# A History Of Ancient Britain



## ringo (Feb 8, 2011)

Starts Wednesday 9th Feb BBC2, 9pm

Could be great, although it is presented by Neil Oliver who I find a bit annoying and prone to talking about Scotland all the time.

Still, one of the main academics helping out on early humans is Chris Stringer, easily the UK's most gifted palaeo-archaeologist and a very entertaining speaker, so hopefully Oliver will shut his craw long enough to let him speak.


----------



## Santino (Feb 8, 2011)

Didn't we just do this?


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 8, 2011)

No Tony Robinson?


----------



## ringo (Feb 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Didn't we just do this?


 
Don't think a series has been made on this particular subject before.


----------



## Santino (Feb 8, 2011)

ringo said:


> Don't think a series has been made on this particular subject before.


 
Perhaps I was thinking of the Channel 4 programme, The Seven Ages of Britain. Or maybe the BBC programme, The Seven Ages of Britain.


----------



## Gingerman (Feb 8, 2011)

Love stuff like this, so looking forward to it


----------



## boohoo (Feb 8, 2011)

What sort of period are they calling ancient? Wasn't there a prog on the beeb looking at ancient civilisations?

If it's stuff about stone circles, etc... I will be happy. ( With preferably not too many post holes and 'ritual' anythings)


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Feb 8, 2011)

Might cause an arguement but I'd love to see Simon Schama doing this. I really like his History of Britain series and thought the biggest thing that let it down was very little focus on pre-Roman Britian.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 8, 2011)

Think I caught a bit of that.

Trouble with pre-Roman Britain is it is all a bit vague and reliant on whoever's current interpretation of what has been archeologied.


----------



## ringo (Feb 9, 2011)

DaRealSpoon said:


> Might cause an argument but I'd love to see Simon Schama doing this. I really like his History of Britain series and thought the biggest thing that let it down was very little focus on pre-Roman Britian.


 
Schama is a good presenter but he's a historian, so pre-Roman Britain is not his field.

History just covers the written word, and that didn't exist here until the Romans arrived. Archaeology covers physical evidence left by humans including burials, artefacts, buildings and changes to the landscape.



boohoo said:


> What sort of period are they calling ancient? Wasn't there a prog on the beeb looking at ancient civilisations?
> 
> If it's stuff about stone circles, etc... I will be happy. ( With preferably not too many post holes and 'ritual' anythings)



Ancient in this context means from the arrival of humans in Britain up to the Roman Invasion in AD43. The series last year on ancient civilisations was about the first civilisations in the world and their development. This is about Britain specifically. There will be stone circles, henge monuments, causewayed enclosures etc. It'll cover each period of the stone age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, then they'll mention that those terms aren't as useful as they once were.

I doubt they'll show too many postholes 'cos they don't make good TV to non-archaeologists, but there will be plenty of interpretation, which will include the word "ritual".

It's a shame that most people don't get the "ritual" stuff, it's the best bit. In fact TV archaeology's greatest failing is that after 15 odd years of Time Team etc the 150 years of archaeological study which has led to current interpretational thinking has in absolutely no way filtered through to the public with any credibility whatsoever.

In essence it's not so hard to get across. We will never know all of the answers, that's part of the exciting bit. There are loads of attempts to put this across, the most famous being "the past is another country". 

With every excavation and landscape study new information is found and many long held pieces of knowledge are reaffirmed and proved. The purpose of archaeology is to interpret those findings to explain humans' role and behaviour in the past. This can only be done through theorisation, then looking at the evidence to see if that theory can be proved, looks possible, or looks likely.

Then other evidence found is used to prove or disprove that theory. With each idea proved or disproved we grow closer to understanding what was happening in the past. Of course sometimes we get it wrong and don't realise for many years, the idea of Neanderthals being a hopeless evolutionary disaster being a well known example.

Archaeological theory has developed along similar paths as philosophy and social theory. There have been periods of Marxist interpretation, then processual theory. When I studied it in the 90's it was all about post-processual archaeology and then when I worked in the field we stopped studying settlements in the same way and started analysing their place and meaning in the wider landscape. Each new change in thinking brings a new understanding of what happened. 

Without this progress archaeology would be pointless, we'd never get beyond treasure hunting, basic dating and building construction analysis. And it wouldn't be half as interesting.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2011)

ringo said:


> Could be great, although it is presented by Neil Oliver who I find a bit annoying and prone to talking about Scotland all the time.


 
he is a bit annoying, but does seem to know his stuff.

I am looking forward to this programme.  I may even not go to the pub, in order to watch it.


----------



## Biddlybee (Feb 9, 2011)




----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 9, 2011)

Gingerman said:


> Love stuff like this, so looking forward to it


 
Me too. Just hope "class" doesn't come into it...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 9, 2011)

It won't.  It's the middle class BBC.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 9, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> It won't.  It's the middle class BBC.


 
The BBC is middle class? I suppose you'll be saying it's "hideously white" next...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 9, 2011)

They did a White Season a while ago, inaccurately dealing with people of a different class.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 9, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> They did a White Season a while ago, *inaccurately dealing with people of a different class*.



Can you explain what you mean, Cap?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 9, 2011)

White people portraying other white people as, parochial, racist, thick.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2011)

jer said:


> Me too. Just hope "class" doesn't come into it...


 
given it's the period when class society arose in Britain, I'd hope it would.  Tho, considering how the beeb would do it, perhaps I dont


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2011)

that was a bit cack. lot's of shots of some long haired twat looking out to sea. and how connected they were with the 'cruel mistress mother nature', and how they saw other animals 'almost as kin' and other made up shit. the camping trip with 'bob the professional caveman' was unintentionally hilarious, as  they waded around after fish they couldn't catch then admitted buying a rabbit from a shop. 'professional flint knapper'? twat should have been made redundant two and a half thousand years ago.


----------



## Chz (Feb 10, 2011)

I was disappointed that he didn't keep up his "ayyyyynchent" pronunciation of "ancient" all the way through the show. It gave some hilarity to a fairly dull programme at the beginning.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

I quite enjoyed it, but then I'm quite familiar with the subject.

'Professional caveman' John Lord is ace. I did a flint knapping course with his son once - they really know their stuff at that practical level.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> given it's the period when class society arose in Britain, I'd hope it would.  Tho, considering how the beeb would do it, perhaps I dont


When would you say that was, out of interest? Definitely with the arrival of the Romans, possibly before but it's difficult to pin down. I'll think on it


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2011)

As will I....

No later than the arrival of the Beaker people tho, and certainly before the Romans


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> As will I....
> 
> No later than the arrival of the Beaker people tho, and certainly before the Romans


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


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> I'm struggling to think of anything that could be evidence for class society before the Romans.


 
storage vessels = surplus = class.


----------



## ringo (Feb 10, 2011)

I quite enjoyed it. There was bound to be a bit of wistful, misty eyed stuff when the entire human remains for such a long period fit in a shoe box, but other than the mammoth hunting nonsense he didn't get all that silly.

It'll get better from now 'cos we know more.

I'm loathe to join in the class discussion 'cos I've seen what happens on Urban, but it is an interesting subject.

If you look at ethnographic examples and older civilisations we know of then it's very hard to think of any human society without some sort of hierarchical structure. Whether you call that a class system is probably more down to your own personal views I suspect, but there was almost certainly something.

I imagine they'll draw on one of the more known about and studied areas of British prehistory like the Wessex landscape. General thinking has it that any mega-structure requiring massive man-hours of labour is a direct indicator that someone was in charge, utilising slavery 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.

The hunter-gatherers mentioned last night certainly co-operated with each other, otherwise some couldn't have specialised, much in the way John Lord has today with flint knapping. You have to dedicate your life to some of these skills to get good, and increasingly so as technology advances. The microliths used by the Neolithic period could only be made after much practice. 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.

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.


----------



## ringo (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> storage vessels = surplus = class.


 
Storage vessels = having something convenient to drink/eat from or store food/other stuff in.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> Storage vessels = having something convenient to drink/eat from or store food/other stuff in.


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


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> or store food/other stuff in.


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.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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 (Feb 10, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


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


Nice rhyming


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> '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 (Feb 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> '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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> class society arose before slavery.


 
quite, hence 'must be'


----------



## ringo (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Feb 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> tribute and trade, ie. surplus.


I know. The discussion's moved on a bit


----------



## ringo (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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.



discokermit said:


> 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.



discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

ringo said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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?


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> storage vessels = somewhere to store/transport food or liquids until you consume them.
> 
> storage vessels in themselves are not evidence of hierarchical social structures.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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 (Feb 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

Why are you talking about slavery?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Why are you talking about slavery?


 
have you read the thread? quite obviously not.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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 (Feb 10, 2011)

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


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:
			
		

> 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.   




			
				ringo said:
			
		

> *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.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


are you reading the same thread as me?


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


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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 (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


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


have you got any examples?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> 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?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:
			
		

> have you got any examples?


Yes


invisibleplanet said:


> The Haida, as hunter-gatherers, most certainly did capture and keep slaves.
> 
> But anyway, this is all very far away (geographically) from Ancient Britain.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

Spion said:


> 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


 
There is evidence of non-settled people capturing/keeping/trading slaves, but we don't have any evidence for this in Britain that I know of. That doesn't mean that it isn't possible, which is all ringo was trying to say. 

Nomadic pastoralists (non-settled agriculturalists) have been known to capture, keep and trade slaves, for example, the Tubbu.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Yes


 
that's almost like saying the vikings were hunter gatherers.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that's almost like saying the vikings were hunter gatherers.


 
No, it's not.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> No, it's not.


 
they had guns on the front of their canoes! hardly mesolithic!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> they had guns on the front of their canoes! hardly mesolithic!


So .... now you mention the Mesolithic, rather than hunter-gatherers.

The Mesolithic (or Epipalaeolithic) is the transition period between the Upper Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age) and the Neolithic (New Stone Age).
Hunter-gatherers are societies whose primary subsistence is foraging, fishing and hunting.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> So .... now you mention the Mesolithic, rather than hunter-gatherers.


 
that's what the fucking programme was about! for fucksake you're fucking draining.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that's what the fucking programme was about! for fucksake you're fucking draining.


 
Oh, I thought the programme was ...


discokermit said:


> lot's of shots of some long haired twat looking out to sea. and how connected they were with the 'cruel mistress mother nature', and how they saw other animals 'almost as kin' and other made up shit. the camping trip with 'bob the professional caveman' was unintentionally hilarious, as  they waded around after fish they couldn't catch then admitted buying a rabbit from a shop. 'professional flint knapper'? twat should have been made redundant two and a half thousand years ago.


At least, that's what you told urban75 the programme was about. Try as I might, I could see no mention of the Mesolithic in that description by by you.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggghhhhhhhhhh you fucking tedious twat.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

get your mate back, at least he was funny mad, not tedious mad.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2011)

I can't believe people are arguing about Mesolithic hunters at 2.35am.


urban rocks!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I can't believe people are arguing about Mesolithic hunters at 2.35am.
> 
> 
> urban rocks!



urban does indeed rock! 

The programme looks brilliant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xchyf

The 'animals almost as kin' isn't made up. 
As far as we can make out from the archaeological record and from ethnographic observation of comparable hunter-gather groups, Mesolithic cosmology and ritual, like the Upper Palaeolithic before it, made no divisions between the natural world and the human world.  
There are some wonderful examples ... I might dig those up at some point.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 11, 2011)

editor said:


> I can't believe people are arguing about Mesolithic hunters at 2.35am.
> 
> 
> urban rocks!


 
And they weren't waving a Union Jack. Or mistakenly putting it in UK politics. Result!!!


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> The programme looks brilliant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xchyf
> 
> .


isn't that the programme that this whole thread is about?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> The 'animals almost as kin' isn't made up.
> As far as we can make out from the archaeological record and from ethnographic observation of comparable hunter-gather groups, Mesolithic cosmology and ritual, like the Upper Palaeolithic before it, made no divisions between the natural world and the human world.
> There are some wonderful examples ... I might dig those up at some point.


i don't make a division between us and the natural world but i wouldn't go as far as regarding animals as kin. that would put me right off my bacon sandwich.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i don't make a division between us and the natural world but i wouldn't go as far as regarding animals as kin. that would put me right off my bacon sandwich.


 
Have you heard of Michelle Paver's 'Wolf Brother'? http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/wolfbrother
My son loved this when he was younger. It's set in the Mesolithic world of hunter-gatherers.

Bacon sandwich aside, the Mesolithic worldview is considered to have been very different to the Neolithic worldview. 
This is an important distinction to make, since the adoption of farming practices, settlement & monument building along with increasing social complexity would have seen the formation of new worldviews that were very different to the worldviews of the preceding Mesolithic lifeways of hunting, foraging and fishing. The most obvious changes are those we can still see in the landscape today - the creation of permanent memorials to the dead.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Have you heard of Michelle Paver's 'Wolf Brother'? http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/wolfbrother
> My son loved this when he was younger. It's set in the Mesolithic world of hunter-gatherers.
> 
> Bacon sandwich aside, the Mesolithic worldview is considered to have been very different to the Neolithic worldview.
> This is an important distinction to make, since the adoption of farming practices, settlement, monument building and increasing social complexity would have seen the formation of new worldviews that were very different to the worldviews of the preceding Mesolithic lifeways of hunting, foraging and fishing. These ideological (and technological) changes are generally thought to have come about gradually, rather than suddenly. The most obvious changes are those we can still see in the landscape today - the creation of permanent memorials to the dead.


 
i like the bit you deleted best.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

Less obviously, but founded upon concrete material evidence in the archaeological record, are the change in relationship to animals and plants with the introduction of agriculture and pastoralism, a corresponding change in diet and subsistence practices, economy and exchange practices, technological changes in lithics and the appearance of pottery, as well as changes in mobility and settlement patterns. These ideological and technological changes are generally thought to have come about gradually, rather than suddenly and it's thought that hunter-gatherer bands existed alongside agri-pastoralists throughout the transitional period. It's a fascinating journey.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


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


 
well, yes, you blatantly are.  You clearly know fuck all about the period, other than some very basic marxist theory that you can't apply, which is why you are spewing out such vague crap that you, no doubt, think is really sharp and clever.

Shame, cos you're not _entirely_ wrong, but I'm now guessing that that is purely accidental.  Chill the fuck out


----------



## Spion (Feb 11, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


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


 


DotCommunist said:


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



There's a recent-ish theory based on the finding of one of the last Neanderthal sites to have existed that is to do with Neanderthals' inability to cope with climate change due to their physical and social characterisitics not being as well suited as Sapiens to the environment

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/28/survival-of-the-weakest.html


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


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


As I understand it (and I'm not a palaeoanthropologist), there are several models: 

. The assimilation model (the interbreeding model, which hypothesises that some interbreeding with modern humans occurred along with extinction of the unassimilated); 

. The replacement model (a Neanderthal extinction model, part of the original Out of Africa II model. Characterised by Neanderthal inability to adapt to the changing climate & competition from modern humans, lwhich ed to their extinction by around 30,000-26,000 years ago. Neanderthals 'replaced' by modern humans who represented a second dispersal from out of Africa around 80,000 years ago. Modern humans co-existed alongside Neanderthal populations, eventually replacing them.)

. The perennially unpopular evolutionary model (some non-African Neanderthal populations evolved over hundreds of thousands of years into modern humans, first proposed by C L Brace).

Note Bene: Read about the Out of Africa II model here: http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/genome.html

Current thinking is: 


> Neandertals lived in Europe, the Middle East and western Asia until they disappeared about 30,000 years ago. The new data indicate that humans may not have replaced Neandertals, but assimilated them into the human gene pool.
> 
> “Neandertals are not totally extinct; they live on in some of us,” says Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and leader of the Neandertal genome project.
> 
> ...



This Guardian article explains it all very well. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/neanderthals-dna-humans-genome


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Current thinking is:


 
Thus proving Star Trek right, if a human can fuck it, they will


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thus proving Star Trek right, if a human can fuck it, they will


 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/neanderthals-dna-humans-genome


> Interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals may nonetheless have been rare. Just two Neanderthal females in a group of around a hundred humans would have been enough to leave such a trace in our genome, provided that was the group that gave rise to all modern humans outside Africa.
> 
> The study, reported in the journal Science, was greeted by scientists as almost certain confirmation that modern humans and Neanderthals mated when the groups crossed paths. *"It certainly tells us something about human nature," said Chris Stringer*, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.


----------



## ringo (Feb 11, 2011)

Apologies if I was a bit short yesterday, was worried about my youngest daughter having surgery today. Despite the occasional toys out of pram moment there's been some interesting and lively debate in this thread. If nothing else it still shows the gulf between academic and field archaeology and the public perception of it. I hope this series progresses a bit more in trying to close the gap because its a subject most people not only are interested in, but are actually a part of. This is what made us what we are. Anyway, carry on.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> well, yes, you blatantly are.  You clearly know fuck all about the period, other than some very basic marxist theory that you can't apply, which is why you are spewing out such vague crap that you, no doubt, think is really sharp and clever.
> 
> Shame, cos you're not _entirely_ wrong, but I'm now guessing that that is purely accidental.  Chill the fuck out


 
fuck off you inane cunt. fuck all about the period? fair enough but from the twat who said 'evidence of slavery would have proved the existence of class in britain', possibly one of the least informative or interesting posts on this whole messageboard, it's a bit rich.

not entirely wrong? oh, thank you. thank you for enlightening me. can you tell me which bits are right and which are wrong? that would be very informative i'm sure. maybe it would be the 'interesting' post that you've been saving up.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

ringo said:


> Apologies if I was a bit short yesterday, was worried about my youngest daughter having surgery today. Despite the occasional toys out of pram moment there's been some interesting and lively debate in this thread. If nothing else it still shows the gulf between academic and field archaeology and the public perception of it. I hope this series progresses a bit more in trying to close the gap because its a subject most people not only are interested in, but are actually a part of. This is what made us what we are. Anyway, carry on.


same here. i hope all goes well with the surgery. i enjoyed the argument and as a result learned about the haisa and tlingit people.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> Chill the fuck out


and why come in after the argument has finished and say that? you monumental twat. i was chilled out til i read your witterings, prick.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

fine, i'll amend my comments.

My comment was at least factually accurate, unlike pretty much all of yours.  You are half remembering some basic marxism from years ago, but are utterly incapable of actually applying it. For Marx slavery was the key factor in the rise of _class_ society, as opposed to merely a stratified one. Someone of your massive intelliegence understands the difference I'm sure.

Personally, I dont entirely agree with Marx, and would place the rise of class in Britain at least two thousand years earlier than that (as I said before), but it is a debatable point.  Not a debate you are capable of taking part in tho, so mired are you in your ignorance and ill-temper.

Grow up, or fuck off and have another wank over a pic of Lindsay German.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> fine, i'll amend my comments.
> 
> My comment was at least factually accurate, unlike pretty much all of yours.  You are half remembering some basic marxism from years ago, but are utterly incapable of actually applying it. For Marx slavery was the key factor in the rise of _class_ society, as opposed to merely a stratified one. Someone of your massive intelliegence understands the difference I'm sure.
> 
> ...


 
lol. righto, you knowall cunt. first off, the marx aspect, i haven't read anything by marx involving this, or engels, so you're wrong. ill temper? that didn't happen til after two in the morning (insomnia isn't the most cheering).




lindsey german? lol! now we get to the crux of it. this is what is behind the attack, isn't it? my identification as a swappy. for your information german, whilst not personally responsible for my expulsion was at least an important part. so you can't even get your sneery insults right. late eighties sheila mcgregor would have been more accurate. 





still saving the interesting post? you bovine twat.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

as another ex-swappy, i'm hardly going to attack you for that.  What I am attacking you for is your ignorance and ill-temper. Both of which were fully in evidence long before 2am.

I note that you still haven't made any comment of substance on the actual topic.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> as another ex-swappy, i'm hardly going to attack you for that.


so why did you? moooooo.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

And your point in calling me a cow is....?

Actually, fuck it.  You're an ignorant pillock, too immature to admit you were just talking shite.  I couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinion (if you ever have one)


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> I note that you still haven't made any comment of substance on the actual topic.


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 (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> And your point in calling me a cow is....?
> 
> Actually, fuck it.  You're an ignorant pillock, too immature to admit you were just talking shite.  I couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinion (if you ever have one)


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 (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> For Marx slavery was the key factor in the rise of _class_ society, as opposed to merely a stratified one. Someone of your massive intelliegence understands the difference I'm sure.
> 
> Personally, I dont entirely agree with Marx, and would place the rise of class in Britain at least two thousand years earlier than that (as I said before), but it is a debatable point.



*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 (Feb 11, 2011)

Have times changed since the ancients slung mud and rocks at each other, do you think


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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.


 
I've made several points regarding the rise of class in Britain. Which is several more than you.  So fuck off.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 11, 2011)

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 (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Prehistorians don't refer to such things as 'class society' - that's a loaded term belonging to classical marxist discourse.
> 
> Prehistorians talk about 'interest groups' instead.


 
well, there we have one significant problem with prehistorians then.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> I've made several points regarding the rise of class in Britain. Which is several more than you.  So fuck off.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> well, there we have one significant problem with prehistorians then.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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.


 
pot/kettle


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Define 'we' please. Why should there be a problem that prehistorians don't apply Marx's critique of capitalist society/economy to prehistory?


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> pot/kettle


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Prehistorians don't refer to such things as 'class society' - that's a loaded term belonging to classical marxist discourse.
> 
> Prehistorians talk about 'interest groups' instead.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

_and_ i got a joke in about john lord/jon lord being the same person. sheesh.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

discokermit said:


> 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.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

moooo


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 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.


 
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.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

so prehistorians _do_ talk about class society then.  And the groups I mentined make it absolutely central (altho the RAG do make gender a central determinant in the rise of class society).  It is still, clearly, a very useful term.  Even to (some) prehistorians.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> No-one's cut Childe out of the picture. Class is only one interest group. Gender is another. Ethnicity is another, and so on.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

Which prehistorians operate in terms of class?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

YOU do that, but that hardly means ALL prehistorians do that.  As shown by the examples given.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> .


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

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.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

sorry, I'll try and remember never to disagree with you again.  What appaling behaviour!

You contradicted yourself and made a grossly exageratted assertion.  All we did was point out your mistake.  What on earth is wrong with that?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

By all means disagree with me. Be sure to give some concrete examples.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 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.


 
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 (Feb 11, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> By all means disagree with me. Be sure to give some concrete examples.


 
?? 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!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 11, 2011)

It's not just a case of 'when', but also 'where'. 
Grand narratives don't necessarily work.

There are important differences from site to site and region to region for much of British prehistory. 
Take two Mesolithic sites at opposite ends of the country as an example: Oronsay (Scotland) and Culverwell (Dorset). These two sites have in common a vast consumption of shellfish and the creation of middens, however there any similarity ends. 

The nature of midden construction was different. At Oronsay, the middens were huge mounds above the ground, with what appears to be hearths/post-holes beneath. Whereas at Culverwell the midden was buried beneath the ground and a limestone floor was built over it and also a limestone slab-lined storage pit. There is also evidence of ritualised behaviour at both sites, again, so different in nature that each interpretation for each of the groups which created these 'archaeological artefacts' needs to be unique and site specific.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2011)

Sure, but I dont know what effect that has upon what I've been saying.

Society became class based in different places at different times.  Of course it did.  No 'grand narrative'?  Well, it will be ioncredibly different to prove one at this distance, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.  What you describe there is a fairly straightforward reaction to a change in material circumstances.  It doesn't in any way _rule out_ a 'grand narrative'


----------



## boohoo (Feb 12, 2011)

Can we have a bunfight filter so that I can just read relevant points?

Anyway I watched, was interesting-ish. Didn't feel like it was telling me anything new - lots of subjects touched upon in different programmes.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 12, 2011)

belboid said:


> I've made several points regarding the rise of class in Britain.


You haven't given any concrete examples of 'class'* in prehistoric Britain.  You've just given a couple of generalised statements without any evidence whatsoever. Saying 'Of course it did' is not acceptable evidence.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> We've given three concrete examples of people/groups concerned with 'prehistory' who are explicitly concerened with class.


As I said, you've given no concrete examples of 'class'* in prehistoric Britain.

*class as defined by Marx, hierarchical power relations within the structure of production; antagonistic relations of domination and exploitation;


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2011)

I haven't said 'of course it did' at any point, don't make things up.  I challenged your contention that prehistorians dont talk about class, because they do, as you were forced to admit.

And, if you'd paid attention, you'd kow I said that I thought class began in Britain no later than the arrival of the beakers.


----------



## Spion (Feb 12, 2011)

belboid said:


> IAnd, if you'd paid attention, you'd kow I said that I thought class began in Britain no later than the arrival of the beakers.


What evidence would you use to back that claim up?

While we can certainly associate farming, livestock rearing, trade and in some cases impressive personal wealth (in grave goods, for eg) with the beaker period, it's difficult to say for certain that the social relations of the time were class ones for certain, proto-class maybe, or maybe just scattered groups of farmers, maybe in tribe/clans/federations. Some do argue that the beaker period and its characteristically smaller burial sites and rituals signals a move to a more individualised view of the living/dead and their wealth than the megalithic period. But don't forget, the so-called beaker folk came after the age of the megaliths, with all the labour and social organisation implied by the great works of that period and who were probably farmers/traders etc as much as the later beaker people. </ open-ended musings>


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

Well, I think most of the prerequisites for a class society were there by the time the megaliths were erected, but the evidence suggests it hadn’t actually taken hold then.  As you note, they were already complex societies, which were already trading in a significant range of goods and materials. There were also self-perpetuating elites (a professional priesthood, hereditary social stratification) and actively defensive structures (indicating frequent conflicts with neighbours).  But there isn’t any evidence then for any of the structures built, neither the big ones like Avebury, nor the (individual) burial sites, being based upon rank, they are all concerned, rather, with ritual.
Not that long after, tho, we get the signs of such ranking becoming more and more important. The burial of high value items (bronze shields & weaponry for example) with high ranking members of those societies.  This would have come with the increase in trade that took place around, which is exemplified by the beakers. Beaker pottery was often buried with the chieftains and priests, but not with the ‘common’ man. In buildings from the early bronze age (eg at Black Patch) we see for the first time buildings occupied by the chieftains being significantly larger than those for the rest of the group. As such we can see the elite separating themselves from the masses, and (at least) begin to form a distinct class in, of and for itself.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2011)

Big house means you can gather everyone indoors for open discussions. Big house fits everyone in, keeps wood-use moderate, keeps everyone warm and is better for telling stories and discussing important group issues of an evening.    
Mrs Head-of-Family-Group and me, we never get any time to ourselves anymore. Sometimes people don't leave until 2 or 3 in the morning, especially the two young men who we haven't found  brides for yet. How I long for those lustier days of our early marriage, when we lived modestly in that little hut in the further-fields *sigh*


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2011)

belboid said:
			
		

> In buildings from the early bronze age (eg at Black Patch) we see for the first time buildings occupied by the chieftains being significantly larger than those for the rest of the group. As such we can see the elite separating themselves from the masses, and (at least) begin to form a distinct class in, of and for itself.


Black Patch is a small-scale Middle-Later Bronze Age settlement (1070 +/-70 to 830 +/1 80 BCE), Earlier interpretation viewed Black Patch as representing the emergence of close-knit extended families (or clans), consisting of a "reasonably self-sufficient, extended family group" with a "relatively autonomous economy", practising agriculture and animal husbandry, supplemented by hunting and gathering of wild foods. The same earlier interpretation suggested all huts were contemporary, with each hut being associated only with a single set of activities. 

This interpretation has since been revised after further examination of artifactual and structural data to reveal two disinct phases of building, both with one single porched dwelling with an ancilliary building, possibly an animal shelter. Another later interpretation also revised the suggestion that it represented a "relatively autonomous economic unit" to functioning within a "large open system of social reproduction".

The site is absolutely typical of other Later Bronze Age dwellings elsewhere in Sussex, and typical of the southeast for the Later Bronze Age in having one major residential hut associated with one or more ancilliary structures (Russell 1996; Drewett 1979, 1982; Barrett and Needham 1988).


There is absolutely no evidence that there was an elite personage living here, separating themselves from the masses. Where did you get your interpretation from, belboid?


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Big house means you can gather everyone indoors for open discussions. Big house fits everyone in, keeps wood-use moderate, keeps everyone warm and is better for telling stories and discussing important group issues of an evening.
> Mrs Head-of-Family-Group and me, we never get any time to ourselves anymore. Sometimes people don't leave until 2 or 3 in the morning, especially the two young men who we haven't found  brides for yet. How I long for those lustier days of our early marriage, when we lived modestly in that little hut in the further-fields *sigh*


 
what a nice 'Just So' story


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

Did you get the pms too?


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Black Patch is a small-scale Middle-Later Bronze Age settlement (1070 +/-70 to 830 +/1 80 BCE) and is thought to represent the emergence of close-knit extended families (or clans). It was interpreted to represent a "reasonably self-sufficient, extended family group" with a "relatively autonomous economy", practising agriculture and animal husbandry, supplemented by hunting and gathering of wild foods. Early interpretation suggested all hut phases were contemporary with each hut being associated only with a single set of activities. This interpretation (typical for so much of the structural-marxist interpretations of the late 1970s and early 1980s) has since been questioned and further examination of artifactual and structural data reveals two disinct phases of building. What we actually have there is one single porched dwelling with an ancilliary building, possibly an animal shelter. The site is absolutely typical of other Later Bronze Age dwellings elsewhere in Sussex, and typical of the southeast for the Later Bronze Age in having one major residential hut associated with one or more ancilliary structures. There is absolutely no evidence that there was an elite personage living here, separating themselves from the masses (Russell 1996; Drewett 1979; 1982)


 
that seems at least 500 years later than I thought it was meant to have been, I'll have to go check why I thought it was for the elite, but I'm sure I read it somewhere (tho whatever I read could well have been superceded by later research)


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you get the pms too?


 
dang!  sadly not


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you get the pms too?


Neither did you. Probably something to do with the fact that you weren't sent any.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Neither did you. Probably something to do with the fact that you weren't sent any.


 
Oh i've had my hectoring aggressive pms off you, don't worry. How many did you send to various posters on this thread?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2011)

belboid said:


> invisibleplanet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm interested (from an academic pov) to know where you read that too. 
From the perspective of trying to understand all the interpretations made for Black Patch.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Did you get the pms too?


 
i got a very reasonable one off ip. i got a few more off daisy belboid which were just cuntish and patronising though. i think it was just after milking though so her teats might have been a bit sore.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2011)

*wags finger at bellers"

You've let us all down mate.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> *wags finger at bellers"


no need. cows moo. it's to be expected.


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

good of you to keep up your ignorant sexism.

what a comrade!


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

mooooo.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

and i'm not your comrade, cunt.


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2011)

of course not, your sexism rules you out on that score.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

sexism? because you are bovine? how does that work?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2011)

considering cows and bulls are markedly different, if i had called your posting style 'bull like' it would have been innaccurate. you cud chewing idiot.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 14, 2011)

Could you two please call a truce? Please!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2011)

Watched it tonight.. 

Quite enjoyed it.

I do think he makes more assumptions than an economist though. 

Some of the theories he comes up with there is no evidence, at least none shown in the progam to support.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 16, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Watched it tonight..
> 
> Quite enjoyed it.
> 
> ...


 
Which theories are those?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Which theories are those?


 
Loads .. 

When he was in longbarrow in Wilts he said the neolithics buried their dead there en masse as if to make a shrine which they would reverentially visit to commune with the dead ancestors - bollocks, he has no clue that they did that or something completely different. 

He kept on making claims like that which could not be backed up by known facts. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the program, I just think he didn't need to flesh out more than was actually known.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2011)

Another, when in Ireland with the man who was locating walls in the peat. 

He and a helper dug down to the top of a wall that the man had located and Oliver said touching the stone with his hand, "the last hands to touch this stone touched it 5,000 years ago - just imagine that" there was no way that he could support that if he had thought about it. I would have taken 2,000 years for the peat to start to cover the wall and all sorts of people could have touched and played on the wall in the meantime. Perhaps 2,000 years it may have been totally under the peat but his claim was simply too uber!! too uber for me anyhow


----------



## ringo (Feb 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Loads ..
> 
> When he was in longbarrow in Wilts he said the neolithics buried their dead there en masse as if to make a shrine which they would reverentially visit to commune with the dead ancestors - bollocks, he has no clue that they did that or something completely different.
> 
> He kept on making claims like that which could not be backed up by known facts. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the program, I just think he didn't need to flesh out more than was actually known.


 
I see what you mean but West Kennet Long Barrow is very famous, he just didn't explain some things that are so well known that to go though all the evidence again would have precluded talking about the more interesting stuff. Something like 45 separate skeletons/partial remains were recovered from the barrow over 100 years ago, archaeologists have had a long time to think about it.

The most difficult aspect of the programme is getting the balance right between repeatedly presenting the same hard evidence and giving current interpretations of it. Some assumption has to be made that viewers will appreciate that this is based on factual evidence and good thinking.


----------



## ringo (Feb 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Another, when in Ireland with the man who was locating walls in the peat.
> 
> He and a helper dug down to the top of a wall that the man had located and Oliver said touching the stone with his hand, "the last hands to touch this stone touched it 5,000 years ago - just imagine that" there was no way that he could support that if he had thought about it. I would have taken 2,000 years for the peat to start to cover the wall and all sorts of people could have touched and played on the wall in the meantime. Perhaps 2,000 years it may have been totally under the peat but his claim was simply too uber!! too uber for me anyhow


 
You're spot on with that, but it's just a common device used to try and get the viewer to feel some kind of connection or intimacy with the person who made the wall in the past, not an attempt to fool anyone. Yes it would have stood for a long time before being covered, but really, did someone touch all 100 kilometres of wall again after it was built? I doubt it, it's not that much of a fib is it?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 17, 2011)

ringo said:


> it's not that much of a fib is it?


 
Thing is ringo for me it was more a question of the use of words. If he had said "possibly the last hands to touch this wall touched it 5,000 years ago" I would have absolutely no complaint. 

And in the case of the long barrow, he could also have used "just imagine if.. " or "maybe.. this or that .. " words that suggest just a slight level of uncertainty. 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the program, it was just that on a couple of occassions I found myself saying - that is a claim too far - or - he cannot be certain of that ...


----------



## ringo (Feb 17, 2011)

Fair enough, for the most part it's an issue with Oliver rather than archaeological interpretations, and one I share to a degree. I guess its difficult to convey excitement and drama in the subject without getting carried away. Oliver lets his ego take over a bit too much when he's in TV land, and for my liking uses the word "I" a bit too much. What that does tell us though is that it's his opinion, which is fair enough, that's what he's being paid for. It worked for Clarke when he made Civilisation 40 years ago and presenters are still using that winning formula.

Like I mentioned at the start of this thread, until archaeologists work out how to put across theory without painstakingly explaining the minutiae of the research and thought process behind it people will always question the validity of those theories. Most viewers are just not willing to take this stuff at face value yet, a shame because those of us who have studied it love it. I remember Mike Parker-Pearson, one of our most important Bronze Age experts, telling me about the absolute revelation Frances Pryor, Fenland expert, had when he finally began to accept theory and apply it to his field work. It's the archaeological equivalent of a "Road to Damascus" moment.


----------



## Spion (Feb 17, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When he was in longbarrow in Wilts he said the neolithics buried their dead there en masse as if to make a shrine which they would reverentially visit to commune with the dead ancestors - bollocks, he has no clue that they did that or something completely different.


He stated that the barrows weren't sealed and that you *could* enter them so we need to presume that that statement is based on evidence from a  number of these barrows across Europe and the behaviour surrounding them (eg, the movement/ sorting of bones). And given the fact that these structures are quite literally places of the ancestors, built as such with great effort, it's not unreasonable to assume the meaning for those people who entered them. Think also of contemporary hangovers of this type of behaviour, such as the Day of the Dead in Mexico.

I do agree with the thrust of your point tho; him holding a skull and talking about that person's bravery was quite inane


----------



## discokermit (Feb 17, 2011)

i thought the programme was much better than last week. the bloke is still a bit annoying though.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 17, 2011)

Episode 2 -  The change from hunter-gathering to farming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ysr2l/A_History_of_Ancient_Britain_Series_1_Episode_2/


----------



## discokermit (Feb 18, 2011)

why the fuck they had to hire a helicopter to film him flying around in another helicopter, i don't know.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 18, 2011)

discokermit said:


> why the fuck they had to hire a helicopter to film him flying around in another helicopter, i don't know.


 
Yes, I wondered about that .. !!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 22, 2011)

News update from the Upper Palaeolithic, in an ancient Britain of 150 centuries ago, 

Interpretations sublime ...


> Human skull caps found at Upper Palaeolithic site of Gough's Cave were used as drinking vessels:
> Three skull-cups have been identified amongst the human bones from Gough's Cave. New ultrafiltered radiocarbon determinations provide direct dates of about 14,700 cal BP, making these the oldest directly dated skull-cups and the only examples known from the British Isles.
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017026


to ridiculous 


> Archeologists uncover ancient responsible drinking posters
> SCIENTISTS have found the earliest example of sour-faced meddling in a 15,000 year-old pub in Cheddar.
> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...nt-responsible-drinking-posters-201102183557/


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 22, 2011)

discokermit said:


> why the fuck they had to hire a helicopter to film him flying around in another helicopter, i don't know.


 
possibly they need two choppers to  carry  him and all the crew


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 24, 2011)

Episode 3: Age of Cosmology
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...of_Ancient_Britain_Series_1_Age_of_Cosmology/


----------



## ringo (Feb 24, 2011)

I really enjoyed that. I went up to those flint mines in Cumbria with Mark Edmonds when I was a student, amazing stuff. Must make it to Newgrange and Knowth one day.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> I really enjoyed that. I went up to those flint mines in Cumbria with Mark Edmonds when I was a student, amazing stuff. Must make it to Newgrange and Knowth one day.


Yes, that was more like it! 

I'm intending to see Newgrange and Knowth at the end of April/beg May after I've been to a conference on Climate Change in Prehistory.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


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


 
Thats as may be, but modern evidence suggests we co existed for ages. You've no doubt met a man with a big beard, massive shoulders and a fearsome brow ridge before. Inter species nookie, I recon.


----------



## Spion (Feb 24, 2011)

ringo said:


> I really enjoyed that. I went up to those *flint *mines in Cumbria


*cough*


----------



## ringo (Feb 24, 2011)

Spion said:


> *cough*


 
Hmmm?


----------



## Spion (Feb 24, 2011)

They weren't flint mines were they?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 24, 2011)

That's correct, Spion. The Great Langdale axes were made from a volcanic greenstone called 'tuff', found in the late Ordovician (450 million years ago) Borrowdale volcanic series. Outcrops are found throughout the Langdale Pikes and other nearby locations in Cumbria.


----------



## ringo (Feb 24, 2011)

Spion said:


> *cough*


 
Oh I see, yup. We took Mr Edmonds by surprise by getting so hammered he had to introduce a rule that nobody who had had more than two pipes was allowed onto the high ledges where the stone was mined. I'm not surprised some of the facts escaped me


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 24, 2011)

discokermit said:


> why the fuck they had to hire a helicopter to film him flying around in another helicopter, i don't know.


The helicopters are needed so the camera can home in on Neil Oliver from afar as he stands atop a crag, with on foot on a rock, hair flapping in the wind, looking enigmatic and er, craggy.




I can stand on a chair doing a reasonable impersonation of him looking craggy atop a crag. Well, the family like it, anyway.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 24, 2011)

Great programme. I'm continually learning stuff from it. My GCE History is seeming ever more flimsy.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> The helicopters are needed so the camera can home in on Neil Oliver from afar as he stands atop a crag, with on foot on a rock, hair flapping in the wind, looking enigmatic and er, craggy.


 that's shot is such a massive cliche.


----------



## Spion (Feb 25, 2011)

I know, why do they bother with all the dramatic scenery photography? People would just as soon suck up the information if delivered by Discokermit sitting in a cafe in Bilston or Mrs Magpie in her old woolly socks perched on a pouffe in the living room.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, sadly, they need to sell it worldwide, so me in my socks would not cut the mustard.


----------



## boohoo (Feb 25, 2011)

Am enjoying what I have seen of this - I'm only up to half way through the second episode. Didn't realise Coldrum was that old or Carnac for that matter. Carnac is on my list of places to see. When I had a boyfriend who could drive, we visited a lot of ancient monuments! I get very excited about old stone or old wood. Is the Bronze Age centre still open at Flag Fen?


----------



## Spion (Feb 25, 2011)

Looks like it http://www.flagfen.com/


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 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.



If you do have any evidence, since there's one book of his that I haven't read yet, that Childe as a prehistorian operated in terms of class (your words), then I'd be glad to see that evidence. Ball's in your court, butchersapron. If you have proof, please do share it. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------​
The work of Vere Gordon Childe, despite it's historical importance and also for Childe's then unique ability to synthesise prehistoric archaeological data with archaeological interpretation, is severely dated. There seems little point in bringing him up today, apart from out of historical curiosity. For all the greatness of his work in his own time, no prehistorian today is blind to his deficiencies, and it's worth pointing out that interpretation has moved on in leaps and bounds since his heyday. 

For example, no-one talks about savages or primitives anymore. Childe misunderstood the nature of the pre-capitalist prehistoric world and the relationships created by trade in 'display' goods (body adornments, highly polished tools which never saw use). His interepretation of the Neolithic isn't worth mentioning except from a history of archaeological thought point of view. He had a serious blindspot where religion/ritual and gender were concerned, and neglected its social importance. One of my favourite examples of his gender blindspot is his interpretation of the Neolithic houses with stone furniture at Skara Brae, in Orkney: Childe designates the large bed to the man, and the small bed to the woman - a common sleeping arrangement in his day amongst his class. He failed to imagine men and women sleeping in a bed together or any children in the smaller bed. 

Childe made many theoretical models, but none of them actually work until the very late Bronze Age/early Iron Age (c. 800BCE onwards). Childe couldn't be classed as marxist purist either. Childe disagreed strongly with the marxist archaeologists of the Soviet Union and they with him. He used the term 'revolution' in a technological, rather than a 'class' sense. I've read all but one of his books, and in the books I've read, class and class struggle don't get a mention. 

Childe was an archaeologist first and foremost. Whilst his political views did affect his writings, it would be difficult to claim that he was affected to the extent that his work could be seen to have an overtly marxist bias. Seriously, if it's marxist archaeology you want, then read the Soviet archaeologists. They're the only ones who've practiced what could be termed 'marxist archaeology'. 

And whilst there have been moments of neo-marxist theory applied to archeological interpretation, there are few (if any) archaeologists living today who rely on only one theoretical viewpoint to assess and interpret archaeological data.


----------



## invisibleplanet (May 6, 2011)

Moving on, I don't know if anyone caught the follow up to A History of Ancient Britain - A History of Celtic Britain: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010bg26 ?

Unfortunately it's now gone from iPlayer (bring it back!). My mum enjoyed it, but I'm afraid it was a bit of a busman's holiday for me, and I had a few theoretical quibbles with each programme  However, other than the perennial problem of 'two archaeologists, three opinions' (which inevitably occurs whenever there's an assemblage of archaeologists), I found both series very good overall


----------



## ringo (May 7, 2011)

Yep, it was OK, although the use of clips from the first series made it seem a bit half hearted. That said it was nice to catch up some of the finds/sites/theories which have come up since I was a digger.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jun 5, 2011)

Someone must have heard my request! It's back on BBC One at silly o'clock in the morning with audio describing/signing, and also available on iplayer until 2:39AM Mon, 27 Jun 2011: 

Watch: A History of Ancient Britain Series 1 - 1. Age of Ice

I particularly love this programme, because it shows our only cave art, which includes an ibis, discovered in 2003 at Creswell Crags - Church Hole Cave. Portable engraved artefacts have also been found at the complex of caves at Creswell Crags, including: an engraving of a man, made on the rib bone from a woolly rhinoceros, and; a horse, also engraved on a rib bone (http://www.creswell-crags.org.uk/explore/exhibition-objects/Topics/Crafts-Arts-And-Decoration).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 2, 2011)

For goldenecitrone re. coexistence of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans (and anyone else who's interested), there's a good programme on now extinct hominid species and early modern humans on the Beeb at the moment, which presents all current thought:

BBC: Planet of the Apemen: Battle for Earth - 2. Neanderthal


----------



## ringo (Jul 2, 2011)

I don't usually go for prehistoric dramatisations but this was quite watchable, and the rest was pretty good too.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jul 2, 2011)

ringo said:


> I don't usually go for prehistoric dramatisations but this was quite watchable, and the rest was pretty good too.



It was watchable, and I don't normally enjoy prehistoric dramatisations either. I was a tad disappointed that the Neanderthal Man and the Early Modern Human (EMH) Woman didn't get together - they seemed to have some kind of fight or fuck thing going on between them until the other EMHs broke it up


----------



## ringo (Jul 5, 2011)

Yeah, bit of homebrew and it would have all been going on 

Probably would have confused the narrative a bit though, not to mention caused havoc with the prime time BBC scheduling.


----------

