History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Dachs]

Yeah, pretty much this. The problem with modern theories on the disapora of the Germanic language family is that the divisions linguists have perceived in their models and comparative studies (namely, the division of Germanic into Ingvaeones, Istvaeones, and Irminones) has little to no correlation to any anthropological or archaeological data so far constructed. For the most part correlating language groups to defined archaeological cultures, while interesting, is, at least among Germanic languages, a rather pointless affair.

A lot of other languages, too. Witness the widespread employment of Greek fineware across the Mediterranean in the archaic period, including in territories well known to be Etruscan. Or the employment of Hellenistic statue-types by north Indian craftspersons long after the demise of the last Indohellenic state. Or the employment of Roman military craftwork as badges of office and authority in so-called Germania Magna.

Using an iPhone doesn't make you American.

 

[gangleri2001]

Do we know anything about junkies in ancient Rome? I don't mean mere drug-addiction, which is something universal, but if there was a phenomenon that may compare to the modern-day junkie, that's to say, people living only for drugs.

Hello? Anyone?

 

[Flying Pig]

I can't think of one, but then I don't think that hard drugs as we have them today were available to the average Roman. Alcoholism, I don't doubt, was reasonably common among aristocrats: in an age where you couldn't trust the water, people drank an awful lot of wine - though it was usually diluted; neat wine was a mark of depravity.

 

[innonimatu]

A mark of depravity among the higher classes. I suspect that the plebeians cared little for that!

But it is odd that I never heard of subsidies to wine on Rome. Wheat, yes. Pork as well, after the second century. But what about wine? Or olive oil, the remaining element of the "ancient mediterranean food" group?

 

[gangleri2001]

I can't think of one, but then I don't think that hard drugs as we have them today were available to the average Roman. Alcoholism, I don't doubt, was reasonably common among aristocrats: in an age where you couldn't trust the water, people drank an awful lot of wine - though it was usually diluted; neat wine was a mark of depravity.

Really? I mean, didn't Romans have access to opium? We know that a lot of both plebeans and patricians used to smoke something though I don't know what. That means that Romans at least had access to a range of easily accessible drugs. I'm no expert in botanics but I'm pretty sure that you can find some hardcore stuff among the plants of the Mediterranean basin if you look for it. Romans had access to drugs and people consuming them, so I just can't imagine some free citizens eventually becoming what today we'd call junkies.

As for alcoholism, we know that people didn't switch to water until modern sanitation appeared due to sanitary reasons as well as a means for the conservation of the crop, so that's a no-brainer.

 

[ace99]

In the HBO series Rome I remember seeing two Roman women smoke what looked like marijuana or hashish. I don't know how accurate that is.

 

[gangleri2001]

I don't think marijuana is a good example of a drug that makes people become junkies. Knowing what were Rome's equivalents of our civilization's cocaine or heroin would be far more helpful.

One thing I haven't mentioned thus far but that I think that it's really important is the changes of attitude toward drugs brought by religion. Christianity is a religion that despises the mundane world and condemns its pleasures while paganism celebrates the natural world. Therefore Christians and Christianity-based cultures see drugs as a "forbidden apple" whose "temptation" is hard to resist and, if you fall for them, then they become a "hell" nearly impossible to overcome while for the pagan drugs are something you just experiment with out of curiosity but nothing really important to care about. I don't know what you people think, but I think that Christianity is a main factor in explaining why we do have junkies while ancient Romans didn't or, if they did have them, had so few of them that they didn't consider them noteworthy enough to even deserve a distinctive designation.

 

[Lord Baal]

What a ridiculous argument. Unless Afghanistan, China, India and pre-Columbian America were Christian cultures and I just never noticed.

 

[_random_]

As I understand it, those Christians who "despised the mundane world and condemned its pleasures" (and they certainly don't characterize the religion as a whole) did so largely under the influence of the Cynics, who rather notably predate Christianity. There might be a case that the rise of Christianity brought these ideas more into the mainstream, but I doubt it was as radical a shift in attitude as Gangleri suggests. Frankly, that idea of pleasure is a very though sell for most folk. And even then, I don't know how you'd tie this specifically to drug use and abuse.

 

[Masada]

Betel nut consumption was endemic in much of Southeast Asia long before the Abrahamic religions got involved. So much so that 'the dilettante betel nut chewer' trope/archetype is a reoccurring theme in the Southeast Asian arts scene. Opium was also exported to China on a regular basis. We have fairly extensive mentions of it mainland tribute records. A substantial part of this was of course used as medicine but consumption of opium to 'feel good' goes back has a pretty long provenance too.

 

[Plotinus]

As I understand it, those Christians who "despised the mundane world and condemned its pleasures" (and they certainly don't characterize the religion as a whole) did so largely under the influence of the Cynics, who rather notably predate Christianity.

Also, the attitude of "despising the mundane world" would be characteristic of gnosticism, or at least some varieties of it, and Manichaeism - not of mainstream, orthodox Christianity. As an incarnational religion, Christianity is committed to the belief that the physical world is good, at least in theory.

I would have thought that the negative effects of taking heroin are probably more to do with the nature of heroin itself rather than any cultural matters, whether from Christianity or not.

 

[Agent327]

Also, the attitude of "despising the mundane world" would be characteristic of gnosticism, or at least some varieties of it, and Manichaeism - not of mainstream, orthodox Christianity. As an incarnational religion, Christianity is committed to the belief that the physical world is good, at least in theory.

Possibly, but apart from the sex bit, obviously. Roman Catholicism especially has, shall we say, mixed feelings about the whole sexual act. There is no mention of Jesus being sexually active in the NT,* and Paul outright condemns it - although he "condones" it for those less strict. (Could this be the origin of the absurd abstinence from sexual activity vow reserved for the Catholic clergy?) Had his followers been equally strict Christianity would have died out long ago, for lack of progeny.

*Not that the Tanakh is less ambiguous about the subject: one of the first stories in it tells of the "forbidden fruit", which for obvious reasons has been linked to the sexual act. To "have knowledge" of a woman is a similar euphemism derived from the Scriptures.

 

[ace99]

Pretty sure the Greeks and Romans had Stoic's who abstained from stuff. Marcus Aurelius was a stoic I think.

 

[Arakhor]

I think Stoicism was a Greek philosophy to begin with.

 

[Domen]

Yeah, pretty much this. The problem with modern theories on the disapora of the Germanic language family is that the divisions linguists have perceived in their models and comparative studies (namely, the division of Germanic into Ingvaeones, Istvaeones, and Irminones) has little to no correlation to any anthropological or archaeological data so far constructed. For the most part correlating language groups to defined archaeological cultures, while interesting, is, at least among Germanic languages, a rather pointless affair.

But there are theories which say that Germanic languages were not present in area inhabited by peoples of the Lusatian Culture at all. Or if they were present, then only in the Western part of this area. According to a book "Historia Polski" ("History of Poland") by prof. Jerzy Lesław Wyrozumski, Germanic tribes migrated to areas of modern Poland not before the 1st century AD. And the Lusatian Culture is much older - it dates back to the Bronze Age. According to Wyrozumski the Goths and the Gepidae arrived in the basin of lower Vistula (area of Northern Poland) at the beginning of the Common Era, and then by the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd century they migrated further towards the Black Sea, from where later (5th century) under the names of Visigoths and Ostrogoths, they marched westward and crossed the border of the Roman Empire. The Gepidae followed the Goths in the middle of the 3rd century AD, also towards the Black Sea.

Wyrozumski writes:

"(...) The presence of the Goths and the Gepidae in these areas was just an episode. They did not displace local Slavic population from this area, even though it is probable that they managed to temporarily subordinate it. (...)"

The source for the arrival of the Goths into area of modern Northern Poland is the Gothic historian Jordanes (lived in 6th century AD). Archaeological source for their arrival to the Lower Vistula basin, are skeletal burials - common for Germanic tribes, but not practised by local population of this area at that time.

Then he writes:

"(...) Historiography - especially German - has discerned on lands of modern Poland also the presence of other Germanic tribes - basing on writings of Tacitus and Ptolemy. Those were the Burgundians, the Lugiones, the Vandals, the Hasdingians and the Silingians. Regarding the Burgundians, there is some probability that temporarily and in small numbers they could appear in the south-western part of lands of modern Poland, however - they did not leave any undisputed traces of their presence. Regarding the Lugiones - most probably they were not a Germanic tribe, but rather a Celtic one, and inside the range of their settlement was mainly Lusatia and partially Silesia. It is possible that the Vandals temporarily settled in Silesia during their migration from Scandinavia, before they continued their movement towards Italy and Spain. But premises of this supposition are very tenuous. It is also supposed, that a tribe of the Hasdingians, which was part - as is assumed - of a tribal union of the Vandals, could also temporarily settle in Silesia. When it comes to the Silingians, who were also part of the same tribal union, German historians assumed that the name of Silesia originated from them, so they considered their presence in this part of Poland as a fact. However, there is no any source, historical or archaeological premise, which would justify such a conclusion. The name of Śląsk is indigenously Slavic (from ślęż = swampy area) and this finds toponomastic confirmation in the mountain Ślęża and the river Ślęża, as well as the fact that in the area of this river and this mountain lived the Slavic tribe of Ślężanie, confirmed by written sources in the 10th century. It seems more probable that Silingians temporarily lived in the area of Lusatia. (...)"

==========================================

Interesting recent genetic studies:

http://translate.google.pl/translat...a=X&ei=1xAQUYnmEOP_4QTNt4HgCA&ved=0CDwQ7gEwAQ

http://translate.google.pl/translat...a=X&ei=1xAQUYnmEOP_4QTNt4HgCA&ved=0CFQQ7gEwBA

http://translate.googleusercontent....6719,4&usg=ALkJrhgrUzcKTtf_RBvGgw-V_qp2MX-mTg

 

[sophie]

Good to see you didn't read anything I wrote and instead spouted off some overly-nationalistic Polish garbage instead.

 

[Lord Baal]

Good to see you didn't read anything I wrote and instead spouted off some overly-nationalistic Polish garbage instead.

At least he's consistent.

Marcus Aurelius was indeed a Stoic. Stoicism was one of the more popular philosophical imports from Greece.

 

[Domen]

What does it has to do with Poland? (even if it is garbage)

BTW - I'm not an expert on Ancient history, the origins of Slavic and Germanic peoples, etc. - but here is an interesting discussion:

http://www.historum.com/european-history/47734-location-ancient-german-tribes-ligiae-2.html

 

[r16]

did the Celts ever have a city named Turkije in around 700 BC possibly by River Schelde ? Which ı think is in Netherlands . No , ı didn't make it up , but there is this guy on TV who stealthily claims to be a Druid .

 

[Domen]

Who destroyed the Easter Island, its nature and civilization - rats, natives or white "explorers" from Europe and South America?