History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Tee Kay]

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 .

I don't trust druids unless his name is Paranomix.

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

Conflict, possibly after environmental degradation, partly brought on by rats, but things only really got bad when Peruvian slavers attacked and brought smallpox.

 

[JohannaK]

Nevermind.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

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

If Jared Diamond is to be believed; unsustainable logging practices led to deforestation and soil erosion, meaning by the time anyone from the outside world arrived, the civilisation that had erected the famous statues had already collapsed in on itself and any further damage was done to a civilisation that was a shadow of its former self.

There's probably a lot of truth to this claim, it does smack a bit of blaming the victim though...

 

[ace99]

It's also Jared Diamond.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

It's also Jared Diamond.

Well it's not just Jared Diamond that posits this... but point taken

 

[Tee Kay]

The civilisation that survived until European contact was still a rather sophisticated and populous one; they just didn't build giant statues. And giant statues aren't necessarily a marker of a more sophisticated culture. They are wasteful things; impressive, yes, but not necessarily worth the time or resources or the bother.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

But then, because they are hugely wasteful, and provide no obvious benefit to anyone, monuments can be an excellent indicator of a society's prosperity to be able to afford the time and expense to plan and construct them and the social cohesion to find the time to think about such frivolous matter, and to be able to levy the huge number of people required to construct them.

I don't think anyone is saying the Easter Islanders were savages or something by the time Europeans arrived, just that, because they were no longer constructing monuments, instead engaging in conflict to destroy each others, their diets were substantially poorer and the population was less their society, relatively speaking, had declined and most, if not all of that decline was due to the fragile nature of the island's climate, specifically, the soil and forests.


The European intrusion, I might add, certainly didn't help things.

 

[Domen]

There is also a theory about rats - that they destroyed the forests (eating all seeds of palm trees and other trees = forests could not regenerate) and decimated local population of birds. According to some estimations, at its peak the population of rats on the island numbered 20 million.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But then, because they are hugely wasteful, and provide no obvious benefit to anyone, monuments can be an excellent indicator of a society's prosperity to be able to afford the time and expense to plan and construct them and the social cohesion to find the time to think about such frivolous matter, and to be able to levy the huge number of people required to construct them.

It seems a bit of an irony that the conclusion of Jared Diamond's thesis is that the more wasteful and extravagant a society is, the more successful it is.

Masada is really the one to ask, but one thing I can say is that rather than surpassing the devastation outsiders brought, any decline of the state of living on the island was insignificant compared to the destruction that came on the island's population in the 19th century.

 

[Flying Pig]

It seems a bit of an irony that the conclusion of Jared Diamond's thesis is that the more wasteful and extravagant a society is, the more successful it is.

Not really; however, extravagance can be taken as a sign of a society that is, at least, doing the basic business of surviving, and still has a significant amount of resources left over, as well as a fair degree of sophistication and organisation. I'm thinking of the Pyramids as an example, here.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yes, but supposing the Egyptians realized that building pyramids was simply a stupid waste of time and decided to turn their resources towards say...more leisure time and lower taxes.

These leave no giant material footprint and so they fail by the indicators off prosperity. For a book that advocates for the successful maintenance of the environment, it certainly creates the impression that that sort of maintenance looks the same as failure.

 

[Dachs]

Not really; however, extravagance can be taken as a sign of a society that is, at least, doing the basic business of surviving, and still has a significant amount of resources left over, as well as a fair degree of sophistication and organisation. I'm thinking of the Pyramids as an example, here.

The point is that "left over" isn't a real thing. Presumably, sustainability would entail employment of the resources necessary to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, period; extravagance on the scale of the Pyramids or the creation of monuments would prima facie fly in the face of that.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well yes, but supposing the Egyptians realized that building pyramids was simply a stupid waste of time and decided to turn their resources towards say...more leisure time and lower taxes.

These leave no giant material footprint and so they fail by the indicators off prosperity. For a book that advocates for the successful maintenance of the environment, it certainly creates the impression that that sort of maintenance looks the same as failure.

Indeed. Hence the maxim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because no knife was found at the scene, Holmes cannot conclude that the victim was not stabbed.

The point is that "left over" isn't a real thing. Presumably, sustainability would entail employment of the resources necessary to maintain a comfortable lifestyle, period; extravagance on the scale of the Pyramids or the creation of monuments would prima facie fly in the face of that.

'Sustainable' means that the amount of resources consumed in a year is equal to or less than the amount of resources produced the next year, surely? I was simplifying with 'left over' to mean that they have more resources than the bare minimum necessary to sustain life - we can infer that somebody burns crops as an offering to the gods has enough crops to feed himself, most of the time. You're right that most of the time, though, extravagant building is not sustainable; that's why very few cultures have been in a permanent state of world-wonder-building.

 

[Agent327]

Well yes, but supposing the Egyptians realized that building pyramids was simply a stupid waste of time

Ahem. Not only did the Egyptians continue building pyramids, the habit extended even into Nubia and Ehtiopia. It only ended in Egypt after the 'democratization' of pyramid building set in and they were finally being replaced with a different style of monument for the deceased.

 

[Traitorfish]

But then, because they are hugely wasteful, and provide no obvious benefit to anyone, monuments can be an excellent indicator of a society's prosperity to be able to afford the time and expense to plan and construct them and the social cohesion to find the time to think about such frivolous matter, and to be able to levy the huge number of people required to construct them.

There's also the possibility that these monuments express a lack or at least instability of social and political cohesion, and that the construction of public (for want of a better word) monuments was intended to address that by reinforcing shared identities and loyalties, and by mobilising populations on a cross-class or cross-factional basis (either in regards to the construction and upkeep of projects, or in the ceremonial kerfuffle surrounding them). This is certainly true of the modern era, so it can't be ruled out in earlier periods, especially given how heavily most of these projects are tied to the insistence on the propriety, even divinity of the ruling social and political order. Building a giant stone triangle in the desert just to remind everyone that you are, in fact, a god-king can be taken to indicate insecurity, as well ass strength.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So the Egyptians decided they were stupid, unfashionable wastes of time.

There's also the possibility that these monuments express a lack or at least instability of social and political cohesion, and that the construction of public (for want of a better word) monuments was intended to address that by reinforcing shared identities, by mobilising populations on a cross-class or cross-facctional basis. This is certainly true of the modern era, so it can't be ruled out in earlier periods, especially given how heavily most of these projects are tied to the insistence on the propriety, even divinity of the ruling social and political order. Building a giant stone triangle in the desert just to remind everyone that you are, in fact, a god-king can be taken to indicate insecurity, as well ass strength.

You don't even need to stretch into the modern. Castles are generally the best sign of political instability you can find.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's also the possibility that these monuments express a lack or at least instability of social and political cohesion, and that the construction of public (for want of a better word) monuments was intended to address that by reinforcing shared identities and loyalties, and by mobilising populations on a cross-class or cross-factional basis (either in regards to the construction and upkeep of projects, or in the ceremonial kerfuffle surrounding them). This is certainly true of the modern era, so it can't be ruled out in earlier periods, especially given how heavily most of these projects are tied to the insistence on the propriety, even divinity of the ruling social and political order. Building a giant stone triangle in the desert just to remind everyone that you are, in fact, a god-king can be taken to indicate insecurity, as well ass strength.

Interesting - and yet we must note that the Pharonic system persisted for thousands of years, even surviving the Macedonian conquest, and I don't think we can really ignore that as evidence of the stability of the (fundamentals of the) Egyptian political system.

Is it actually the case that we can identify any singular (even evolving) "Pharonic system" across this entire three-millennia span, though? Even on the surface of it, we've got multiple periods of disunity and foreign rule, spanning thirty-two distinct Pharaonic dynasties, some holding the throne for over a century, others lasting less than a decade, and ranging from absolute despots to provincial rumps or figureheads for priestly or military juntas. Before we even scratch the surface and actually look at the social or political structure of Egypt at any given point, the idea of any hard line of political continuity seems pretty difficult to reconcile with the evidence. It doesn't seem far short of taking the fact that both Gaius Octavius and Wilhelm von Hohenzollern claimed to be something call an "emperor", and had a shiny eagle on a stick to prove it, as evidence for the continuity of a singular European imperial system from 27BC to 1918.

That is a very valid point. We do at least have evidence that the connection of the Egyptian monarch to the gods of Egypt continued throughout this period, so we can justly infer that this belief - in the divinity of the Pharoah - was a very stable one.

 

[Traitorfish]

Interesting - and yet we must note that the Pharonic system persisted for thousands of years, even surviving the Macedonian conquest, and I don't think we can really ignore that as evidence of the stability of the (fundamentals of the) Egyptian political system.

Is it actually the case that we can identify any singular (even evolving) "Pharonic system" across this entire three-millennia span, though? Even on the surface of it, we've got multiple periods of disunity and foreign rule, spanning thirty-two distinct Pharaonic dynasties, some holding the throne for over a century, others lasting less than a decade, and ranging from absolute despots to provincial rumps or figureheads for priestly or military juntas. Before we even scratch the surface and actually look at the social or political structure of Egypt at any given point, the idea of any hard line of political continuity seems pretty difficult to reconcile with the evidence. It doesn't seem far short of taking the fact that both Gaius Octavius and Wilhelm von Hohenzollern claimed to be something called an "emperor", and had a shiny eagle on a stick to prove it, as evidence for the continuity of a singular European "Imperial system" from 27BC to 1918.

 

[dutchfire]

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 .

Turkije is the Dutch word for Turkey.

 

[ace99]

I don't trust druids unless his name is Paranomix.

I think you mean Getafix. Dirty foreigner language speakers.