A History Of Ancient Britain

[Spion]

yes, storing your surplus in. once you've got a jar full of something, you've got a jar full of something that can be taken off you. or you've got a jar full of something that'll keep john lord going while he's knocking out hand axes and playing keyboards for deep purple. class.

LOLz

 

[goldenecitrone]

The Neaderthals were in Britain hundreds of thousands of years before homosapiens. Must have been an interesting experiment in multiculturalism when our ancestors arrived. And it's bad enough with another race, but fuck me a homosapien from a far off place.

 

[Spion]

And it's bad enough with another race, but fuck me a homosapien from a far off place.

Nice rhyming

 

[discokermit]

or some other hold over the people to make them do the work. In Britain this can be applied to Stone Henge, Avebury, Silbury Hill, some of the immense earthworks linking or dividing sites etc. These are then compared to Egyptian, Central American and other mega-structures we know were built by slaves.

but they hadn't reached anywhere near the size and complexity of the egyptian/central american societies. if there is only five thousand people in britain and you live in a group of a dozen, how is slavery gonna work?

surely religion is the way they got these things done. the priesthood being the first ruling class.

Whether there was a leader, or a "big man" running things is debatable. Was that person the head of the family or some other sort of leader? Once groups got bigger than single extended families then almost certainly yes.

yes. the priest/druid/witchdoctor/whatever. but the groups only got bigger after the neolithic revolution, with a surplus that could support a greater population density.

We know that population increases and threats to resources cause wars between rival groups. Pretty much just being human is probably enough. From there you get slaves and/or dominated peoples, and then you have a hierarchical structure. Chances are this has been going on in Britain as long as people have been here, or not long after.

population increases and threats to resources hardly apply in a britain with five thousand people in it.

so you are saying that war and slavery have been around as long as humans?

how can slavery even work in hunter gatherer society?

 

[belboid]

storage vessels = surplus = class.

'equals' is too strong a word for it. Sure it gives rise to the possibility of class society, but it isn't the same thing as class society.

Obviously anytthing to do with holding slaves must be class based.

 

[discokermit]

'equals' is too strong a word for it. Sure it gives rise to the possibility of class society, but it isn't the same thing as class society.

Obviously anytthing to do with holding slaves must be class based.

class society arose before slavery.

 

[discokermit]

'equals' is too strong a word for it.

of course. but it's the general thrust of it. if you want fine detail and subtle complexities, read a book.

 

[belboid]

class society arose before slavery.

quite, hence 'must be'

 

[ringo]

Indeed, they could be made of skins and used by nomadic bands, while pottery ones probably indicate settlement. They certainly indicate a surplus in the formal sense, but not necessarily a society in which one class appropriates the surplus produced by another

They do not indicate a surplus of anything. Nor do they indicate a permanent settlement, they could just as easily be the product of a seasonal or temporary camp. It doesn't take much organisation or time to form a bowl shape out of clay and heat it up.

 

[Spion]

You're right, which is why I didn't prefix settlement with 'permanent' for a reason.

I know there is a debate about just how settled people in the UK were even up to the bronze age, but it is the case that there is little or no pottery evidence for the mesolithic, and that seems to indicate that either they didn't know how to make pots or their lifestyle precluded it.

I meant 'formal surplus' in the sense of anything over and above being literally hand to mouth.

 

[discokermit]

It doesn't take much organisation or time to form a bowl shape out of clay and heat it up.

it took a few million years and all the organisation humanity had at that time.

 

[ringo]

but they hadn't reached anywhere near the size and complexity of the egyptian/central american societies. if there is only five thousand people in britain and you live in a group of a dozen, how is slavery gonna work?

surely religion is the way they got these things done. the priesthood being the first ruling class.

yes. the priest/druid/witchdoctor/whatever. but the groups only got bigger after the neolithic revolution, with a surplus that could support a greater population density.

population increases and threats to resources hardly apply in a britain with five thousand people in it.

so you are saying that war and slavery have been around as long as humans?

how can slavery even work in hunter gatherer society?

I didn't suggest slavery was introduced when there were only 5000 people here, we don't know that. It is possible though. You only need two people two have a slave and master, and that can function in any society.

Religion is almost certainly the way leaders justified and maintained their rule, alongside brute force, definitely agree with that.

Threats to resources can occur among small populations, the Tsunami mentioned last night is an example, as were the glacial changes which led to Britain becoming habitable/inhabitable at various stages. Add to that the usual suspects such as famine, disease, weather and war.

I wouldn't be surprised if war and slavery had been around ever since humans had the brain capacity to think of it. We don't have any evidence though, that's pure conjecture.

 

[discokermit]

quite, hence 'must be'

anything to do with building an e type jag 'must be' proof of pre existing class society but it's not very helpful in dating the beginning of it.

 

[discokermit]

You only need two people two have a slave and master

I wouldn't be surprised if war and slavery had been around ever since humans had the brain capacity to think of it. We don't have any evidence though, that's pure conjecture.

that's proper bollocks. imagine you and someone else are the only people on the planet, how you gonna enslave them? how you gonna enforce it? how do you stop them killing you in your sleep or just fucking off? slavery in any meaningful sense arose with the cultivation and domestication of plants and animals. civilisation.

 

[ringo]

I meant 'formal surplus' in the sense of anything over and above being literally hand to mouth.

OK, I see what you mean. Most prehistoric "settlement" sites, include a number of "storage pits". This is usually taken to indicate surplus, rather than what food was eaten from.

There are vessels from other periods which can be proved to indicate surplus if they are found in large quantities or out of their normal context. Local cooking bowls are not considered that way, pots made from materials or in styles not local to the area could be considered items of trade, which does indicate surplus. Obviously it's hard to differentiate between locally made pots which were used for eating and used for storage, so archaeologists are wary of claiming the latter. It's also likely they used things which haven't survived, such granaries made from wood/straw/mud and wooden/leather containers.

 

[ringo]

that's proper bollocks. imagine you and someone else are the only people on the planet, how you gonna enslave them? how you gonna enforce it? how do you stop them killing you in your sleep or just fucking off? slavery in any meaningful sense arose with the cultivation and domestication of plants and animals. civilisation.

It would be easy. If you could physically dominate them you could contain them. As I'm sure you're aware, traditional slavery methods to avoid being stabbed in your sleep include cages and tying people up.

Slavery is about controlling other people to do your work for you or in some way create for you wealth; be it food, money or whatever. It has nothing to do with the social structures of civilisation.

 

[Spion]

It would be easy. If you could physically dominate them you could contain them. As I'm sure you're aware, traditional slavery methods to avoid being stabbed in your sleep include cages and tying people up.

Slavery is about controlling other people to do your work for you or in some way create for you wealth; be it food, money or whatever. It has nothing to do with the social structures of civilisation.

I doubt there is any evidence for non-settled people keeping slaves. They may exact tribute from people. They may take slaves and trade them. But all these are predicated on there being something for the slaves to do from which you profit, ie producing something

 

[discokermit]

It would be easy. If you could physically dominate them you could contain them.

there's two of us. we live in a tent. how are you going to make me do your hunting and gathering? how are you going to make me come back? slavery needs a certain level of population density and social organisation that simply did not exist before the neolithic revolution.

 

[discokermit]

I doubt there is any evidence for non-settled people keeping slaves. They may exact tribute from people. They may take slaves and trade them. But all these are predicated on there being something for the slaves to do from which you profit, ie producing something

tribute and trade, ie. surplus.

 

[ringo]

I doubt there is any evidence for non-settled people keeping slaves. They may exact tribute from people. They may take slaves and trade them. But all these are predicated on there being something for the slaves to do from which you profit, ie producing something

As I said some time ago, there is no evidence for slavery at this time, I'm just saying that given human nature and what we have observed elsewhere it is likely.
It's not necessary to produce anything for slavery to occur. I've seen slaves in the Sahara, the owners of whom were nomadic desert dwellers. They could have been used for helping to cook, as most slaves are today, or to prepare animal hides for clothing/trade. Most of the slaves in this country are used for sex. We don't know what they were used for, but it doesn't have to be about producing anything.

 

[Spion]

tribute and trade, ie. surplus.

I know. The discussion's moved on a bit

 

[ringo]

there's two of us. we live in a tent. how are you going to make me do your hunting and gathering? how are you going to make me come back? slavery needs a certain level of population density and social organisation that simply did not exist before the neolithic revolution.

I wouldn't if it was going to be too difficult. If you were a child though it would be easier, and most slaves are children. Population is entirely irrelevant.

 

[discokermit]

traditional slavery methods to avoid being stabbed in your sleep include cages

traditional? a tradition that arose long after the period we are talking about.

so, you are going to force me to build a cage, made from rabbit tendons and deer antlers and bits of stick, and then get in it? and this is going to work?

in a time when there is no surplus, so i'm just about feeding myself, you expect me to at least double production, to feed you as well?

i've got a sieve with less holes in than your theory.

 

[discokermit]

I wouldn't if it was going to be too difficult. If you were a child though it would be easier, and most slaves are children. Population is entirely irrelevant.

ok. give me some evidence of this happening before the neolithic revolution.

 

[ringo]

You haven't read what I said at all. Try again.

 

[discokermit]

You haven't read what I said at all. Try again.

the more i read it, the worse it gets.

how can you keep a sex slave when you aren't producing more than enough to feed yourself?

how can one person forcing another to work have more chance of surviving than two people cooperating on an equal basis?

where is the evidence of slavery in modern hunter gatherer society? everything i've read about the sentinelese/san/pila nguru etc. suggests no such thing.

 

[Spion]

As I said some time ago, there is no evidence for slavery at this time, I'm just saying that given human nature and what we have observed elsewhere it is likely.
It's not necessary to produce anything for slavery to occur. I've seen slaves in the Sahara, the owners of whom were nomadic desert dwellers. They could have been used for helping to cook, as most slaves are today, or to prepare animal hides for clothing/trade. Most of the slaves in this country are used for sex. We don't know what they were used for, but it doesn't have to be about producing anything.

I can accept the theoretical possibility that slaves can be kept by non-settled people, but the activites you give as examples are forms of production in the broadest sense of the word (tho the sex example is more about stealing a wife). The scope for the use of slaves/serfs etc rises masssively with the advent of agriculture, however.

 

[ringo]

how can you keep a sex slave when you aren't producing more than enough to feed yourself?

I didn't say anything about how much was being produced, you've made that up.

how can one person forcing another to work have more chance of surviving than two people cooperating on an equal basis?

You're still assuming this is just about survival, I never mentioned whether they were hand to mouth or wealthy. It is worth mentioning though that slaves never get an equal share, the enslaver always gets the lions of share of anything.

where is the evidence of slavery in modern hunter gatherer society? everything i've read about the sentinelese/san/pila nguru etc. suggests no such thing.

I didn't say slavery existed in hunter gatherers in the past or in the present.


Bored of you now.

 

[discokermit]

Bored of you now.

prick.

"I didn't say anything about how much was being produced, you've made that up."
yes you did. we are talking hunter gatherer society, something defined by how much it produces (not enough for a real surplus) and how it produces it.

"You're still assuming this is just about survival, I never mentioned whether they were hand to mouth or wealthy. It is worth mentioning though that slaves never get an equal share, the enslaver always gets the lions of share of anything."
there are no wealthy hunter gatherers, it makes no sense. hunter gatherer societies are at, or barely above, subsistence levels. if the slave owner is taking the lions share of the subsistence, you cease to subsist.

"I didn't say slavery existed in hunter gatherers in the past or in the present"
you keep saying that and then imply strongly that it did (posts 27, 42, 46, 50). in fact, you state it is 'human nature' therefore as old as humanity itself.



"Chances are this has been going on in Britain as long as people have been here, or not long after." post 27

"I wouldn't be surprised if war and slavery had been around ever since humans had the brain capacity to think of it." post 42




this isn't just speculation without evidence, it actually contradicts the evidence we have. and in a nasty, misanthropic way.

 

[discokermit]

I'm struggling to think of anything that could be evidence for class society before the Romans. I've no doubt slaves were taken and kept from time immemorial, but the presence of true classes (rather than ranks in a tribal/clan society) and a state, hmmm, I really don't know. Interesting question tho

wouldn't druids be a seperate class?