A History Of Ancient Britain

[Spion]

wouldn't druids be a seperate class?

when does a revered chief/elder/priest with different responsibilities and rewards become a member of a different class?

I mean, it's easy to see, say, a feudal Norman king/lord etc ruling over an English peasant as a member of the ruling class. It's even easier to see that relationship in capitalism, but for more primitive societies I think it can be difficult to draw that line.

Interesting question tho

 

[discokermit]

when does a revered chief/elder/priest with different responsibilities and rewards become a member of a different class?

I mean, it's easy to see, say, a feudal Norman king/lord etc ruling over an English peasant as a member of the ruling class. It's even easier to see that relationship in capitalism, but for more primitive societies I think it can be difficult to draw that line.

Interesting question tho

quite often the priesthood would control the surplus. don't know how that would work with druids but in some other cultures the temple and the granary were the same place.

another thing was knowledge, which was passed on through the priesthood. the calendar, when to plant what, the medicinal values of certain plants etc.

 

[invisibleplanet]

storage vessels = surplus = class.

storage vessels = somewhere to store/transport food or liquids until you consume them.

storage vessels in themselves are not evidence of hierarchical social structures.

For example, milk, cheese and butter.
You'll need a storage vessel of some kind if you're going to have any dairy (secondary product), unless you were planning to drink milk straight from the teat?

And we had storage vessels before pottery vessels. These would have been made of hide, or woven grasses, or wood, or horn, etc.
It does not follow that storage vessels=surplus=class.

 

[invisibleplanet]

prick.

It's true, ringo has a very fine phallus indeed.
I recommednd reading some of Marshall Sahlins' work if you think there's no such thing as ''wealthy'' hunter-gatherers.

Oh, and do please go easy on the hostility you've shown towards urban75s archaeologists!
In two short pages you've managed to well and truly raise my archaeo-tribal hackles, notably by rubbishing what ringo has to say.

 

[discokermit]

storage vessels = somewhere to store/transport food or liquids until you consume them.

storage vessels in themselves are not evidence of hierarchical social structures.

For example, milk, cheese and butter.
You'll need a storage vessel of some kind if you're going to have any dairy (secondary product), unless you were planning to drink milk straight from the teat?

And we had storage vessels before pottery vessels. These would have been made of hide, or woven grasses, or wood, or horn, etc.
It does not follow that storage vessels=surplus=class.

i reduced it to four words and two symbols, of course some of the complexities will be lost. of course it's not literal.

i'm not talking about a jar of pickled eggs. i would have thought it obvious that any surplus that you can carry in a hip flask is not going to be any indicator of a shift in social relations. i'm talking large containers of grain, granaries, multiples of containers found together etc.

 

[discokermit]

It's true, ringo has a very fine phallus indeed.
I recommednd reading some of Marshall Sahlins' work if you think there's no such thing as ''wealthy'' hunter-gatherers.

Oh, and do please go easy on the hostility you've shown towards urban75s archaeologists!
In two short pages you've managed to well and truly raise my archaeo-tribal hackles, notably by rubbishing what ringo has to say.

what sort of archeologist says "i think this, contrary to all evidence, and will provide no evidence in my defence"? i only became 'hostile' when dismissed as boring.

if your hackles are raised by rubbishing what ringo has to say, where is your evidence of hunter gatherer slave owning societies?

 

[DotCommunist]

What do the archaeologists on this thread think of engels stuff on primitive communism?

 

[discokermit]

I recommednd reading some of Marshall Sahlins' work if you think there's no such thing as ''wealthy'' hunter-gatherers.

“The world’s most ‘primitive’ people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilisation. It has grown with civilisation, at once as an invidious distinction between classes and more importantly as a tributary relation.”
Sahlins (1972)

i'm not talking 'wealthy' in terms of social status within a group, but wealthy enough to actually have a surplus!

if you read that quote, he is firmly putting the beginning of class society as civilisation. therefore ruling out the pre civilisation existence of slavery which ringo is arguing in favour of.

 

[Artaxerxes]

wouldn't druids be a seperate class?

Celtic culture has extensive parallels with Indian culture, Druids were similar to the Brahmins

The more you know...

 

[invisibleplanet]

What do the archaeologists on this thread think of engels stuff on primitive communism?

Engels' theories were based on very dodgy anthropology (L H Morgan) and it's useful to know about these 19th century anthropological theories.
It's basically very dated, and for the most part, you'd have to agree with the way he looks at humans to agree with most of what he says about the evolution of humans. Generally, his theory that primitive communism (pre-class society) was the 'pristine'(original) form of human social organisation was very good for it's time. It was however an evolutionary deterministic theory, that relied on a clear stadial progession from 'barbarism' to 'civilisation', and for his political theory he makes this cyclic in that humans must pass through class-society before his predicted return to a classless society, and he used it to push his own political theory (communism).

It's all a bit over-simplified from a theoretical archaeological perspective.

 

[DotCommunist]

as wiki is being its usual sketchy self on any subject that interests me, can you illuminate on why- as wikipedo puts it- modern anthropologists reject most of LH Morgans work (as it is cited as highly influential to marx and engels writings on the subject)

 

[invisibleplanet]

as wiki is being its usual sketchy self on any subject that interests me, can you illuminate on why- as wikipedo puts it- modern anthropologists reject most of LH Morgans work (as it is cited as highly influential to marx and engels writings on the subject)

Best not to rely on wiki for anything anthropological ... the 'thulists' have been all over it.

 

[invisibleplanet]

as wiki is being its usual sketchy self on any subject that interests me, can you illuminate on why- as wikipedo puts it- modern anthropologists reject most of LH Morgans work (as it is cited as highly influential to marx and engels writings on the subject)

Likely it was the way Morgan, as a 'civilised' man, saw other societies as being less than 'civilised' and this would have created a bias all the way through his work. His work was stadial (unilinear), favoured cultural evolution (and so on, and so on) ....

I recommend you read Franz Boas on L H Morgan's anthropological theories of cultural evolution - that might answer your question.

 

[invisibleplanet]

i'm not talking 'wealthy' in terms of social status within a group, but wealthy enough to actually have a surplus!

You're presupposing that a surplus is indicative of 'wealth' in a hunter-gatherer society. It might be viewed as a burden. It might be given away freely, without 'barter/trade'. It might be left behind. It might be viewed as 'not the done thing' to take more than you need, and so on, and so on.

If I collect too many blackberries and don't have a freezer, I may as well not have collected them as they'll spoil before I can eat them.

We do have 'storage pits', beautifully lined with stone, from the Mesolithic in Britain. Im not sure if tests have been made to see what they might have been used for. In themselves they're not evidence for 'surplus' or 'wealth'.

 

[discokermit]

You're presupposing that a surplus is indicative of 'wealth'. It might be viewed as a burden. It might be given away freely, without 'barter/trade'. It might be left behind. It might be viewed as 'not the done thing' to take more than you need, and so on, and so on.

If I collect too many blackberries and don't have a freezer, I may as well not have collected them as they'll spoil before I can eat them.

then the blackberry crop fails one year due to fluctuations in the weather and you all die. or you live til twenty five and die from an infected ingrowing toenail.

are you arguing against cultivation? are you arguing in favour of a pre neolithic existence?

what are you arguing?

 

[discokermit]

You're presupposing that a surplus is indicative of 'wealth' in a hunter-gatherer society. It might be viewed as a burden. It might be given away freely, without 'barter/trade'. It might be left behind. It might be viewed as 'not the done thing' to take more than you need, and so on, and so on.

If I collect too many blackberries and don't have a freezer, I may as well not have collected them as they'll spoil before I can eat them.

We do have 'storage pits', beautifully lined with stone, from the Mesolithic in Britain. Im not sure if tests have been made to see what they might have been used for. In themselves they're not evidence for 'surplus' or 'wealth'.

and what has this got to do with slavery, which is where i regrettably first used the word 'wealth', which you now seem obsessed with.

bring back ringo, at least i knew what the fuck he was on about.

in fact your view, happy go lucky blackberry eaters, not taking any more than they need, giving away berries, is the exact opposite of what ringo was arguing. yet you would rather argue semantics than address the real and important point being made

 

[invisibleplanet]

Why are you talking about slavery?

 

[discokermit]

Why are you talking about slavery?

have you read the thread? quite obviously not.

 

[Spion]

What do the archaeologists on this thread think of engels stuff on primitive communism?

I'd need to re-read it to see exactly what he was saying in detail, but as far as the broad idea goes . . . I think it's right to say the bulk of human history has been the history of societies as communally organised tribes/clans etc, that is before class arose on the back of agriculture and divided societies internally.

But for me that still doesn't mean there wasn't hierarchy, with gradations of responsibility and reward, or that there wasn't conflict between different groups (which is how some class societies arose, like when nomads have ruled settled people and exacted tribute from them).

TBH, I can't remember if Engels' idea of primitive communism is a rose-tinted specs one or is aware of the things I've mentioned which modern archaeology and anthropoolgy would confirm.

 

[discokermit]

Why are you talking about slavery?

i'll break it down into little manageable chunks for you,

on page one, spion and belboid started discussing when class first appeared in britain.

on page two, i expressed (in an admittedly very crude reduction) that evidence of class would be to do with surplus.
ringo claimed heirarchy was always with us, as has slavery, regardless of economic factors (human nature to enslave each other). i argued that hunter gatherer society society could not support slavery and it didn't make sense.
ringo then claims war and slavery are inherent in humans.

it then goes back and forth a bit from then on.



it is actually ringo who first mentioned 'wealth' (up to that point i had only used the less loaded and more accurate term surplus)

and it is ringo who first mentioned slavery.





as you are coming to the argument from a position of complete ignorance of what has already been said, i hope that helps.

 

[goldenecitrone]

What happened to the Neanderthals? Were they enslaved by their more violent cousins?

 

[invisibleplanet]

ringo claimed heirarchy was always with us, as has slavery, regardless of economic factors (human nature to enslave each other). i argued that hunter gatherer society society could not support slavery and it didn't make sense.
ringo then claims war and slavery are inherent in humans.

ringo claimed only that slavery could have existed since the moment it was first thought of. He did not argue that slavery has always existed. He does not argue that war and slavery are inherent in humans.

He only mentioned that: slavery (dominance over another, as an individual/individual or group/group) could theoretically exist in any type of society; and in prehistory, both war (intergroup violence) and slavery (individual/group) have most likely existed ever since humans acted upon those ideas of violence and dominance over other individuals/groups.

You argue that slavery could not have existed in hunter-gatherer societies (pre-agricultural societies). It might well have existed. Slavery is possible even in a hunter-gatherer society.

Warfare certainly did exist as we defeinitely have hard evidence of intergroup violence (warfare) in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies.

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.

 

[DotCommunist]

What happened to the Neanderthals? Were they enslaved by their more violent cousins?

evidence suggests they co-existed for some hundreds of years on the iberian peninsular. Bred out rather than extinction through hom sap dominance. IIRC

 

[invisibleplanet]

TBH, I can't remember if Engels' idea of primitive communism is a rose-tinted specs one or is aware of the things I've mentioned which modern archaeology and anthropoolgy would confirm.

Although he was undoubtedly a great thinker of his day, his work was based on defective and highly polemical ethnographies (L H Morgan). It could even be argued that Engels' stadial social progressions from primitive communism>communism are reflected in the stadial religion-oriented views of millenarian eschatology which also regained popularity during the 19th century, standing in vehement opposition to Social Darwinism. One is a secular interpretation of the stadial progress of humankind and a rose-tinted vision of the future (communism as a post-capitalist utopia, a resurrection of the original pristine 'primitive communism'), the other is a religious interpretation of the stadial progress of humankind and a vision of the future (a millennia of peace in a post-apocalyptic utopia).

The materialism, as developed by Marx and others after him is an important theoretical perspective, but it's only one of many competing perspectives used by archaeologists to interpret the archaeological record, and has undergone many revisions in order to be used in prehistoric archaeology.

I recommend reading anything by Maurice Bloch if you're interested in the relationship between anthropology and marxian notions (but note, these are not 'marxism' in the political ideology sense of the word).

 

[discokermit]

ringo claimed only that slavery could have existed since the moment it was first thought of. He did not argue that slavery has always existed. He does not argue that war and slavery are inherent in humans.

He only mentioned that: slavery (dominance over another, as an individual/individual or group/group) could theoretically exist in any type of society; and in prehistory, both war (intergroup violence) and slavery (individual/group) have most likely existed ever since humans acted upon those ideas of violence and dominance over other individuals/groups.

You argue that slavery could not have existed in hunter-gatherer societies (pre-agricultural societies). It might well have existed. Slavery is possible even in a hunter-gatherer society.

Warfare certainly did exist as we defeinitely have hard evidence of intergroup violence (warfare) in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies.

are you reading the same thread as me?


archeologists? i wouldn't trust you two to dig potatoes.

 

[invisibleplanet]

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.

Best that you don't use the term 'non-settled people'. It's confusing. Non-settled (nomadic) people can also be agriculturalists, for example nomadic pastoralists. Hunter-gatherers can also be 'settled', for example the Haida and Tlingit, who led a seasonally mobile hunter-gatherer existence with permanent villages next to waterways. The Haida, as hunter-gatherers, most certainly did capture and keep slaves.

But anyway, this is all very far away (geographically) from Ancient Britain.

 

[goldenecitrone]

evidence suggests they co-existed for some hundreds of years on the iberian peninsular. Bred out rather than extinction through hom sap dominance. IIRC

Hundreds of years? The Neaderthals were around for four hundred thousand years before the homosapiens crashed their party.

 

[invisibleplanet]

are you reading the same thread as me?


archeologists? i wouldn't trust you two to dig potatoes.

Slavery has been known to exist in hunter-gatherer societies.
I'm not sure what your aggressively made point is.

 

[discokermit]

Slavery has been known to exist in hunter-gatherer societies.

have you got any examples?

 

[discokermit]

I'm not sure what your aggressively made point is.

and yet you weighed into the argument without reading the thread. and i'm the aggressor?