Smart ancient people

[hope]

The Norse aren't less intelligent because the Dark Ages happened.

I agree, I don`t think the Norse were at all stupid. They didn`t want Christianity either, they were very happy with their pagan beliefs.
I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.

 

[LeBrok]

Let's go with this line of thinking for a tad...

The Native American Indians were defeated by the white man and his culture. Europeans brought education, science, advanced weaponry etc., etc. Similiar to what the Romans would have brought to the Norse (and Northern Celts for that matter).

How did this new "improvement" in conditions pan out for these Native Americans? Please visit a reservation so you can see the conditions most Indians suffer through to this day.

The Norse spoke openly of their eventual absorption into the more Southernly ways and it even played a part in their religious practices. They viewed it as sad but impossible to avoid.

You are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. Norse were farmers so their ways were not that different from citizen of Roman empire, plus they were already acquainted with alcohol long time before that. On other hand Native Americans are hunter-gatherers who can't deal with alcohol. It is very crippling effect. They don't want to (or can't) follow their traditional ways, but have terrible time assimilating to mainstream culture.
Norse didn't want to change their traditional ways, but when the right time came they settled down, accepted christianity and embraced main european culture.

 

[LeBrok]

I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.

The darkest part for me is the lose of technological achievements, science, education and organization of Roman Empire. It took Europe something like 800 years to get beck to similar level.

 

[Templar]

You are not necessarily comparing apples to apples. Norse were farmers so their ways were not that different from citizen of Roman empire, plus they were already acquainted with alcohol long time before that. On other hand Native Americans are hunter-gatherers who can't deal with alcohol. It is very crippling effect. They don't want to (or can't) follow their traditional ways, but have terrible time assimilating to mainstream culture.
Norse didn't want to change their traditional ways, but when the right time came they settled down, accepted christianity and embraced main european culture.

Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers. The entire eastern United States was composed of various farming tribe confederations. But you are Canadian so I guess your individual experiences have created the illusion that most Natives were were Inuit-style people. For example the mound building people around the Mississippi basin had a flourishing agricultural civilization which reached a population size comparable to that of many European countries at that time.

 

[Boss]

I agree, I don`t think the Norse were at all stupid. They didn`t want Christianity either, they were very happy with their pagan beliefs.
I also don`t think the Medieval period was really so dark as we are sometimes lead to think.

Preach it, sister. Medievalists unite!

Seriously though, the High-Late Middle Ages weren't that bad. Let's not forget that not everything that is good and pure comes from the Enlightenment. Many toxic ideas also sprang from it (e.g. nationalism).

 

[hope]

The darkest part for me is the lose of technological achievements, science, education and organization of Roman Empire. It took Europe something like 800 years to get beck to similar level.

Certainly, and I agree with that for the most LeBrok, yes.

What I had in mind however when I said the medieval period was not so dark, was in the West, especially in Britain, after the withdrawal of Rome.
Most place the official Dark Ages from the 5th to15th C. We are lead to believe with the departure of Rome and the central power she gave, society collapsed. Learning and the arts ceased.It is this I have the problem with and it is mostly the Victorian archeologists I think are to blame for this view.
Archeology from the 1980s has shown a different side to that. For example, pottery found in East Yorkshire has been dated to 5th C post-Rome. It shows manufacturing was going on still in York at that time.
At Roxeter a large and well laid building has been unearthed and dated to around 520 AD. I know this is a bit after Rome departed but it`s still close enough in time to show society was organised and building big.
Then again. and this one I personally like, near Tintagel in Cornwall, lots of pottery has been found. It is wheel turned pottery, not like Roman type and not as was being made in Britain. Analysis shows it to have come from Southern Turkey..so there must still have been trade going on in this dark time.
Southampton University has been carrying out pollen studies for the time and it shows the majority of the land did not revert back to woodland in post Roman Britain. In fact cereal pollen shows the land was still being worked.
As you go on into the Dark Ages, think of the beautiful Anglo-Saxon jewellery being made.It took craftsmen to do that type of work. Even think of the rich finds of Sutton Hoo 620 AD.Anglo-Saxon law was in place with a view to keeping the land peaceful.

And viking art. Not everyone remembers the skill and craftsmanship of the vikings, I think. They made intricate and lovely pieces with as much gusto as they put into stealing it from others!
The Carolingians also. Now they had a taste for gold and they adorned their churches with it.The Palatine chapel at Aachen got under way 796.
Literature did not vanish. Some of the great annals started in those dark ages..Brut y Tywysogion begun around 620 Anglo-Saxon Chronicles late 9th century and the Lindasfarne Gospels right back in 700 AD. I don`t think even today there is much in that type that can match the Lindasfarne book, it`s magnificent and think of the skill to create that, especially under candle light. Not to forget the poems and of course Beowulf.
Monasteries and nunneries went up, where teaching was given. Fair enough it was mostly scholastic and perhaps for the better classes, but at least literacy was alive.
From the Islamic countries came Algebra and Astronomy. The Astrolabe was perfected here too in the early years of Islam. Ideas were exchanged between the Islamic world and the Christian world also I think, pre-Crusades.
Even when the vikings came and began settling, they brought new words into our language and new ideas on politics.
This all happened in what we call the Dark Ages but for the most part I feel intellectual life, politics, the arts continued. That`s some of the reasons I do not agree with the dark age view of the Western world after Rome and it was this I had in mind with my earlier post. .

 

[hope]

Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers.

Really Templar? I thought it varied from tribe to tribe..some farmed and some were semi-nomadic.

 

[LeBrok]

Certainly, and I agree with that for the most LeBrok, yes.

What I had in mind however when I said the medieval period was not so dark, was in the West, especially in Britain, after the withdrawal of Rome.
Most place the official Dark Ages from the 5th to15th C. We are lead to believe with the departure of Rome and the central power she gave, society collapsed. Learning and the arts ceased.It is this I have the problem with and it is mostly the Victorian archeologists I think are to blame for this view.
Archeology from the 1980s has shown a different side to that. For example, pottery found in East Yorkshire has been dated to 5th C post-Rome. It shows manufacturing was going on still in York at that time.
At Roxeter a large and well laid building has been unearthed and dated to around 520 AD. I know this is a bit after Rome departed but it`s still close enough in time to show society was organised and building big.
Then again. and this one I personally like, near Tintagel in Cornwall, lots of pottery has been found. It is wheel turned pottery, not like Roman type and not as was being made in Britain. Analysis shows it to have come from Southern Turkey..so there must still have been trade going on in this dark time.
Southampton University has been carrying out pollen studies for the time and it shows the majority of the land did not revert back to woodland in post Roman Britain. In fact cereal pollen shows the land was still being worked.
As you go on into the Dark Ages, think of the beautiful Anglo-Saxon jewellery being made.It took craftsmen to do that type of work. Even think of the rich finds of Sutton Hoo 620 AD.Anglo-Saxon law was in place with a view to keeping the land peaceful.

And viking art. Not everyone remembers the skill and craftsmanship of the vikings, I think. They made intricate and lovely pieces with as much gusto as they put into stealing it from others!
The Carolingians also. Now they had a taste for gold and they adorned their churches with it.The Palatine chapel at Aachen got under way 796.
Literature did not vanish. Some of the great annals started in those dark ages..Brut y Tywysogion begun around 620 Anglo-Saxon Chronicles late 9th century and the Lindasfarne Gospels right back in 700 AD. I don`t think even today there is much in that type that can match the Lindasfarne book, it`s magnificent and think of the skill to create that, especially under candle light. Not to forget the poems and of course Beowulf.
Monasteries and nunneries went up, where teaching was given. Fair enough it was mostly scholastic and perhaps for the better classes, but at least literacy was alive.
From the Islamic countries came Algebra and Astronomy. The Astrolabe was perfected here too in the early years of Islam. Ideas were exchanged between the Islamic world and the Christian world also I think, pre-Crusades.
Even when the vikings came and began settling, they brought new words into our language and new ideas on politics.
This all happened in what we call the Dark Ages but for the most part I feel intellectual life, politics, the arts continued. That`s some of the reasons I do not agree with the dark age view of the Western world after Rome and it was this I had in mind with my earlier post. .

You're right, the population didn't vanished in England, and life didn't change too much especially in villages. At that time 90% of population lived in villages, so not too many in cities. Due to climate cooling and smaller food production population shrank though, perhaps as much as 50 percent. In these circumstances, of smaller food production, biggest changes happened in cities. Cities always rely on surplus food production of farms. If farmers having hard time to produce for their own, they are not eager to share, therefore obviously it effects folks in cities the most. The cities being the centers for education, science and technology, and many more specialized trades. The collapse of the cities in particular caused the intellectual black out and very limited source of written language in this time period, thus dark ages. In villages though life didn't change much I suppose.

 

[hope]

You're right, the population didn't vanished in England, and life didn't change too much especially in villages. At that time 90% of population lived in villages, so not too many in cities. Due to climate cooling and smaller food production population shrank though, perhaps as much as 50 percent. In these circumstances, of smaller food production, biggest changes happened in cities. Cities always rely on surplus food production of farms. If farmers having hard time to produce for their own, they are not eager to share, therefore obviously it effects folks in cities the most. The cities being the centers for education, science and technology, and many more specialized trades. The collapse of the cities in particular caused the intellectual black out and very limited source of written language in this time period, thus dark ages. In villages though life didn't change much I suppose.

Yes, they are fair points LeBrok.

To be honest regarding the build at Roxeter and the pottery at Tintagel [which was what caught my eye] I read about that not so long ago..it was a piece regarding a book or somesort that was either coming off or had come off the back of a television series I think. Perhaps if we unearthed a few more large builds like it, then it might be more significant.

As I said, I agree for the most with your original post. My point , as I say, is directed regarding this side of the post Roman world when, if you push the dust aside, to me at least, doesn`t look like life ceased or society collapsed . It may have been a smaller business but I don`t think it was carried on in darkness.

 

[Templar]

Really Templar? I thought it varied from tribe to tribe..some farmed and some were semi-nomadic.

Of-course it varied, I was just pointing out that a larger share of the North American population was composed of farmers than hunter-gatherers. LeBrok used the fact that they were hunter-gatherers as one of the main reasons why Native Americans couldn't assimilate to European culture. I countered that by pointing out that the vast majority of them weren't hunter gatherers. I think the main cause of them being unable to assimilate well is due to their rapid population decline which resulted from exposure to diseases that they weren't used to. And many actually did assimilate and mix with other Americans, they were just quickly absorbed by the much larger incoming population.

 

[hope]

Of-course it varied, I was just pointing out that a larger share of the North American population was composed of farmers than hunter-gatherers. LeBrok used the fact that they were hunter-gatherers as one of the main reasons why Native Americans couldn't assimilate to European culture. I countered that by pointing out that the vast majority of them weren't hunter gatherers. I think the main cause of them being unable to assimilate well is due to their rapid population decline which resulted from exposure to diseases that they weren't used to. And many actually did assimilate and mix with other Americans, they were just quickly absorbed by the much larger incoming population.

If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate and maintain these traditional ways when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

 

[Nobody1]

If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

Its a bit hard to assimilate if your not on the same evolutionary stage (technologically / culturally) as your opposite;

what does it even matter if the Natives knew how to farm when they were still stuck in a Neolithic setting (at best) whilst the Europeans and later the US Gov. were miles a head of them in Science and Engineering;
Modern Age vs Neolithic / Muskets vs Stone Hatchets / Medicine vs Shamanism etc. etc.

The Colonization of the New World can not be compared to the Expansion of the Roman Empire;

 

[hope]

The Colonization of the New World can not be compared to the Expansion of the Roman Empire;

And where have I made such a comparison? My conversation with Templar was regarding something altogether different. A fraction of a conversation.

 

[Templar]

If I remember this correctly, there were four main ways Native Americans had of obtaining food. 1] Hunting ..2] Farming..3] Fishing.. and 4] Gathering.

Each of these require land to be carried out. So it is a bit hard to assimilate and maintain these traditional ways when your land is taken and you and yours are forced into reservations. To this degree I think the point LeBrok made is relevant.

Agricultural societies tend to have MUCH larger populations than hunter-gatherers and nomads. It is obvious that those Native Americans who practiced agriculture would have consisted, by far,the largest share of the North American Native population.

 

[nordicwarrior]

I recently saw a well-done video that mentioned farming techniques of the New World (but now I can't find it!) The narrator explained that the planting techniques used were so different than those found in Europe-- the Spanish didn't recognize that the "farm" land was being utilized when they initially explored it.

For example (I've read this in another book)... the Native Americans would make a mound of dirt, plant a few kernels of corn in the center, then put some vining vegetable seeds at the base. The vines would eventually grow up the corn stalks which would serve as vertical support structures.

Very smart if you don't have to grow enough food to feed large populations dwelling in a city.

 

[LeBrok]

Uhm LeeBrok, most Native Americans were farmers and not hunter-gatherers. The entire eastern United States was composed of various farming tribe confederations. But you are Canadian so I guess your individual experiences have created the illusion that most Natives were were Inuit-style people. For example the mound building people around the Mississippi basin had a flourishing agricultural civilization which reached a population size comparable to that of many European countries at that time.

Of course depending on tribes and location there were degrees of farming natives in America conducted. For that reason you can see different degree of assimilation and adaptation to western culture, which comes from long, extensive farming.
The most agriculturalism happened in central America. It helped Spanish to build strong colonial powerhouses in preindustrial times, when most economy was based on farming of corn, sugar canes, potatoes or cotton. Actually all adopted by Spanish from Natives.
They've also invented their own alcohol and got used to it, therefore there was no crippling effect of alcohol when Spaniards came.
These are the most agricultural societies in pre colonial America, with extensive farming dating back to 2,000 BC.

If it comes to North America, definitely there was much less farming going on. Mostly due to very unpredictable climate, and extensive dry spells that kill all attempts in agriculture every few centuries or so. There was more sustainable farming by the coasts though, especially the East Coast of US and Canada. However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting.
If it come to the prairie Indians and Inuits they were only hunter-gatherers. From my observation they are the ones with biggest difficulties adapting to western civilization, on par with Australian Aborigines, who also are pure hunter-gatherers. They didn't know alcohol and no time to "get used to" (by natural selection), which might be the biggest factor inducing native poverty at present time.

 

[Templar]

"However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting."

I have to disagree with you on that one. The mound builders of the Mississippi river basin are thought have had cities with several thousands of people living in them. Their agricultural feats must have been quite advanced in order to achieve such a thing.

 

[Yetos]

[video]http://www.history.com/shows/mankind-the-story-of-all-of-us/videos/corn[/video]

 

[LeBrok]

"However this was very limited/early farming and didn't go beyond garden by the house. Women did farming while men were still hunting."

I have to disagree with you on that one. The mound builders of the Mississippi river basin are thought have had cities with several thousands of people living in them. Their agricultural feats must have been quite advanced in order to achieve such a thing.

As I mentioned before, there were various degrees of agriculture or lack of it, depending on location. Your example actually falls very nicely in my premise that intensive agriculture was unsustainable in North America, pretty much above Mexico.
The mound builders culture existed for fairly short time (500 years?) and completely vanished couple of centuries before white man showed up in the area.
Compare it to Europe with long, extensive farming and herding, and continuous from pretty much 5,000 BC, over whole continent.
In comparison in North America (beyond Mexico) extensive farming was sporadic and short lived, in wetter parts of continent only gardens by homes existed, herding was limited to turkey and duck, and on more than half continent you have only nomadic tribes of hunter-gatherers (prairie Indians and Inuits). Plus alcohol was unknown.
I'm not blaming them, they did the best in condition and climate they came to live. Europe is a lucky place if it come to steady, warm and fairly wet weather. One of the best places to farm in the world.
I'm sure if the American Indians evolved in Europe and Europeans in America, the situation would be reversed. We would see white man in reserves not coping with alcohol well.

 

[Gea]

I think people in the past had more time and their days were kind of longer.

I mean,when they were bored they were enriching their mind.Nowadays people are ironically more stupid because off too much informations.