discokermit
Well-Known Member
so why did you? moooooo.
A History Of Ancient Britain
- Thread starter ringo
- Start date
discokermit
Well-Known Member
well daisy, if the topic is the tv programme (no need to look back, it is) then you haven't really made any comment at all. just personalised attacks.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
the cow bit is in reference to your quick witted, sleek and dextrous posting style.
have you got an opinion? or is it just inane witterings and personalised attacks.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Re-edit: I'll be honest and say that don't really know how to respond to your hostile ex-SWP political jousting, replete with sarcastic comments, insults and put downs.
Prehistorians (in my experience) don't refer to 'class society' - (as I understand it) that's a loaded term belonging to classical marxist discourse that applies to capitalist socieities.
Prehistorians do talk about interest groups, social stratification, ranking, individual ranking and ranked societies, and the focus is usually upon social and economic change. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit with the way you, as a marxist, see prehistory.
Archaeological evidence for slavery comes from the slave chains such as the one from Bigbury Hill Fort or Llyn Cerrig Bach on Anglesey (c. 100 BCE - AD78). Historical evidence comes from Strabo's Geography (c.7 BCE - 23 AD/CE), which tells of a fully fledged slave trade between Britain and the continent from around 100 BCE. We also know that after the Roman invasion (43 AD/CE) this practice continued. I must add that this is protohistorical archaeology, rather than prehistoric.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Have times changed since the ancients slung mud and rocks at each other, do you think
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I've made several points regarding the rise of class in Britain. Which is several more than you. So fuck off.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I'd say that this was the most aggressive internet thread on an archaeological topic that I'd read, but it isn't. Regardless, calm it down please eh?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
well, there we have one significant problem with prehistorians then.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
yet none at all about the programme, which the thread is about. and you've got the cheek to start on me, calling me aggresive and trying to start a row after the (in my view quite informative) argument has finished.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Define 'we' please. Why should there be a problem that (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) prehistorians don't apply Marx's critique of capitalist society/economy to the social organisation and economies of prehistory?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
pot/kettle
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Well, personally I doubt that one can speak truly of a homogenous group of 'prehistorians', there are many, such as the Radical Anthropology Group, and Radical Archaeology Forum who would explicitly reject that label.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
what? my argument with ringo and invisible was informative, even if you think every word i say is bollocks, some of the stuff they came out with was interesting and i learnt a fair bit. some references were given and i personally was given a few more ideas to read up on. if it was so rubbish why was editor posting at half two that the thread 'rocked'?
then you barge in with an unwarranted and personal attack, motivated i suspect by a misinformed opinion of my politics rather than the issue in hand.
stay out of the orchard, daisy. those apples ferment in your stomach and its obviously not doing you any good.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What about marxist pre-historians then? Childe for example? I don't think it's very helpful or accurate to just cut them out of history and to decide that pre-history be definition cannot be looked at in terms of class - given that class is a social relation and social relations existed.
discokermit
Well-Known Member
and i got a joke in about john lord/jon lord being the same person. sheesh.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
look, you had come out with a stream of utter bilge, you had been massively abusive long before 2am and continued to do so for several hours. YOU may have decided that bit of discussion was done with, but YOU are not the arbiter of what is, and what may be, said. So stop whining. My criticism of you are based solely and entirely upon your ignorance and incivility.
And your 'cow' insults are really just fucking pathetic.
Anyway, back to the actual topic...
discokermit
Well-Known Member
moooo
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
No-one's cut Childe out of the picture, that's your inference not mine. Class is only one interest group. Gender is another. Ethnicity is another, Craft specialisation, and so on.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course they are - but you quite categorically claimed that class did not enter into the work of pre-historians full stop. I named one in which it did enter their field of vision - and pretty bloody prominently at that. So some pre-historians do, in fact, operate in terms of class.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Which prehistorians operate in terms of class?
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Now you are completely contradicting yourself. A moment ago you said prehistorians talked about class, but now they are only concerned with'pre-class' societies??? Doesnt make sense.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
I'm not interested in the internecine marxist theory wars between the swappies, the radical anthropology group supporters and the butcher's aprons of urban.
By all means feel free to carry on your theoretical occipital bun fight without me.
By all means feel free to carry on your theoretical occipital bun fight without me.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
By all means disagree with me. Be sure to give some concrete examples.
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
Generally speaking, to put 'class' into perspective socially, it is just one aspect of social identity, used when talking about 'relative equality' (gender, class, age, etc), along with worldview (ritual/ideology/belief structures), kinship relations and memory, 'magical' practices, and so on.
'Class' is definitely not a dominant discourse in British prehistoric archaeology, like it is in 'marxist politics'.
Unfortunately, throughout this thread, there's been an over-focus on 'class' to the detriment of all other aspects of prehistoric life. One of the main reasons that 'class' (in the marxist sense of the word) barely gets a mention (if at all) in preshistoric archaeology, because it's not possible to pluck the marxist-definition of capitalist class society and overlay it onto something so remotely in the past as, say, prehistoric British societies.
Getting back to the BBC programme, which covered the Mesolthic ...
Social hierarchy in the Mesolithic is thought to have been based on kin relationships, rather than on trade or migration and would have remained important even after settlement (throughout the Neolithic). Social relations in hunter-gatherer and early settled farmers are determined by kinship, universal throughout the world in these types of societies.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
?? We've given three concrete examples of people/groups concerned with 'prehistory' who are explicitly concerened with class.
I am sure you are right that generally speaking, most prehistorians dont see it as central, and it is definitely true that in most prehistory there was no class system to speak of. But just when it began is an interesting question, nevertheless.
And, yeah, there are many other things of interest to talk of about that whole period, but it's hardly that weird, to focus on one specific thing for a while. Doesnt stop anyone else raising any other interesting points!
Similar threads
