatially dense than burials of any other groups inhabiting Altai from 5000 B.C. to the present day. The high number of Scythian kurgans suggests a large population size. The modern rural population of the Russian Altai [RF-FSSS Statistics, 2011] is 149,409 people with 2.2 per km2 population density (Russian Census 2002). This is 50,000 people (one third) more than a century ago (Russian Census 1923) near the end of the Little Ice Age and long before modern technological impact on the Altaic nomadic population. If we assume that settlement patterns of the historic Altai population are similar to the Scythian pastoralists, as was demonstrated in studies on Bronze-Iron Age pastoralists of Kazakhstan and Mongolia [Frachetti, 2008; Houle, 2010], a feasible approximation of the lower bounds of Siberian Scythian population size is roughly 100,000 people (comparable to Altai nomadic population in the early twentieth century). However, because the Scythian burials far outnumber the modern and historical nomadic cemeteries, the upper bounds are more realistic in this case: ~260,000 people and higher (100,000 multiplied by 2.6, the average number of people buried in Scythian kurgans).
Scythians were descendants of speakers of Indo-European languages and people of Europoid (Caucasoid) anthropological type, who settled the previously uninhabited (or very sparsely inhabited) Altai region by the end of the 3rd millennium BC:
In the steppe region of central Asia and the Altai Mountains, the first food production began towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. The peoples who entered this region were Europoids of the Afanasiev culture who came from the Aral Sea area (Kel’teminar culture).
Indo-European eastward migrations which led to Indo-European settlement of the Altai Mountains:
First Proto-Indo-Europeans came to the Altai Mountains during the Copper Age and formed the Afanasiev Culture:
End of the 3rd millennium BC. Afanasiev Culture (Neolithic). The Afanasiev people were stockbreeders of cattle, sheep, horses, but also hunted wild game. The sites of this period are burial places under low mounds (kurgans) surrounded by circular stonewalls. Associated with burials were dentate stamped pots. Stone and bone tools were common although there were some copper ornaments.
The Bronze Age Andronovo Culture was Indo-European and most certainly the first homeland of speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian (Aryans) - possibly also ancestors of some other Indo-European branches could be part of that culture. The most famous site is Arkaim:
Mid 2nd millennium BC Andronovo Culture (Bronze Age). The Altai Mt. region was an important source of metallic ores. Mining was actively conducted from the 14th to 3rd century BC. The Andronovo culture made use of metal tools and this represents a departure from the stone tools of the earlier Neolithic society. The Andronovo culture is very similar across the vast steppe region from the Don River in southern Russia to the Yeneissei River although there are some local features. In the western steppe, the Andronovo culture is known as the Timber Grave Culture (ancestor of the Scythians). Andronovo people lived in permanent settlements with up to 10 semi-subterranean houses built of logs (20 x 30 to 30 x 60 m). They grew wheat and millet and raised cattle, sheep, horses, and pigs. The diet seems to have been composed largely of dairy products and cereal grains. The most common remains are the stone enclosures with underground log tombs having jointed corners and gabled roofs or stone cists.
In Arkaim the oldest known to date representations of Swastika have been found, a symbol few thousand years later adopted by a certain German political party.
Among successors of the Andronovo Culture was the Karasuk Culture:
1200 - 700 BC Karasuk Culture (Bronze Age). The Karasuk culture developed out of the Andronoo culture and contains evidence of contact with Asiatic Mongoloid cultures. There was a shift from settled agriculture to patterns of seasonal transhumance and a semi-nomadic life style. The primary emphasis was on sheep rearing. Burials were in stone cists covered over by a low mound surrounded by square stone enclosures. The dead were buried with a sheep, a steer or a horse. The large cemeteries indicate a larger population. In the Karasuk culture there were a large amount of bronze artifacts, woolen textiles as well as garments of skins and furs. The remains of bridles towards the end of the period suggest the beginning of horse riding on the steppe.
That culture led to development of the Scythian Pazyryk Culture, as well as other - such as Tagar Culture and later Tachtyk Culture.
The Scythian civilization had a global impact - they facilitated trade across Eurasia. Now Chinese goods could reach Europe and European goods could reach China for the first time (among Western Eurasian imports to China from that period - or rather from the earlier Andronovo-Karasuk period -, was chariot):
The term "Siberian Scythians" refers to seminomadic tribes occupying the heart of Eurasia: Altai-Sayan Mountains during the first millennium B.C. Broadly, these tribes were a part of the Scythian world reaching from the Black Sea region to Lake Baykal over 4000 km and thriving for about 800 years. It was a very dynamic time across this vast geographical region designated the Eurasian Steppe and dominated by the economic strategies of mobile pastoralism. Royal families and local elites controlled and facilitated south-north and west-east trading routes on a truly global scale [Jacobson, 1995]. (...) Three distinctive episodes of Altai climate change appear to be tracking three major cultural phases of the Siberian Scythians advancement: (1) 700 – 480 B.C., coldand highly variable climate; (2) 480 – 360 B.C., mild warm climate and stable environmental conditions; and (3) 360 – 250 B.C., turbulent cold climate with amplified decadal variability.
Area where chariot was invented over 4000 years ago (oldest chariots found so far) and the spread of chariot (China acquired chariot ca. 1600 BC):
But in period 280 - 240 BC the eastern part of the Scythian world - the Scytho-Siberians in the Altai - disappeared. The population emigrated:
High adaptation to climate combined with high mobility may have motivated dispersal of the Pazyryk people to explore and conquer new environments. Overall, climate variability reliably tracks Pazyryk population growth between 750 and 520 B.C. and then again from 340 to 275 B.C. Enhanced climate variance leads to dispersal of the population and southward migration across the Altai. A brief cold episode at 360 - 350 B.C. resulted in relocation and concentration of the Pazyryk population in the south-eastern Altai. The last contraction of Pazyryk populationoccurred in warm decades before 250 B.C., after which mortuary evidence of Pazyryk population disappeared from the Altai landscape. The decrease in density of kurgans datedwith tree rings may point to the dispersal of the Pazyryk population from the Altai, which began during warm decades of the first millennium B.C. (280 - 240 B.C.). There may be more than one plausible scenario of Scythian routes for withdrawal from the Altai.
Studies of ancient DNA have shown that Scytho-Siberians are not ancestors of modern population of the Altai region, but are more closely related to Europeans.
Despite this fact a Russian museum allowed the locals to re-bury the mummy of the "Siberian Ice Maiden", whom they consider to be their mythical ancestor.
Another famous Scytho-Siberian female mummy is the "Ukok Princess" with beautiful tatoos. There are also well-equipped graves of warriors and chieftains.
"The Ukok plateau, Altai, Siberia, where Princess and two warriors were discovered. Their bodies were surrounded by six horses fully bridles, various offering of food and a pouch of cannabis":
The mummy of the "Ukok Princess" (died aged 25) with tatoos:
The Siberian Times said: "The tattoos on the left shoulder of the 'princess' show a mythological animal - a deer with a griffon's beak and a Capricorn's antlers. 'The antlers are decorated with the heads of griffons.
'And the same griffon's head is shown on the back of the animal.
The mouth of a spotted panther with a long tail is seen at the legs of a sheep.
'She also has a dear's head on her wrist, with big antlers.
'There is a drawing on the animal's body on a thumb on her left hand.
'On the man found close to the 'princess', the tattoos include the same fantastical creature, this time covering the right side of his body, across his right shoulder and stretching from his chest to his back.
'The patterns mirror the tattoos on a much more elaborately covered male body dug from the ice in 1929 whose highly decorated torso in reconstructed in our drawing here.
'His chest, arms, part of the back and the lower leg are covered with tattoos. There is an argali - a mountain sheep - along with the same dear with griffon's vulture-like beak, with horns and the back of its head which has griffon's head and an onager drawn on it.'
"Bone structure showed she was a skilled rider and bow woman, hence the Greek legends of the Amazones seem to be real. The 'Amazon' was buried together with a man and with horses in a big double grave in a Kurgan":
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
