|
what does elite mean in the context of the Pueblo cultures? Also is there anything relevant to this in the oral histories of the region, or from the Spanish conquistadors accounts of their early forays into the region? When you talk about matrilineages I assume that is inferred from ethnographic data yes? It seems like it'd be sketchy extrapolating much from historic patterns of lineal descent, since if there was a big change in culture that could really change those customs as well
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
If I recall it was actually DNA related or tied to something that passes maternally, I don't have the paper on hand right now to remember which, otherwise I would share your skepticism. Personally I feel multiple lineal reckonings likely existed, based on sub-region, as even within the Chaco Regional System it seems likely multiple languages and ethnic identities existed. Elite in Pueblo context means as many things as researchers. I use it as Steve Lekson does, where it refers to people who seem to have a better material existence than others, with access to better goods and exotics and who seem to hold authority and power over others. Rio Grande histories refer to such people at Chaco, but by the time of the Spanish entrance that system had been replaced by more egalitarian modes of living. One problem with the histories is the way many Pueblo peoples, for instance the Hopi, conceive of history. Bad things are not discussed as they bring about repeats of the past mistakes. In reference to the new forms of organization, clans and moieties are the big two, with everyone having a stake in running society. Archaeologically this manifests in no more Great Houses, and at first more kivas as people come together but keep household kivas, then later fewer kivas that serve clans or moieties, but still no clear elite areas of villages, no special houses and only religious specialists represented by "rich" burials. Plazas with access to all the village also become a big thing after CE 1300. This begins against the backdrop of the violence mentioned earlier however, at least by CE 1200. The Chaco Regional System is notable because how unlike everything else in Pueblo history it is. There are proto-Great Houses in Pueblo I, but they are clustered into villages and have about equal living-to-storage room ratios. They are called Great Houses because these large C-shaped roomblocks architecturally evolve into Great Houses, but they have a different social purpose, though some large villages do host ritual feasts in Pueblo I. Pueblo IV onward are the massive towns, with many of the same villages the Spanish come across being founded during that time, especially from CE 1300-1400 or so. These have very communal stuctures without the restricted space of Great Houses and basically resemble modern Pueblos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:The Tucson loving Artifacts. I think someone needs to get one of the mil-scifi hacks at Baen cranking out a five book series on this pronto.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
It’s funny that the pre‐Columbian chiles argument rails against the dogma of New World exclusivity when the dogma has already flipped once. Portuguese sailors traded chiles in seemingly every port they called, and the locals took to them with vigour. In 1542, peppers were so at home in India that Leonard Fuchs believed they originated there. Circa 1670, Georg Eberhard Rumphius believed they were native to Java. In 1776, Nikolaus Joseph von Jacquin believed that a species of chile was native to China, saddling it with the name Capsicum chinense. By the nineteenth century, people are wising up: Alphonse Pyramus de Candolle, Origin of Cultivated Plants, 1827 posted:I cannot refrain from stating my opinion that no capsicum is indigenous to the old world. I believe them to be all of American origin, though I cannot absolutely prove it. These are my reasons. There is one plant formerly placed in the genus that is definitely native to the old world: Tubocapsicum anomalum. It’s possible this could be mistaken for true chiles. Now, if you ask me, “intrusion” or “birds” are still better explanation for a find in pre‐Columbian Sweden than than “actually a weird Japanese ornamental”, but “weird Japanese ornamental” is still better than “secret ocean voyages”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Senior Dog posted:I don’t know who that is and have no wish to denigrate them, but are you saying they’re superior because they make bows as a hobby? Actually full time, and I'm barely able to pay my rent, but thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:Actually full time, and I'm barely able to pay my rent, but thanks. Ok
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
skasion posted:Kind of stretching the topic a bit, but does anyone have any recommendations for reading about medieval hawking and hunting? I read a pretty cool article this morning about the modern proliferation of wild boar as urban pests across Europe and it made me realize that almost everything I know about medieval boar hunting comes from The Sword in the Stone. Digging this up from an age ago, but I have now bought and read The Hawk and the Hound, so AMA about medieval hunting I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Digging this up from an age ago, but I have now bought and read The Hawk and the Hound, so AMA about medieval hunting I guess. I would enjoy reading a general overview, if you're up to it. Cool anecdotes, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I would enjoy reading a general overview, if you're up to it. Cool anecdotes, whatever. To massively simplify, there were two main types of hunting. Par force and Bow and Stable . Par force was about tracking a single animal with a limer (like a modern bloodhound). You looked at its poo poo to work out if it was the sort of big beast that was worth hunting, meaning an old stag or an adult boar. Then you chased it with sight hounds till it was tired, and killed it on foot with spear or sword. All other smaller beasts were ignored. Bow and stable hunting was where you flushed an entire forest of game toward you, and killed everything f(deer of all sizes) that ran past from horseback with a bow. Wolves were contemptible vermin, and it was fine to let the dogs kill them. Ibex and other shy game had specific techniques. Small game can only be hunted by hawks. Edit: the thing I find striking is that terriers aren't mentioned. Presumably something like them existed, but they were beneath the dignity of noble hunters. But those guys loved their dogs. Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Aug 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
I find it interesting that wolves were treated with contempt by hunters. What was the reason? It's a big predator animal, and I realize it's a nuisance to farmers and landowners I'm sure, and maybe I'm looking through a modern lens here, but I would think they'd be a difficult animal to hunt and kill, and therefore worthy of some respect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I find it interesting that wolves were treated with contempt by hunters. What was the reason? It's a big predator animal, and I realize it's a nuisance to farmers and landowners I'm sure, and maybe I'm looking through a modern lens here, but I would think they'd be a difficult animal to hunt and kill, and therefore worthy of some respect. Blind guess before the proper answer comes out: pagan/satanic connotations? Werewolves are minions of the devil
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I find it interesting that wolves were treated with contempt by hunters. What was the reason? It's a big predator animal, and I realize it's a nuisance to farmers and landowners I'm sure, and maybe I'm looking through a modern lens here, but I would think they'd be a difficult animal to hunt and kill, and therefore worthy of some respect. Hunters are rural upper crust which makes them the biggest landowners. Wolves are pests that eat their bottom lines wolves aren’t exactly a pleasant meal either so you end up without anything to eat at your apres-hunt
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
wolves:deer::rats:grain
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Mr Havafap posted:Then, if you have an hour to spare, watch this: I'm miles behind on page 514, but I have some serious personal and biz travel coming up. Does anyone have further recommendations of nice 1-3 hour lectures or talks I can download? I casually read this thread and find literally every post interesting so subject matter is not important to me. The fact that its recommended by you guys is good enough e: I have already downladed the first 50 history of romes and some Dan Carlin stuff although he's real hit or miss for me when he talks about stuff I know. (No derail)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:I'm miles behind on page 514, but I have some serious personal and biz travel coming up. Does anyone have further recommendations of nice 1-3 hour lectures or talks I can download? I casually read this thread and find literally every post interesting so subject matter is not important to me. The fact that its recommended by you guys is good enough You likely saw it linked from that bronze age collapse lecture but anything by Irving Finkel is going to make for a good listen/watch. This is the one I've watched but you can probably find others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I If you want a different topic and are going to be watching rather than listening to the lectures, I'd also recommend the Royal Institute Christmas lectures by Richard Dawkins. It's a low level but in broad introduction to evolutionary theory with a lot of good visual aides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT1vXXMsYak
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
I suggest you look through the free online Yale courses. You can download the lectures as audio only! https://oyc.yale.edu/courses
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Interesting about the small game. I assume they were a prestige thing or low value? Hunt chat got me thinking about our hunting her (Us Southwesy/Northwest México, in the CE 500-1450 period I work in The typical way to hunt small game (lagomorphs mostly) was to get a group together and chase them into a wash or canyon where a net was set up. https://imgur.com/05ah8aj Net from Texas Canyon, used for hunts. Once the animals were in the special sticks were used to kill the prey. https://imgur.com/2JPwCXF Rabbit stick from Casas Grandes region, Chihuahua. What is striking is how everyone here used more or less the same method and tools. Guess you do what works. Bows with wood tipped shafts were used for small game and antelope, the fancy stone projectile points were for deer, elk and war. Also before CE 500 the bow was absent, so the atlatl was used. It had a shorter range and required more skill to use, but had superior penetration power. Hohokam may have revived it as a prestige weapon around CE 950 after a couple centuries absence, but it's hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:I find it interesting that wolves were treated with contempt by hunters. What was the reason? It's a big predator animal, and I realize it's a nuisance to farmers and landowners I'm sure, and maybe I'm looking through a modern lens here, but I would think they'd be a difficult animal to hunt and kill, and therefore worthy of some respect. Here's the relevant page.  A fun method of catching a woodcock is described in The Hunting Book of King Modus. The hunter wears a short brown cloak with a hood up. Then he walks toward the woodcock on his knees, with a couple of sticks to mimick bird legs. The woodcock is fascinated by the sight of a giant version of itself, and becomes docile enough to catch by hand. This technique is not believed to be effective. KiteAuraan posted:Interesting about the small game. I assume they were a prestige thing or low value? By small game I mean birds specifically. Hares are hunted par force like tiny deer, and nobles don't hunt rabbits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Squalid posted:If you want a different topic and are going to be watching rather than listening to the lectures, I'd also recommend the Royal Institute Christmas lectures by Richard Dawkins. It's a low level but in broad introduction to evolutionary theory with a lot of good visual aides. I'm rather obligated to object to anyone posting Dawkins in regard to anything, who has become one of those who masks his Islamophobia as a question of academics, and for that matter has become a punchline of "This is what atheists are REALLY like."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Actually Dawkins is a pretty good evolutionary biologist, whatever his thoughts on religion. And that is a particularly good explanation of a local optimum trap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I'm rather obligated to object to anyone posting Dawkins in regard to anything, who has become one of those who masks his Islamophobia as a question of academics, and for that matter has become a punchline of "This is what atheists are REALLY like." Dawkins is incredibly annoying in most contexts. Reading the Selfish Gene was a chore because it was like 50% sniping footnotes where he described in excruciating detail his inane grudges against other evolutionary biologists like E. O. Wilson and Stephen J Gould. Still despite him not being able to help himself and touching the religion poop in those lectures, they're still a good introduction to evolutionary theory, despite being nearly 30 years old at this point. Also episode 4 has a surprise guest appearance from Douglas Adams. Of course he was a proto reddit athiest so you might not like him either. Squalid fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Aug 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Dawkins is incredibly annoying in most contexts. Reading the Selfish Gene was a chore because it was like 50% sniping footnotes where he described in excruciating detail all the details of his inane grudges with other evolutionary biologists including E. O. Wilson and Stephen J Gould. Does that make Dawkins exceptional for the field, though? Wilson and Gould also hated each other, after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
This is really beyond the scope of the thread, but there's a weird and complex nexus of atheism and "islamophobia" which is itself a really hard term to unpack as it involves racism, orientalism, religious strife, political oppression, national identity, immigration, and more. The idea that a guy who is vocal about hating organized religion and a Swede who doesn't like all the new people in town who don't speak the language and an American in Deerborn MI who's heard that they've got Shakira Law some place are all the same is reductive and fairly useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is really beyond the scope of the thread, but there's a weird and complex nexus of atheism and "islamophobia" which is itself a really hard term to unpack as it involves racism, orientalism, religious strife, political oppression, national identity, immigration, and more. The idea that a guy who is vocal about hating organized religion and a Swede who doesn't like all the new people in town who don't speak the language and an American in Deerborn MI who's heard that they've got Shakira Law some place are all the same is reductive and fairly useless. And now I can't get the idea of Judge Dredd singing "hips don't lie" out of my head. So, you know, thanks? Thanks for that...
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is really beyond the scope of the thread, but there's a weird and complex nexus of atheism and "islamophobia" which is itself a really hard term to unpack as it involves racism, orientalism, religious strife, political oppression, national identity, immigration, and more. The idea that a guy who is vocal about hating organized religion and a Swede who doesn't like all the new people in town who don't speak the language and an American in Deerborn MI who's heard that they've got Shakira Law some place are all the same is reductive and fairly useless. In theory there's a big difference, but Dawkins in particular has convinced himself of many of the same dumb things that the Swede and the Deerborn guy believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Does that make Dawkins exceptional for the field, though? Wilson and Gould also hated each other, after all. not really but preferably you stick to passive aggressively throwing shade via indirect references and vague allusions rather than draggin the audience into your petty feuds. Also when recording your audiobooks you should really consider just leaving out all the multipage footnotes and addendums you couldn't resist adding in 30 years after publication, really could have done without those thanks. That's probably why those Christmas lectures are good though, because when you're talking to children you just have to skip that crap
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Dawkins is incredibly annoying in most contexts. Reading the Selfish Gene was a chore because it was like 50% sniping footnotes where he described in excruciating detail all the details of his inane grudges with other evolutionary biologists like E. O. Wilson and Stephen J Gould. Welcome to academia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Cambridge History of the World posted:The entire premise of the First Crusade was that a bunch of basically random people from Europe were going to somehow ride donkeys all the way to Jerusalem and say that they lived there now. While many of these people were killed, the underlying cause of their deaths was without question very funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
I'd like to read the rest of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2UksH_nSI Historia Civilis’ latest video isn’t great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Would you care to substantiate your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
The Roman Republic at the time of Cæsar was not healthy. Many of Cæsar’s symbolic acts were provocative and needlessly so (like the throne and the Capitoline statue), but when it came to actually wielding power, Sulla did worse only forty years before.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Roman Republic at the time of Cæsar was not healthy. Bit of an understatement really, by the time of Caesar’s death no one alive could remember a time before politicians started murdering one another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
That's the only part where he really should've known better, the rest of the analysis seems pretty solid. Although following Caesar through his adventures in Gaul kinda make many of his horrible offenses in Rome seem like small potatoes. It's new to the Romans in Rome, but to Caesar, he's already ordered the extermination of tribes for not bowing to him. Hard to imagine just abiding by the restrictions of courtesy and protocol after all that when you just seized ultimate power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
I don't think the video in question is a smear job on Caesar so much as an explanation of "...and this is when the decided to kill him." That the Republic was too far gone to be saved at that point was drastically shown by the fact that killing Caesar didn't restore the Republic, all it did was set off more civil wars to decide who would be the
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
marius and sulla were expressions of an underlying issue, the tension between large landowners and the poor. the republic started walking slowly toward the edge of the cliff when the senate killed the gracchi and the intransigence of the optimates became entrenched. none of the strongmen could have whipped people up into civil war without folks already feeling inclined toward it - especially not frail, senile marius.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:marius and sulla were expressions of an underlying issue, the tension between large landowners and the poor. the republic started walking slowly toward the edge of the cliff when the senate killed the gracchi and the intransigence of the optimates became entrenched. none of the strongmen could have whipped people up into civil war without folks already feeling inclined toward it - especially not frail, senile marius. Absolutely. But the decisions of Marius and especially Sulla were the straws that broke the camel's back. Because until those two went at it, it was still possible to try and work within the republican system. After Sulla, despite his attempts to put things back the way they'd used to be, the lesson everyone learned wasn't "do your time on the Cursus Honorum and be rewarded", it was "he who has the most swords wins". At which point the Republic as a functional government was doomed. The only questions were who was going to finally knock the corpse over (Caesar) and who was going to set up the replacement (Augustus). jng2058 fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
The Gracchi tried to work within the republican system and it didn’t work, to put it mildly. That was what drove ambitious leaders like Marius and Sulla to build followings who would be more loyal to them than to the state and were willing to fight to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
It's fair to say that "fixing" the republic by force would've taken at least as much effort as Augustus's building the empire. That doesn't really mean that without Caesar there would've inevitably been another another guy popping up to take control. In theory, if the senate won in its struggle against Caesar, it would've persisted for a while longer in whatever broken state. Maybe if it persisted for long enough through various tumult, it could've reached some kind of more stable equilibrium. Of course, the relative value of the republic and whether it would've even been logistically possible to create republican structures that could meaningfully reach further-out Roman territory are separate questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:those guys loved their dogs. early modern surgery was more extensive than most people think edit: i've seen plenty of small bristly dogs in early modern paintings, maybe terriers were around but people just didn't write about them? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Aug 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2019 22:25
|
|
