posted
have greater manufacturing technologies than Southern ones?
I'm thinking of stuff I saw on the History Channel on Medieval China and how freakin advanced it was.
I'm currently thinking of Northern cultures like China which had some pretty intricate and ingenius schemes for mass producing, but any and all others count, such as Rome, and all times up to the Industrial Revolution.
So my question is did they generally out do more Southern cultures in manufacturing technology?
If so why? I'm thinking more liveable areas reached satisfactory levels of advancement sooner and progress moved Northwardly in general (think of Greece and its paradise-like climate, and think of its directional influence: Greco-Roman-Western).s
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
while I'm on the medieval -ish era (C.E. to the pre- early modern) if anyone knows of threads on achievements (like medical, astrological for instance) of places like Carthage, Kilwa, Kanem Bornu, and Wagadou/Mali/Songhai, it'd be appreciated.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: [QB] Historically speaking: did Northern cultures have greater manufacturing capabilities than Southern ones?
What do you mean by more "capable"? You need to rephrase this, capability is an intrinsic property unless you're referring to some sort of environmental determinism, in which case Diamond has been discussed ad naseum on these forums. Chinese does not equate "North" either, their acheivements should not be extrapolated to some abstract concept of "North" ("north" of what line?).
^The problem I'm starting to have with the anthropology school is reflected in this post. You don't consider contingency at all, you are looking for some kind of law or "process" that would explain these differences, where no such processes/laws can be demonstrated. Why can it not be assumed that the Chinese were able to accomplish what they did in technology manufacture due to the unique nature of their history, which was different from that of Tibet's, different from Cambodia's, different from Japan's? Why do you need an explanation rooted in some kind of environmental or biological determinism?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
People see patterns and trends in stuff, and patterns exist.
Like how Arab travellers compared the bathing habits of those living in the mediterranean region and those living to the North in a harder colder climate -- which happens to correspond with what a Chinese female author noted about the differences between a far Northern tribe and a people from the South where the former bathed twice a year and held a ritual for it and while the latter bathed every day to no schedule, including for fun (context was comparing Western and Chinese odors which she said both varied).
I know that Mali was different from Benin historically, as was China from Tibet, and that there are things independent from North-South influencing these.
And, i'm normally one of the first critical eyes there are on sweeping generalizations, I'm just asking now about one (the environmental trend obviously).
And i meant all inclusive so you can use any timeframe and any civilizations you want (like Greece vs. Rome, etc.), though admittedly I was thinking around 30 the degrees North lattitudinal line which splits right through China. Hell maybe even the 20.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
They knew about wheels back in the Old Kingdom but they didn't use them.
The enviroment of Egypt made the use of wheels unnessesary. Unlike other cultures Egypt relied heavily on their River and dug elaborate Canals for transportation. Wheeled vehicles were used byt not important to the Nile Valley populations.
^^^ You can clearly see that wheels were used even by the Nobles of Kush.
Although Egyptians produced great architecture, they were relatively resistant to innovations in and engineering technology.
You base this on what??
1) The Egyptians were the first to build Monumental Architecture out of Dressed stone nut Mud Brick or Rocks piled ontop each other like in Eurasia.
2) The Egyptians were the first to construct freestanding Columns, many of which are so reminicint of the first Greek "Doric" Style thye have been dubbed "Proto-Doric". Of course the Eurocentric establishment can not accept the Greeks borrowing the Doric style from Egypt. Greece must must be Pure European, while anything African must need the help of Wandering Caucasians and Eurasians.
3) The Egyptians style evolved many times during it history, fromMastabas to Pyramids, from Rock Cut Tombs called Speos(A Style developed by A Group Nubians) to the Temple of Abu Simbel.
(The Egyptians were late in taking to the use of wheeled chariots, too, it took conquest by the Hyksos to convince them of their utility).
The Egyptians unlike Barbaric eurasians enjoyed long periods of peace. There is no reason to use Wheeled Chariots if you are not at War with anyone. The Egyptians obviously knew of Chariots as they were crucial in their defeat of the Hyksos. How can the Hyksos who are supposed to be such Innovative people Rule the Egyptians who were so primitive for such a short period and suffer such a humilating defeat not only in the Nile Valley but their homeland of the Levant.
This idea the the Hyksos were superior who dropped superior culture on Egypt is Eurocentric Jewish Apologetic Hog wash. The Hyksos not only Choose Egypt to settle but adopted the Egyptians Writing, Customs, Artistic Style, Dressing, and even the Gods of Egypt. Also this fact that the Egyptians severly decimated the Hyksos not only in Egypt but the Levant as well flies in the face of this theory. How can the Hyksos be so Innovative but suffer such a defeat?? LOL,Where is this superior Hyskos Kingdom contemporary with Old Kingdom Egypt..??
What the Egyptians built was obviously fantastic in terms of vision and precision. The point is they relied on manpower and relatively simple, labour-intensive construction techniques based on ramps, sledges, ropes and maybe the odd lever. They didn't go in for wheels and winches and pulleys and the like. This was not their way of getting things done:
This was:
'It works; why find a better way?' That was the Egyptian outlook.
Chariots gave the Hyksos a major military advantage, and the Egyptians only drove them out after they had got hold of chariots of their own (as I'm glad they did). After that the chariot remained a crucial piece of military kit, as well as a vehicle used in hunting and as a status symbol. As far as I know Egyptians did not develop saddle-mounted cavalry, and they appear not to have ridden camels, either, until the late period. Donkeys were the beasts of burden of choice.
I don't want to get into a cultural pissing-contest because this tread is about Egyptian conservatism. The fact is that generally when they established a formula, they stuck to it.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Rahotep:
quote:
To be fair to them in this respect, major advanced cultures like Greece and Rome came on late in the game compared to Ancient Egyptians' 4,000 year old civilization.
And you've posted a medieval picture, at least according to its link.
So (with that pic) you're comparing something from the dawn of history (written history) to something basically pre- pre-modern.
quote:I know that Mali was different from Benin historically, as was China from Tibet, and that there are things independent from North-South influencing these.
And, i'm normally one of the first critical eyes there are on sweeping generalizations, I'm just asking now about one (the environmental trend obviously).
And i meant all inclusive so you can use any timeframe and any civilizations you want (like Greece vs. Rome, etc.), though admittedly I was thinking around 30 the degrees North lattitudinal line which splits right through China. Hell maybe even the 20.
^You'd have to elaborate more on your theory then. I don't see a trend, I see scattered pockets of civilization coincident with some minor diffusion radiating from various cultural centers (though of course the first appropriate step would be to seek or eliminate explanations outside of cultural diffusion).
I'm trying to understand the gist of your question and what you are basing the assumption behind it on other than Chinese ingenuity nor what this would be at the expense of concerning the south. I think my confusion lies in that you start the thread with an assumption that China or Rome can be equated with the "North" but do not address the the broad swath of the other polities within that geographic range, hence, what about the ancient inhabitants of Ireland, Mongolia, southern Canada? How do they fit into this? Even internally/"inclusively", your hypothesis is confusing. What micro-processes would be at work here?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:People see patterns and trends in stuff, and patterns exist.
I disagree, as do most historians. This is a legacy or neo-evolutionary anthropology, not history and you seem to be discussing history. Well this isn't proper historiography. More here:
quote:Like how Arab travellers compared the bathing habits of those living in the mediterranean region and those living to the North in a harder colder climate -- which happens to correspond with what a Chinese female author noted about the differences between a far Northern tribe and a people from the South where the former bathed twice a year and held a ritual for it and while the latter bathed every day to no schedule, including for fun (context was comparing Western and Chinese odors which she said both varied).
The Arabs/Islamic writers don't support your theory. Indeed, they considered the Northern and Southern climes as barbaric and the temperate climes as "just right". Same with the Greeks to a certain extent, even though they associated more intellectual (not necessarily technological) development with the south. Your theory unfortunately is more like Rushton's explanation of civilization and I understand that this is inadvertently so as you are simply trying to understand what you claim to be a pattern through some seemingly novel hypothesis. The thing is, you need to FIRST establish the pattern you are talking about as you haven't met that burden to even begin to delve into theory or a possible explanation. As of now there seems to be nothing that requires much explanation. It's like asking why you wore a blue shirt today instead of a red one.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should have phrased it a bit differently:
did northern cultures that produced civilizations generally have ones more manufacturing-inclined?
quote:The Arabs/Islamic writers don't support your theory. Indeed, they considered the Northern and Southern climes as barbaric and the temperate climes as "just right".
Dude, what I wrote above was just an example of people looking at a trend, not a theory of mine, and not tied to the technological theme of this thread.
This thread is about industry, and by the way I rephrased my initial sentence substituting "tech" for "capacity".
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^There's still no way to get around the fact that you are generalizing and not being very specific. Maybe you can provide some detailed comparative examples outside of China? From your OP:
quote:I'm thinking more liveable areas reached satisfactory levels of advancement sooner and progress moved Northwardly in general (think of Greece and its paradise-like climate, and think of its directional influence: Greco-Roman-Western).s
What do you mean by "progress"?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatbox, Your characterization of "northern" is ideological. If you want to be relatively technical about it, anything above the equator is in the northern hemisphere and anything below it, is in the southern hemisphere.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does technology = "progress"? What are we progressing to? No offense, but you sound awfully Eurocentric right now. Conversely, one can argue then, that the people who do not hold similar technologies are not progressing and are by comparison, "backwards". The exact term used by many colonial anthropologists.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox:
I mean cooler
Did you know that you are now repeating almost exactly Phillipe Rushton et al. biological determinism argument? In short, he argues that early populations who traveled north, experienced harsher and less predictable environments and thus, had to adapt by thinking and growing larger brains. This is crack pot talk. We need to talk more about historical contingency here as opposed to "progress", which is an idea rooted in racism and teleology.
See: "Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century" (2006) by Scott Maceachern, and also the link to the article by Jan Vansina that I've already posted for more.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
You asked me what I meant by progress to which I replied "technological advancement", in other words technological progress is what I meant by progress. Progress technologically.
This thread isn't a general "who had the better civilization thread", but a who was more industrialized thread.
Sundjata You're being too defensive.
I'm well aware about the quack science you mention above, t's been discussed here buku-zillion times before; so thanks for the 411 but there is no reason to invoke it into this thread. Just because I mention "North vs South" doesn't mean we have to get into reactionary PC mode instead of being pro-active.
I recall a study being mentioned by a teacher saying Americans who went South to go to college were in general less successful than those going North. All agree this is a "well-duh" statistic (think beaches vs. snowmen) but my point is we don't need to invoke the likes of Rushton where he isn't mentioned.
Another less emotionally and politically charged analogy (to the South-North -environ thing) would be the pattern of poor urban cultures often producing great prize fighters because growing up is rough there and the sub-urban environment kids can more easily sit around getting soft and pudgy. (This isn't a South North thing, but analogous in that it doesn't have to be interpreted eugenicstically unless one chooses to do that)
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being aware of the synonymous relationship between "advancement" and "progress", I intentionally left the word out since usually one doesn't define words with synonyms, you reason out what the concept actually means to you.
I am in no way being "defensive". Read the Vansina article and you'll completely understand what I'm trying to convey.
Also, you can't decouple this from Rushton's ideas by sugarcoating. The universal law will still apply, hence:
quote:Another less emotionally and politically charged analogy would be the pattern of poor urban cultures often producing great prize fighters because growing up is rough there and the rest of the kids can more easily sit around getting soft and pudgy.
^Extravagant extrapolation and still no different from Rushton. He'd say Africans had all of the resources they needed and thus, didn't have to work or think to survive.
Key terms:
* Teleology
* Contingency
* Progress
^We need to put all of these into context before entertaining such a thing and how it applies to technology manufacture within the context of complex societies.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Still ideological. You can make the case that there are cooler and temperate climates in the sub-tropical regions south of the equator. Then what?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Then I'm fine -- that's what it now is, instead of North vs. South. Now it's regardless of lattitude. Ok, i'm past it. --> Nothing to contribute? Fine, I'm past this too.
@Sunj:
I recall the Diamond discussions, where do you find me claiming anyone civilization incompetent (or less competent)?
No where.
This thread is about the need for mass manufacturing in regions with different climates -- that is all. It is like discussing the demand for heavy winter attire in different climates -- call that teleology.
This is purely historical -- i'm only looking for info about how industrialized some states might have been with respect to others.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The heavy winter attire analogy is not a fair one. "Civilization" is not analogous to "winter attire".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^^ Then I'm fine -- that's what it now is, instead of North vs. South. Now it's regardless of lattitude. Ok, i'm past it. --> Nothing to contribute? Fine, I'm past this too.
You are getting emotional. Of course, I'm contributing. Your terms have to be clarified and your thesis has to have direction for the discussion to proceed onto a logical conclusion. You may not realize it, but my pressings are aimed at pushing your topic towards that direction -- a logical conclusion.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get it. You don't wear "civilization" as though it were a clothing. "Civilization" is not a protective blanket that one can wear against winter and then just drop it in the summer, like you do with winter attire. Frankly, the connection is just plainly ridiculous.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Ok whatbox. I'm glad that you clarified your "winter attire" thing, and that it did not turn out to be what I thought it was. Now, getting back on course. You do realize that the theme of your topic has changed from the northerners having more advanced economies vs. the less advanced southerners. And this is thanks to the pressings you been put under.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The Northerners thing was probably an emphasis mainly on the Northern hemisphere due to the fact it houses a lot more cold climate cultures, probably more cultures in general, people, and inhabitable surface area in general than the Southern hemisphere which is why I ignored it.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, what I got from your original post, was the caricaturization of "northern" as one piece of the northern hemisphere--the cut off limit which you alone determined, vs. "southerners", supposedly as the remainder of the northern hemisphere, along with the southern hemisphere. Is this a fair assessment of the OP?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not convinced that you quite understood what I was saying. This is how I interpret your original post:
You were only calling territories 30 degrees or higher in the north as belonging to "northern cultures", while pitting them against other territories in the northern hemisphere, which you lumped into the "southern cultures" camp, along with territories in the southern hemisphere.
This original premise is what was questioned, and you seem to have veered from it, upon being questioned. This is what I'm saying.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Historically speaking: did Northern cultures have greater manufacturing technologies than Southern ones?
I'm thinking of stuff I saw on the History Channel on Medieval China and how freakin advanced it was.
I'm currently thinking of Northern cultures like China which had some pretty intricate and ingenious schemes for mass producing, but any and all others count, such as Rome, and all times up to the Industrial Revolution.
So my question is did they generally out do more Southern cultures in manufacturing technology?
If so why? I'm thinking more liveable areas reached satisfactory levels of advancement sooner and progress moved Northwardly in general (think of Greece and its paradise-like climate, and think of its directional influence: Greco-Roman-Western).s
You need to detail which specific types of manufacturing you are talking about.
Certain technologies are developed in multiple climates. Other technologies are developed relative to specific environmental conditions.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Will be back with somethin, if I come back.
Questions can be understood, but instead of racial polemics and posturing I prefer having a spine and just answering the damn question. Again, questions are understood, and even question deriding like and especially when a question contains a tautology / is rhetorical and especially if based on a faulty premise like: "Why did Kush never conquer Kemet?".
However, a newbie asking whether or not it ever did should be welcomed by a straight f*cking answer *before* people insinuate racial invectives into a thread from out of their own mind.
********************************************
That said, looking back I can see how the discovering and establishing of a general rule might lead to bias, which blinds, and there are already enough dying bias relics from the dinosaur ages of archaeology and other characters. This still does not negate trends from possibly existing and Sundjata's concievably "egalitarian" and perhaps multiculturallist view of a general "spread from middle" of all things can be just as plaguing with a bias effect as can anything else be: we ES members should be well acquainted with the likes of "medicentrists by now".
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
but what I saw on China on some program was some thing involving food processing I think. It might have even been automaton or self running. The program in general featured mostly weapons / war stuff, and I think was on the History Channel.
This still does not negate trends from possibly existing and Sundjata's concievably "egalitarian" and perhaps multiculturallist view of a general "spread from middle" of all things can be just as plaguing with a bias effect as can anything else be: we ES members should be well acquainted with the likes of "medicentrists by now".
You totally botched whatever it is I was trying to explain to you and this is likely because you didn't bother to check the references I cited and linked to. Speaking of false rhetorical "tautology", I'd not once used the word "egalitarian" nor anything synonymous to the term, nor did I speak of any diffisuion "from the middle" (middle of what? You paraphrase me horribly here). My main emphasis was contingency with perhaps possible diffusion to surrounding areas from some dominant cultural center (empires, kingdoms, parent cultures, etc). Also, since neither of these contituted any part of the big picture that I wanted to demonstrate, as Explorer has pointed out it seems that you simply DON'T understand the criticisms being leveled against you. Which is OK, just please don't cop-out by making it seem as if it's due to any folly or seemingly naive assumption on my part. Defend your position with out distorting others'. I haven't even given you my position as the entire time I was simply trying to dissect yours, which was and IS still very much confusing.
For the record, my position is that environment plays background to human ingenuity and historical contingency trumps predictive models, which goes against your premise, hence my objection to it.
^If I am to be misrepresented, please respectfully leave me out of the discussion.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [QB] You totally botched whatever it is I was trying to explain to you[qb]
Really? Whereso? Unless you mean:
quote:Speaking of false rhetorical "tautology", I'd not once used the word "egalitarian" nor anything synonymous to the term, nor did I speak of any diffisuion "from the middle" (middle of what? You paraphrase me horribly here).
I never said you did, I said "perhaps" and "concievably", though now looking back it looks like the only thing you did to give me that idea was reference Muslim writers for some reason or other, not warranting my attribution of a "middle of the road" view to you. My mistake, guess the information from a coupla days ago got jumbled with what you said.
quote:Also, since neither of these contituted any part of the big picture that I wanted to demonstrate, as Explorer has pointed out it seems that you simply DON'T understand the criticisms being leveled against you.
Anyone who follows - with an iota of a brain - the postings of he and I will get what he said which is that the defining line changed from ~North of 30 degrees North of the equator~ to ~anywhere more than 30 degrees from the equator North of South. He basically asked if I understood that it did. I said I did and explained why I had left out the Southern hem in the 1st place:
^There's not much 30+ in the Southern hemisphere and likely like maybe one "major civilization" if that -- when I add this I am explaining the reasoning behind only mentioning 30+ North of the equator, not disagreeing with Explorer (heaven forbid).
quote:I haven't even given you my position as the entire time I was simply trying to dissect yours, which was and IS still very much confusing.
If you can't get that then we'll use the tropics line. Name complex machinery originating in civilizations in or straddling the tropics. Complex machinery defined as a machine made up of several machine (simple of compound).
quote:For the record, my position is that environment plays background to human ingenuity
That's cool, though I would say it is arguable to say environment always plays the background --at times it plays the foreground too. Climatic and geological shifts may have had much to do with the Neolithic Rev. and speciation of the HSS species, for instance.
quote:and historical contingency trumps predictive models, which goes against your premise, hence my objection to it.
My question had no premise, it was just a question. I guess your answer is a "no" then. Thanks.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
That's cool, though I would say it is arguable to say environment always plays the background --at times it plays the foreground too.
The bold is what I've been able to identify as your premise (although somewhat modified), in the form of a question/proposition. You even use "evidence" in the form of "trends" to support this premise. As stated, not only has there been no presentation of environmentally/climatologically influenced trends, but there's been nothing here to demonstrate where environment plays the foreground with respect to human ingenuity.
My answer is no by default since you haven't presented a systematic presentation of your question (it's hard to know then, what you are even asking). Your north of 30 degrees latitude is arbitrary and still doesn't address anything specific, namely on a case by case and comparative basis with those below 30 degrees.
Not trying to give you a hard time, just felt like being persistent on this one to provoke critical engagement.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You even use "evidence" in the form of "trends" to support this premise. As stated, not only has there been no presentation of environmentally/climatologically influenced trends, but there's been nothing here to demonstrate where environment plays the foreground with respect to human ingenuity.
You're right about the fact that I've so far provided no examples of specific evidence for this as of yet but am drawing this idea from a collage of evidence along with what appeared to have possibly been a hypothesis but may have been a factual recounting of the history in a specific region - that region being somewhere around mainland Asia / East Asia.
Also, just so my position is not misrepresented, obviously we're talking about situations in which folks have even a chance at survival, and not placing them on the sun or in outer space -- so when i said "not always in the background" i did not mean to imply swapping human ingenuity into the background, but having both play in the foreground.
For instance, do you reject the notion that the Sahara's emergence i.e. desertification plus the Nile river's existence fueled the development of the (Pharaohnic) civilization's (Kemet's) occurrence there as opposed to in the middle of the Sahara?
By the way, as I'm sure you know, a premise is an assumption a question is based on, not a possible answer to a Nay or Yay question.
When I say that trends exist in the world I merely am putting just that, that patterns do exist and they help us unveil phenomenon.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, just so my position is not misrepresented, obviously we're talking about situations in which folks have even a chance at survival, and not placing them on the sun or in outer space -- so when i said "not always in the background" i did not mean to imply swapping human ingenuity into the background, but having both play in the foreground.
Yes, but usually a phenomena will play the foreground at the expense another phenomena which as a consequence plays the background. For instance, one may by necessity adapt/invent heavy clothing (where simple wool and animal skins will do just fine for its purpose) but where does it follow that this should "evolve" into pea coats and denim jeans? In this, environment will also play the background because civilized societies have moved far beyond basic necessity. They have history. This is why I believe you can't explain much with a model based on trends.
quote:For instance, do you reject the notion that the Sahara's emergence i.e. desertification plus the Nile river's existence fueled the development of the (Pharaohnic) civilization's (Kemet's) occurrence there as opposed to in the middle of the Sahara?
No, but it didn't cause them to build pyramids. See above.
quote:By the way, as I'm sure you know, a premise is an assumption a question is based on, not a possible answer to a Nay or Yay question.
Agreed.
quote:When I say that trends exist in the world I merely am putting just that, that patterns do exist and they help us unveil phenomenon.
The extent to which they can is the issue. Identifying universals, even on a micro-scale is always problematic.
For instance, the Chinese invented and manufactured a lot of cool weaponry but they were mainly various responses to dealing with the military antagonisms of marauding bands from the desert nomads which culminated in their greatest engineering feat to date, the Great Wall.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of the marauding Mongolians that were Northern and cooler-climate, there seems to be this pattern in general where, where there is civilization -- where civilization exists (which I would have done well to have put as a requirement in the OP) people from areas with less resources and where there is more population pressure and tension (many people, few resources) are attracted towards regions with more, and whether or not fighting ensues the imparted pressure fuels creations like the great wall.
A lot of times colder climate seems to correspond with less resources but then again now I'm thinking about how this may not apply to the Arabo-Moorish Islamic-era Imperialism in Europe, because I'm not sure how "resource-laden" Arabia, Berberia, or the Sahara/Sahel were and now that I'm thinking of this pressure thing this may have fueled desert inhabitants' expansion into even Southward Sahelian urbanized and Eastward Indo-Chinese urbanized territories. This also calls to mind the raiding Tuareg vs. their former post-turned-city, Timbuktu.
I will have to establish what I mean by "less in the way of resources". I'm thinking areas thick with swamp, with plenty of snowmen, or plenty of cacti tend to be regions where extracting ecological (and so economic) resources are to be more difficult than in farm-able areas, at least at first.
I think overall initially there is to be a combination of high-tension and low-tension, though. People in regions with little (ht) have shown perfectly capable of "getting by" without being aggressors.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although agriculture arose in several parts of the world, Eurasia gained an early advantage due to the greater availability of suitable plant and animal species for domestication. In particular, Eurasia had the best collection of plants and animals suitable for domestication – barley, two varieties of wheat and three protein-rich pulses for food; flax for textiles; goats, sheep and cattle provided meat, leather, glue (by boiling the hooves and bones) and, in the case of sheep, wool. As early Middle Eastern civilizations began to trade, they found additional useful animals in adjacent territories, most notably horses and donkeys for use in transport.
Eurasia as a whole domesticated 13 species of large animals (over 100 lb / 44 kg); South America just one (counting the llama and alpaca as breeds within the same species); the rest of the world none at all.
Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, developing alongside large mammals, had available lions, leopards etc.
Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons.
Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.
The plentiful supply of food and the dense populations that it supported made division of labor possible. The rise of non-farming specialists such as craftsmen and scribes accelerated economic growth and technological progress. These economic and technological advantages eventually enabled Europeans to conquer the peoples of the other continents in recent centuries.
Other advanced cultures developed in areas whose geography was conducive to large, monolithic, isolated empires. In these conditions policies of technological and social stagnation could persist – until Europeans arrived. China was a very notable example; in 1432, a new Emperor outlawed the building of ocean-going ships, in which China was the world leader at the time.
Europe's geography favored balkanization into smaller, closer, nation-states, as its many natural barriers (mountains, rivers) provide defensible borders. As a result, governments that suppressed economic and technological progress soon corrected their mistakes or were out-competed relatively quickly.
Many sociologists and anthropologists have created social theories dealing with social and cultural evolution. Some, like Lewis H. Morgan, Leslie White, and Gerhard Lenski, declare technological progress to be the primary factor driving the development of human civilization. Morgan's concept of three major stages of social evolution (savagery, barbarism, and civilization) can be divided by technological milestones, like fire, the bow, and pottery in the savage era, domestication of animals, agriculture, and metalworking in the barbarian era and the alphabet and writing in the civilization era.
Instead of specific inventions, White decided that the measure by which to judge the evolution of culture was energy. For White "the primary function of culture" is to "harness and control energy." White differentiates between five stages of human development: In the first, people use energy of their own muscles. In the second, they use energy of domesticated animals. In the third, they use the energy of plants (agricultural revolution). In the fourth, they learn to use the energy of natural resources: coal, oil, gas. In the fifth, they harness nuclear energy. White introduced a formula P=E*T, where E is a measure of energy consumed, and T is the measure of efficiency of technical factors utilizing the energy. In his own words, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased". Russian astronomer, Nikolai Kardashev, extrapolated his theory creating the Kardashev scale, which categorizes the energy use of advanced civilizations.
Lenski takes a more modern approach and focuses on information. The more information and knowledge (especially allowing the shaping of natural environment) a given society has, the more advanced it is. He identifies four stages of human development, based on advances in the history of communication. In the first stage, information is passed by genes. In the second, when humans gain sentience, they can learn and pass information through by experience. In the third, the humans start using signs and develop logic. In the fourth, they can create symbols, develop language and writing. Advancements in the technology of communication translates into advancements in the economic system and political system, distribution of wealth, social inequality and other spheres of social life. He also differentiates societies based on their level of technology, communication and economy:
* hunters and gatherers, * simple agricultural, * advanced agricultural, * industrial, * special (such as fishing societies).
The Stone Age developed into the Bronze Age after the Neolithic Revolution. The Neolithic Revolution involved radical changes in agricultural technology which included development of agriculture, animal domestication, and the adoption of permanent settlements. These combined factors made possible the development of metal smelting, with copper and later bronze, an alloy of tin and copper, being the materials of choice, although polished stone tools continued to be used for a considerable time owing to their abundance compared with the less common metals (especially tin).
This technological trend apparently began in the Fertile Crescent, and spread outward over time. These developments were not, and still are not, universal. The Three-age system does not accurately describe the technology history of groups outside of Eurasia, and does not apply at all in the case of some isolated populations, such as the Spinifex People, the Sentinelese, and various Amazonian tribes, which still make use of Stone Age technology, and have not developed agricultural or metal technology.The Iron Age involved the adoption of iron smelting technology. It generally replaced bronze, and made it possible to produce tools which were stronger and cheaper to make than bronze equivalents. In many Eurasian cultures, the Iron Age was the last major step before the development of written language, though again this was not universally the case. It was not possible to mass manufacture steel because high furnace temperatures were needed, but steel could be produced by forging bloomery iron to reduce the carbon content in a controllable way. Iron ores were much more widespread than either copper or tin. In Europe, large hill forts were built either as a refuge in time of war, or sometimes as permanent settlements. In some cases, existing forts from the Bronze Age were expanded and enlarged. The pace of land clearance using the more effective iron axes increased, providing more farmland to support the growing population.
By 1000 BC – 500 BC, the Germanic tribes had a Bronze Age civilization, while the Celts were in the Iron Age by the time of the Hallstatt culture. Their cultures collided with the military and agricultural practices of the Romans, leading those Europeans who were conquered to adopt Roman technological advances.
It was the growth of the ancient civilizations which produced the greatest advances in technology and engineering, advances which stimulated other societies to adopt new ways of living and governance.
The Egyptians invented and used many simple machines, such as the ramp to aid construction processes. The Indus Valley Civilization, situated in a resource-rich area, is notable for its early application of city planning and sanitation technologies. Ancient India was also at the forefront of seafaring technology—a panel found at Mohenjodaro, depicts a sailing craft. Indian construction and architecture, called 'Vaastu Shastra', suggests a thorough understanding of materials engineering, hydrology, and sanitation.
The Chinese were responsible for numerous technology discoveries and developments. Major technological contributions from China include early seismological detectors, matches, paper, cast iron, the iron plough, the multi-tube seed drill, the suspension bridge, the parachute[citation needed], natural gas as fuel, the magnetic compass, the raised-relief map, the propeller, the crossbow, the South Pointing Chariot, and gun powder. An illustration of the aeolipile, the earliest steam-powered device
Greek and Hellenistic engineers invented many technologies and improved upon pre-existing technologies. Particularly the Hellenistic period saw a sharp rise in technological inventiveness, fostered by a climate of openness to new idea, royal patronage the blossom of a mechanistic philosophy and the establishment of the Library of Alexandria and its close association with the adjacent museion. In contrast to the typically anonymous inventor of earlier ages, ingenuine minds such as Archimedes, Philo of Byzantium, Heron and Ctesibius now remained known by name to posterity.
Ancient Greek innovations were particularly pronounced in mechanical technology, including the ground-breaking invention of the watermill which constituted the first human-devised motive force not to rely on muscle labour (besides the sail). Apart from their pioneer use of waterpower, Greek inventors were also the first to experiment with wind power (see Heron's windwheel) and even created the earliest steam engine (the aeolipile), opening up entirely new possibilities in harnessing natural forces whose full potential came only to be exploited in the industrial revolution. Of particular importance for the operation of mechanical devices became the newly devised right-angled gear and the screw.
Ancient agriculture, as in any period prior to the modern age the primary mode of production and subsistence, and its irrigation methods were considerably advanced by the invention and widespread application of a number of previously unknown water-lifting devices, such as the vertical water-wheel, the compartmented wheel, the water turbine, Archimedes screw, the bucket-chain and pot-garland, the force pump, the suction pump, the double-action piston pump and quite possibly the chain pump.[2]
In music, water organ, invented by Ctesibius and subsequently improved, constituted the earliest instance of a keyboard instrument. In time-keeping, the introduction of the inflow clepsydra and its mechanization by the dial and pointer, the application of a feedback system and the escapement mechanism far superseded the earlier outflow clepsydra.
The famous Antikythera mechanism, a kind of analogous computer working with a differential gear, and the astrolabe show great refinement in the astronomical science.
Greek engineers were also the first to devise automaton such as vending machines, suspended ink pots, automatic washstands and doors, primarily as toys, which however featured many new useful mechanisms such as the cam and gimbals.
In other fields, ancient Greek inventions include the catapult and the gastraphetes crossbow in warfare, hollow bronze-casting in metallurgy, the dioptra for surveying, in infrastructure the lighthouse, central heating, the tunnel excavated from both ends by scientific calculations, the ship trackway, the dry dock and plumbing. In horizontal vertical and transport great progress resulted from the invention of the crane, the winch, the wheelbarrow and the odometer.
The Romans developed an intensive and sophisticated agriculture, expanded upon existing iron working technology, created laws providing for individual ownership, advanced stone masonry technology, advanced road-building (exceeded only in the 19th century), military engineering, civil engineering, spinning and weaving and several different machines like the Gallic reaper that helped to increase productivity in many sectors of the Roman economy. Roman engineers were the first to build monumental arches, amphitheatres, aqueducts, public baths, true arch bridges, harbours, reservoirs and dams, vaults and domes on a very large scale across their Empire. Notable Roman inventions include the book (Codex), glass blowing and concrete. Because Rome was located on a volcanic peninsula, with sand which contained suitable crystalline grains, the concrete which the Romans formulated was especially durable. Some of their buildings have lasted 2000 years, to the present day.
The engineering skills of the Inca and the Mayans were great, even by today's standards. An example is the use of pieces weighing in upwards of one ton in their stonework placed together so that not even a blade can fit in-between the cracks. The villages used irrigation canals and drainage systems, making agriculture very efficient. While some claim that the Incas were the first inventors of hydroponics, their agricultural technology was still soil based, if advanced. Though the Maya civilization had no metallurgy or wheel technology, they developed complex writing and astrological systems, and created sculptural works in stone and flint. Like the Inca, the Maya also had command of fairly advanced agricultural and construction technology. Throughout this time period much of this construction, was made only by women, as men of the Maya civilization believed that females were responsible for the creation of new things. The main contribution of the Aztec rule was a system of communications between the conquered cities. In Mesoamerica, without draft animals for transport (nor, as a result, wheeled vehicles), the roads were designed for travel on foot, just like the Inca and Mayan civilizations.
Medieval Europe Medieval counterweight trebuchet (reconstruction) Main article: Medieval technology
European technology in the Middle Ages may be best described as a symbiosis of traditio et innovatio. While medieval technology has been long depicted as a step backwards in the evolution of Western technology, sometimes willfully so by modern authors intent on denouncing the church as antagonistic to scientific progress (see e.g. Myth of the Flat Earth), a generation of medievalists around the American historian of science Lynn White stressed from the 1940s onwards the innovative character of many medieval techniques. Genuine medieval contributions include for example mechanical clocks, spectacles and vertical windmills. Medieval ingenuity was also displayed in the invention of seemingly inconspicuous items like the watermark or the functional button. In navigation, the foundation to the subsequent age of exploration was laid by the introduction of pintle-and-gudgeon rudders, lateen sails, the dry compass the horseshoe and the astrolabe.
Significant advances were also made in military technology with the development of plate armour, steel crossbows, counterweight trebuchets and cannon. Perhaps best known are the Middle Ages for their architectural heritage: While the invention of the rib vault and pointed arch gave rise to the high rising Gothic style, the ubiquitous medieval fortifications gave the era the almost proverbial title of the 'age of castles'. [edit] Inexpensive paper: a revolution in the diffusion of knowledge
Paper making, a 2nd century Chinese technology, was carried to the Middle East when a group of Chinese paper makers were captured in the 8th century. Paper making technology was spread to Mediterranean by the Muslim conquests. A paper mill was established in Sicily in the 12th century. The spinning wheel increased the productivity of thread making by a factor of greater than 10. Lynn White credited the spinning wheel with increasing the supply of rags, which led to cheap paper, which was a factor in the development of printing.[3] [edit] Renaissance Main article: Renaissance technology
*
Dome of Florence Cathedral *
Design for a flying machine (c.1488) by da Vinci
The era is marked by such profound technical advancements like linear perceptivity, patent law, double shell domes or Bastion fortresses. Note books of the Renaissance artist-engineers such as Taccola and Leonardo da Vinci give a deep insight into the mechanical technology then known and applied. Architects and engineers were inspired by the structures of Ancient Rome, and men like Brunelleschi created the large dome of Florence Cathedral as a result. He was awarded one of the first patents ever issued in order to protect an ingenious crane he designed to raise the large masonry stones to the top of the structure. Military technology developed rapidly with the widespread use of the cross-bow and ever more powerful artillery, as the city-states of Italy were usually in conflict with one another. Powerful families like the Medici were strong patrons of the arts and sciences. Renaissance science spawned the Scientific Revolution; science and technology began a cycle of mutual advancement.
The invention of the moveable type printing press (c. 1441) lead to a tremendous increase in the number of books and the number of titles published.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^lioness, we are thinking for ourselves in this thread. We don't need to waste space by copying and pasting full essays from unattributed sources (that ultimately link back to wikipedia's article on Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel) if we've already read or understand them. Irrespective of your horrible research standards and wiki's infamous niche for overgeneralizing in their tackling controversial topics, Diamond's dealings with Africa in his book have been criticized by actual experts on Africa!
Originally posted by lioness via wikipedia via Diamond:
quote:Sub-Saharan Africans had mostly wild mammals, whereas Eurasians chanced to have the most docile large animals on the planet: horses and camels that are easily tamed for human transport; but their biological relatives zebras and onagers are untameable; and although Asian elephants can be tamed, it is very difficult to breed them in captivity;[2][3] goats and sheep for hides, clothing, and cheese; cows for milk; bullocks for tilling fields and transport; and benign animals such as pigs and chickens. Africans, developing alongside large mammals, had available lions, leopards etc.
Eurasia's large landmass and long east-west distance increased these advantages. Its large area provided it with more plant and animal species suitable for domestication, and allowed its people to exchange both innovations and diseases. Its East-West orientation allowed breeds domesticated in one part of the continent to be used elsewhere through similarities in climate and the cycle of seasons.
Africa was fragmented by its extreme variations in climate from North to South: plants and animals that flourished in one area never reached other areas where they could have flourished, because they could not survive the intervening environment. Europe was the ultimate beneficiary of Eurasia's East-West orientation: in the first millennium BC, the Mediterranean areas of Europe adopted the Middle East's animals, plants, and agricultural techniques; in the first millennium AD, the rest of Europe followed suit.
From a renowned/prominent Africanist archaeologist:
quote:Africa's role as the birthplace of humanity is widely accepted today, by the general public as well as by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists. However, this acceptance is often accompanied by the assumption that the continent has been a cultural backwater in more recent times. Thus, even an avowedly non racialist account of human history (Diamond 1998: 98-101, 186-7) finds it necessary to provide an explanation of African cultural lag, especially in agricultural development. Diamond provides a rather deterministic explanation of plant and animal domestication based to a large extent upon the geographical orientation of the different continents. An east to-west Eurasian transect of approximately 8900 kilometres, between Brussels and Shanghai, is paralleled by a similar transect across the African Sudanian and Sahelian zones, between Dakar and Djibouti, of about 6600 km. Diamond's model locates the early success and continuing influence of Near Eastern domesticates in the ease with which they could spread across the long reach of Eurasia, but does not explain why similar success did not attend Sudanian-Sahelian agricultural systems (It seems unlikely that a 2300 km difference in east-west distances actually produced the different Holocene continental histories that Diamond thinks exist). Diamond tends to underestimate the diversity and sophistication of African agricultural systems, despite a much deeper understanding of African history than that possessed by Philippe Rushton.
Discussions of domestication processes in Africa suffer from the fragmentary nature of archaeological data especially in the tropical forests of Central Africa - but the earliest firm evidence for sub-Saharan African [obviously excluding Egypt, Sudan, and the central Sahara] plant domesticates dates to just after 4000 BP in both Africa and India (Neumann 2003). This implies African domestication of millet, sorghum and cowpea during the fifth millennium BP. This is certainly later than was the case in many other areas of the world. On the other hand, the variety of indigenous African plant domesticates is very striking indeed, comparable to that from earlier centres of domestication in the Near East and probably exceeding the diversity of plant domesticates in East Asia and the Americas (Harlan et al. 1976), and there is no evidence that the inspiration in their development came from beyond the continent. This parallels the situation in New Guinea, another tropical area often assumed to be a cultural backwater but that now appears to be a centre of domestication in its region (Denham et al. 2004)
---Maceachern, Scott (2006) Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ: racial science and cultural evolution in the twenty-first century
^So please stop blindly and indiscriminately copying and pasting nonsense from miscellaneous websites and try sometimes to actually contribute something to a discussion.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Box, thank you so much for this thread btw. I had an epiphany and developed a really good idea for a possible senior thesis during the discussion. Totally separate (in some sense, diametrically opposed) to what I called your "premise" but the discussion its self sparked a really good idea for a research proposal. Good sh1t.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well then I feel this thread's purpose has been fulfilled.
And thanx.
Also, may I ask, was the premise you mention just above the "general environment foreground" thing or the "cooler" thing?
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Peep the first study, especially last paragraph after the context of the first two completely bolded paragraphs, for a good example of what I was talking about in "tension", though admittedly the wholly bolded two paragraphs as well as the entire other and final study I post after it show opposite early trends in the way of early agro-pastoralists for the same regions.
Anyway, here it is:
quote: F. X. Ricaut M. Waelkens Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
Abstract:
"Since the beginning of the Holocene, the Anatolian region has been a crossroads for populations and civilizations from Europe, Asia, and the Near to Middle East, with increasing interactions since the Bronze Age. In this context, we examine cranial discrete traits from a Byzantine population from southwest Turkey, excavated at the archeological site of Sagalassos; the site displays human occupation since the 12th millennium b.p. To investigate the biological history of this population, we analyzed the frequency distribution of 17 cranial discrete traits from Sagalassos and 27 Eurasian and African populations. Ward’s clustering procedure and multidimensional scaling analyses of the standardized mean measure of divergence (MMDst), based on trait frequencies, were used to represent the biological affinity between populations. Our results, considered within a large interpretive framework that takes into account the idea that populations are dynamic entities affected by various influences through time and space, revealed different strata of the Sagalassos biological history. Indeed, beyond an expected biological affinity of the Sagalassos population with eastern Mediterranean populations, we also detected affinities with sub-Saharan and northern and central European populations. We hypothesize that these affinity patterns in the Sagalassos biological package are the traces of the major migratory events that affected southwest Anatolia over the last millennia, as suggested from biological, archeological, and historical data."
"Keeping in mind these three elements, if we consider the affinity of the Sagalassos population with the sub-Saharan populations from Gabon and Somalia, a recent direct contact between these populations and regions probably can be excluded because they are seperated by significant geographic distances. However, indirect contacts through geographically intermediary populations carrying "sub-Saharan" biological features in the late Pleistocene-Holocene period are discussion points."
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2004) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey(E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinnioglu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintanna-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile Valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)-show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004)following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercanries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occured with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."
"Consequently, one may hypothesize as the most parsimonious explanation that sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations after the Neolithic spread and have been preserved since this time, at least until the 11th-13th century A.D., in the population living in the Sagalassos territory of southwestern Anatolia. This scenario implies that the affinity between Sagalassos and the two sub-Saharan populations (Gabon and Somalia) is more likely due to the sharing of a common ancestor and that the major changes and increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the Bronze Age did not erase some of the sub-Saharan elements carried by Anatolian populations, as shown by genetic data and the morphologivcal features of our southwestern Anatolian sample."
"In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millenium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."
Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions.
Gallagher et al.
Homo. 2009;60(2):95-126. Epub 2009 Mar 4.
"The transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe has been framed within a dichotomy of "regional continuity" versus exogenous "demic diffusion". While substantial genetic support exists for a model of demographic diffusion from an ancestral source in the Near East, archaeological data furnish weak support for the "wave of advance" model. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence attests the widespread introduction of an exogenous "package" comprising ceramics, cereals, pulses and domesticated animals to central Europe at 5600calBCE. Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement with the transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe. Humero-clavicular, brachial and crural indices in a large sample (n=75) of Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age specimens from the middle Elbe-Saale-Werra valley (MESV) were compared with Eurasian and African terminal Pleistocene, European Mesolithic and geographically disparate recent human specimens. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans. These marked morphological changes likely reflect exogenous immigration during the terminal Fourth millennium cal BC. Population expansion and diffusion is a function of increased mobility and settlement dispersal concomitant with significant technological and subsistence changes in later Neolithic societies during the late fourth millennium cal BCE."
posted
Sundjata, what do you make of the notions that Northward moving rainfall belt, monsoons, and the Sahara's disappearance and reemergence are thought to have acted as a pump for people carrying E-M78 lineages into the Near East and Southern Europe?
quote:For instance, do you reject the notion that the Sahara's emergence i.e. desertification plus the Nile river's existence fueled the development of the (Pharaohnic) civilization's (Kemet's) occurrence there as opposed to in the middle of the Sahara?
No.
Ok so you're saying that it might influence where (geographically) people go but just not how creative they are.
In a nutshell, it's better explained in this paragraph: I was getting more at where they might go in terms of how heavy a reliance they would have on technology as opposed to the subjective value of how skilled they would be at it. Those are two seperate things. Folks from Benin to Kongo have for instance shown to have had great metal workers among them (from beautiful bronze art to iron) but how much they relied on this I do not know. Of course the level at which people have progressed to in terms of certain technologies will probably spread fast, like with weapons whether its via people adapting themselves or being conquered, making it difficult to discern trends in this respect and doubtful any exist, but when people loose in something like food resources, what I was initially wondering was whether they tended to compensate in other areas (perhaps areas they could export / trade for what they lack) to stay competitive and independent.
So I think my initial "cability" wording (saved for reference only in your initial response to the O.P.) may have had a bit to do with the initial 'turbulence' and misunderstandings, I take it, along with Occaim's razor and the general existence of trolls which both dictate we can't go all out any time a random person / Brandon comes on here mumbling out random stuff and not even providing examples of what they mean.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata wrote: ----------------------------------------- So please stop blindly and indiscriminately copying and pasting nonsense from miscellaneous websites and try sometimes to actually contribute something to a discussion. -----------------------------------------
Folks, that's what I call an Argyle style intellectual thrashing.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatbox, the underlying assumption of your opening post not only has a questionable premise as far as the geographical entities go, but it assumes there is an innate property in the manufacturing capacity of "northern cultures and southern cultures" respectively, ignoring the fact that economic and political developments within the so-called geographical entities were not uniform, not to leave out that "technological" innovation in antiquity generally tended to flow from "south" to "north" direction. The Nile Valley alone serves a model; state formation emerged out of the socio-cultural innovations of the "south", and diffused to the "north"; not vice versa. Using whatbox's logic, the northwest European countries should have developed technologically before Greece did, rather than serving as cultural backwaters at the time, and Greece in turn should have developed before AE did and so on, but we all know that's not exactly how it worked out.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar / Mystery Solver:
"technological" innovation in antiquity generally tended to flow from "south" to "north" direction. The Nile Valley alone serves a model; state formation emerged out of the socio-cultural innovations of the "south", and diffused to the "north"; not vice versa.
^Right.
quote:Using whatbox's logic, the northwest European countries should have developed technologically before Greece did, rather than serving as cultural backwaters at the time, and Greece in turn should have developed before AE did and so on, but we all know that's not exactly how it worked out.
agreed.
Infact my last couple of posts (just above) have come to note those same exact facts, facts not forgotten by me nor ever struggled against by me whether serious or in a trolling manner like with hore. My initial focus was "all in all", in the end, and should have been phrased do / did Northern cultures come to ..
quote: Whatbox your opening post assumes there is an innate property in the manufacturing capacity of "northern cultures and southern cultures" respectively
Well it's not what I meant to imply.
It was rushed out sloppily and not worded carefully enough. Regardless tho, even the kind of simplistic "cooler" thing has been abandoned anyway as of that post of mine before my last four, where I mention things like Arabian empire, the Tuareg, and Moorish Europe.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are a few examples of folks talking about something to which one could say there's a pattern in two different situations -- Greco-Roman and Han-Yuan contexts.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You're doing this intentionally. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Totally separate (in some sense, diametrically opposed) to what I called your "premise" but the discussion its self sparked a really good idea for a research proposal. Good sh1t.
Printer-friendly view of this topic