My question: How different was the climate in the late Roman Iron Age around Europe than it is today?
And additionally what was the impact on the cultures that developed in Europe in the period?
Printable View
My question: How different was the climate in the late Roman Iron Age around Europe than it is today?
And additionally what was the impact on the cultures that developed in Europe in the period?
OOOH! Lovely question. Full response coming soon!
Uff, this one's a doozy. I'll wait for Brennus' full response, and contribute my part. I would also like to address the issue of geomorphology in ancient times vs today's geomorphology, and what problems arise from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gypsy
The climate was not as different as today. During the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age there were two major climate fluctuations. The first of these c.1000/800BC resulted in a cooling of the climate. Along the Atlantic seaboard this had the result of producing a wetter climate which in turn resulted in many of the marginal, upland settements of Britain and Atlantic Gaul being abandoned. It is quite likely a similar thing happened in Ireland, although it is quite difficult to be sure as, following the end of the Bronze Age (c.1000BC Western Europe, c.800 BC Britain, c.600 BC Ireland) the Irish settlement record becomes as scant as a stripper's clothes. Palyonological data from Irish peat bogs does show a regeneration of tree coverage around this time, which has been interpreted as indicating a decline in population and shift to pastoralism as a result of climate change. The same climatic change does not really appear to have impacted on Scandinavia or Western Iberia, and both areas show a great degree of settlement continuity until effects of the Romans become felt much later in those areas.
Around c.300BC there was an improvement in climate and temperatures rose which appears to have resulted in an expansion of agriculture across north western Europe. In Britain we can detect an expansion of field systems in the south, as well increased levels of wheat being cultivated. In Ireland we also see the introduction and subsequent develop of a localised form of the La Tene culture, as well as several major earthwork and structural constructions such as the Black Pig's Dyke and Emain Macha in Ulster, all of which would have required a larger, more centralised population than appears to have existed in the earlier Iron Age. In Northern Gaul there is likewise an intensification of agriculture (although French archaeologists will tell you this is because the Belgae arrived at this time rather than being the result of a warmer climate) whilst in the Netherlands the old grabenfelt cremation culture ends and we see people begin to move to much more permanent settlements with expanded agriculture. A similar process can be detected in Jutland around a century or two later. Likewise in central and southern Gaul, c.200BC, there is a major expansion in the number of farmsteads, which can be explained as being the result of a population expansion based on increased food production which in turn can be linked to a warmer climate.
During the Roman period there does appear to have been a degree of anthropogenic global warming. Roman industry was on a much larger scale than much of the indigenous industry which it replaced in western Europe (although exceptions such as central Gaul exist). For example in Iberia and western Britain huge lead mines were opened up. Recent research has suggested that in excess of 50% of the timber grown in the Roman Empire was used as fuel and Roman sites like Pompeii have found massive amounts of charcoal. Likewise the Romans also developed industrial scale charcoal producing sites (which you need if you have cities like Rome and Capua). All of this contributed to further global warming. By late Antiquity, however, it seems this warming was having similar affects to the climate change we are observing today, with the Gulf Stream being put out of place resulting in a return to a wetter, cooler climate. Around this time (although due to a variety of social reasons also) there was a decline in agricultural output and population decline.
Well, I concur with Brennus' response, to a degree.
There wasn't really a huge difference from today's climate, but I would argue that that isn't necessarily true in places like Northern Africa and Mesopotamia. Evidence points towards the climates of these places being much more temperate and the land more fertile than today's arid predominance. The great productive centres of common ceramics and Terra Sigillata of Northern Africa (those known in Tunisia) are actually located inland, as opposed to near the great populated hubs or water streams, which would indicate perfect living conditions were today you can only pass by.
In Mesopotamia, the same would apply. Accounts report that the climate was much more forgiving than today's, and the land was much more fertile and lush. We have to remember that Mesopotamia owes much of the state it is in today to Genghis Khan ordering the destruction of dams and irrigation systems to transform Mesopotamia into a frontier land.
In regards to Roman industry affecting climate change, I would contest that. I do agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere only surpassed the Roman levels in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, but I would argue that the planet has been moving towards an heating period far before the Romans ever came. We only have to have in mind that in 12000 BC, Egypt and the Sahara were covered in tropical forest, and that same forest disappeared with no interference from Man.
And as the side note, we have to always consider the changes that occurred in the geomorphology when we study a culture or a territory. Just to give some examples: the Tagus estuary (Lisbon, Portugal) was much more wide, and at least 50% of today's Lisbon territory was under water; this same river was navigable up to Madrid until the 17th century, and now you can't even get to Santarém; Cadiz (southern Spain) was settled by Phoenicians not because it now is a peninsula, but because it was an island in the 8th century B.C.
This is why I think many places are not found, or are misinterpreted, because people look to the ground as it is now, and not as it was 2000 years ago.
Hope I was of assistance:bow:
Thank you for filling in the glaring gap I left which is North Africa and the Near East.
When you say the planet had been moving towards a warming period does that just apply to the Roman period or extend until the 19th century?
Very true. In Northern Europe many areas of the modern coastline were now submerged, such as the Norfolk Fens or the Dutch coast. Interestingly though the coast was larger in some areas, such as Yorkshire.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiagoJRToledo
You are most welcome.
It applies to the first and second millennium as a whole, even though periods of cooling existed. We know that between extreme cooling periods (Ice Ages) there are extreme warming periods. The difference is that in this warming period, the human species is mass-connected and they view their actions as damaging. What would we be discussing if we we're in a cooling period?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
This is not to say that human action is harmless, but I truly believe that the Planet has taken more damage the last 4,5 billion years than it has taken in the last 200 years, and it is still rotating with life in it. The world will change, whether we like it or not, and this alarmism is just the human race feeling threatened.
Thank you to Brennus and TiagoJRToledo. I read bits and pieces about this but there doesn't seem to be very much literature on the differences between what is and what was. I know that silting has had an effect on river courses and that erosion has had effects on coastlines etc.
Brennus, when you say that Yorkshire's coastline was greater...I was under the impression that there were flood-plains around the humber, and that there was a great deal of marshland, particularly in North Yorkshire. Am I wrong (or was that at a later date)?
Of particular interest to me is the coastline/rivers/marshes around East Anglia (particularly Norfolk). Any good sources for this kind of thing?
marshlands and estuaries are wierd concepts that depending on the author can be interpreted as land or as see depending on the person making the interpretation
also todays coastlines have clearly been changed by human action the aral sea desert the pakistani coastline continous recess all cause by damms for agricultural use
as for the sahara rain forest disapearing without human action thats bogus ever since the appearance of agriculture that a culture of burning up a place to make it suitable for agriculture exists i mean if humans turned australia into a massive desert by doing this and overhunting you mean to tell me that the same didn´t happened in the sahara ? the poeni agriculturalist practics made far more temperate areas of north africa into deserts then other areas less forgiving that where inhabited by the garamantines wich managed to keep those areas fertile until the 17th century (last time the sahara gained large tracts of land over the humans )
as for if this was a cooling period you can go and read the 70´s and 80´s articles on global cooling that was scaring everyone we live in micro periods so even if in a micro period (30-50 years) it might seem it´s going on one direction the trufh is that it might actually go in the opposite direction
climatologists don´t know whats trully going on atm with our planet atm all they keep discovering are mechanisms that the earth has to regulate itself like over eating and the trees free carbon dioxid that trees are growing 30% faster then 50 years ago and how does the heat and carbon that keeps going into the north atlantic carbon drain hasn´t turned the sea water acid yet some defend that new micro organism will develop (absorbing the carbon) others defend that it will stop the ocean chain but in the end they don´t know all they know is mechanisms and that we have passed the amount of carbon in the air that ever existed on earth before
only the study of the oceans is far more complex then what people imagine much more the wider area of all climatology some dudes defend the dumping of iron in the pacific to feed organism that can suport the water acidity and can use that carbon to create shells others defend that it will kill the sea cause it will allow the expansion of poisenous algae and jelly fish so if you wanna be honest what you can trully say is that we don´t know but the clues aren´t positive and yes we humans have a big hand on it mercury in the atmosphere acid and trash and toxics in the streams
just for example go and search the effects of bisphenol a in the gender atribution in mamals and how just a litle plastic can screw up an entire eco system and then multiply that by the thousands of chemicals we create and unleash on the enviroment without knowing it´s effects ofc humans have no impact ...
sorry if the tone might seem agressive but sometimes i can still feel the flame lighting up luckly it doesn´t go off as much as in the past
You mean to tell me that Peniche, an ancient island of the West coast of Portugal, became connected to land during the 12th-13th century A.D because of human interaction? No my friend, that does not stick. There are geomorphological studies made regarding the Tagus estuary and other estuaries of Iberia that clearly show that they were once much larger, and this correlates well with written sources and archaeological remains.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
As far as evidence goes, there is none that supports the introduction of agriculture in the areas that are now the Sahara. Agriculture was implemented along the Nile because it was the only source of water that remained after the desertification of a once lush place. So my argument is not really bogus, as much as it is fact. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Swimmers and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharan_rock_art
And if you study a bit of Pre-History and Geological History, you will find that the climate on Earth has been marked by a clear cycle of warmings and coolings, that have happened over and over again. The problem is that Al Gore wasn't alive in 10000 B.C, or he would've written about the catastrophic consequences of Global Cooling. Just you wait when the planet starts heading for another Ice Age, and the panic will be the same.
As I said earlier, the Earth has had catastrophes happen much more severe than the "Human Infestation", and it always finds a way to achieve balance. I believe it is a bit to arrogant of us to think that we have more impact than meteors and magnetic shifting of the poles.
tyrus was conected to the mainland by men
estuaries where larger because there weren´t damms back then controlling the river flows (thus the easy example of the pakistani coast but you got a few more complex ones like whats happening in florida )
before those damms those areas weren´t safe to live in since during hightides and storm they could easily flood (like the disaster that almost happened in the netherlands a few years ago when a massive storm threatned to blow the damms while the rhine was overflowing threatning to trap the people beteween the hightide and the rising river waters biggest test to the rotherdam sea gates so far and in case you´re wondering it has happened to london and the entire thames rivers in the 18 century ) i didn´t say the sahara desert was exclusive human fault cause it wasn´t but according to my examples human actions do have a big impact (particulary the australian example where the slash and burn culture turned an entire continent into a semi desertic wasteland changing the vegetation and unbalacing the eco sistem and all done by a small amount of human setlers ) i also gave the example of the garamantines who had a more rational use of the resources wich preserved the sahara trade routes and the litle fertility that was still able to be maintained
climatology is one of my fields of interest so i might know more about climate cycles then what you can imagine and once again i gave you a small example 30 years ago the global opinion was that the world was cooling down not warming up
as for the dangers and what happened to earth in the past we´ve had for the past couple of thousands of years a relative time of peace so the only new thing in earth during that time period is a new animal specie that explains the anomalies felt because volcanoes are pretty quiet lately meteors even the one in the beggining of the 19th century over siberia was very small in comparison with a few from the past and we´re in the most peacefull time in terms of the 3 solar cycles (wich according to some is ending and it explains the current period of warming up that we´re experiencing atm and explain the warming and cooling down periods of earth) even earthquakes we´ve learned to live with them the turks have even found ways to make mosques earthquake resistant for the most part in the 15 and 16th century
so i believe it´s a bit naive of us to ignore our impact on the planet considering how we change and select the vegetation and fauna we change climates trough our practices (the 1st emperor of china demolished half a mountain to create miles and miles of wet producing rice land where there where unfertile plains before ) ( easter island )
i´ll read your wiki articles but i must consider that if humans where living in the sahara during this time frame they had a hand in it just like the poeni had an hand in shortening the time of growth of the sahara by 1000 years (with the help of the romans ofc but they started the new processes wich depleted the land the romans just kept up what they where already doing )
so if humans were there they where burning shit up making up damms digging in the wrong places using their catle to destroy the weak lairs of fertile land and so forth (just like the biggest danger in the american midwest atm the catle is destroying the fertile land and patches and patches of desert are popping up all over the midwest where once the bufallos grazed and the cows are now destroying )
i´ll read your articles but it won´t change my perception of the human behaviour
That's fine and dandy, but Peniche wasn't. And Tyre was connected for a military reason, not the consequence of climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
Well, there weren't any dams built on the Tagus until the 20th century, so there's that. At least not dams to control the flow of water, but only to divert water for agriculture.
Yeah, in the Sahara in 10000 B.C they weren't even sedentary, so no agriculture there, much less slash and burn.
And if you know about climatology (has you seem to), you also know that only in a period of 30 years can we safely make a projection of climatic phenomenons.
You give far to little credit to the abilities of ancient civilizations in regards to the exploration of soil. We have to have humility to realize that we are not the most advanced state of human, and thinking that way is dangerous. Heck, we can't even reproduce some feats of engineering that were done 4000 years ago without our "superior" technology.
But we digress from the OP. We will just have to agree to disagree. To me, humans do impact the environment, but not to the ruinous extent that some say we do.
to me humans are ruinous to their enviroment the more organised and complex a society gets the least respect it has for the place where they eat and drink and if you keep pissing and defecating on the place where you eat somewhere along the way it´s going to derail and somethings bad gonna happen if it´s natures doing then humans will find a way to make it worse
as for them not being setled today several amazonian tribes are not setled they ar nomadic roaming the amazon and their subsidiaries and yet they still produce yams and a few other crops
and seriously what better example then river people to exemplify the river peoples that existed in the sahara at this time
In the 1960s, the archeologist Gabriel Camps investigated the remains of a hunting and fishing community dating from about 6700 BCE in southern Algeria. These pottery-making people (the "wavy line" motif again) were black African rather than Mediterranean in origin and (according to Camps) evidenced definite signs of deliberate cultivation of grain crops as opposed to simply the gathering of wild grains.[6] Later studies at the site have shown the culture to be hunter gatherers and not agriculturalists, as all the grains were morphologically wild, and the society was not sedentary.
i prefer to believe the original analises it makes no sence to move your entire family around in the worst case they stay in a few places wich are safe while the men roam all over to gather whats necessary like many african tribes living in the edges of the sahara do women and old people stay in the village and produce crops the men go around with the catle and return now and then to bring milk and meat
ofc that you also have other examples like the original persians who turned a desertic plateau into fertile grasslands by building chanels and it originated the persian empire and the 1st declaration of human rights but humans by the most part are greedy and insecure and always end up screwing up exacebating natures evil side so to speak
i stand my ground if there where humans living in the sahara they contributed to the problem for the most part and yes humans do have a big impact on the health of the planet and the state of the climate as big as the sumatra volcano who almost wiped out humans themselfs 60.000-80.000 years ago and created a nuclear winter that laster for a couple of years
and trust me there where humans there hundreads of thousands of them the sahara was a very rich land back then able to suport massive comunities with fish grain game and gathered food
As you claim, investigations occurred in the 60's that produced one result, and were later discredited with further analyses. That is Archaeology 101, and if you still cling to the original findings, then you may still believe that the world is flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
You cannot compare modern Amazonian tribes with Mesolithic and Neolithic societies of Africa. You can only trace faint parallels, and even those would not stand in the academic community, with all the research that has been as is still being done on the subject.
It may not make sense to you what people did 10000 years ago, but that does not mean that they didn't do it. And I, and all of the bibliography on the subject, can guarantee you that they did.
Comparing the Indo-Iranian occupation of the Iranian Plateau and the Declaration of Human Rights is like comparing apples and oranges. And that's a rather pessimistic take on human nature, don't you think?
You can stand your ground all you want, but that does not make you the voice of reason. In fact, most of the research suggests that your are incorrect.
And that will be all from me, as I do not wish to further hijack the thread.
So the shift in the climate to a cooler and wetter climate in the late Bronze Age resulted in reforestation and a shift to pastoralism in general, due to a reduction in viable agricultural sites? Does this reflect on any of the cultures in EB like the Lugiones, who are mentioned in the preview (my main source of information about this period :P ) who were predominately pastoral? Or by this point, were the warming effects being felt and a general shift towards larger scale grain farming in North-western Europe was occurring?
I cannot answer the point about the Lugiones, seeing as I am not a member of the mod team.
I (and correct me if I'm wrong) do not say that a cooling period occurred in the Late Bronze Age, that led to an increased pastoralism due to a reduction of viable agricultural sites. I would even argue that the opposite happened, at least for temperate climates South of the great mountain ranges (Pireneus, Alps) and that this period coincides with a development of agricultural surplus, thus boosting commercial capabilities and leading to more complex societies in indigenous tribes (this is especially true regarding the Iberian Peninsula, but could also be applied to other places that had no interaction with more complex societies such as the Hellenes or the Phoenicians).
Regarding large-scale cereal farming in North-Western Europe, I recall reading that only after the great deforestation and draining efforts of the Northern regions of Europe (Belgica, Germania, Saxony) that started c. 8th century A.D was the extensive and intensive cultivation of cereals introduced in those regions. But again, don't quote me on this, as I may be embarrassingly wrong:sweatdrop:
if you read kaesar "journal" during his campaigns in gaul there was a draught that caused food shortage and he was surprised with the amount of grain available in britain
as for the luigi they lived in a mountenous region overbearing the polish great plains one of europes most fertile land i was in those mountains during winter sports season in a place called zakopane so yes it´s easy to practice transumance (pastoralism) during harsher periods its actually less affected since it´s less land intensive
and weater or cooler periods are positive for agriculture lack of water is far worse and combined with the "taming" of the keltic culture the evolving of agricultural practices in the mediterranean particulary the carthaginians wich was later transfered to the rest of the mediterranean by the romans at the same time in britain and the keltic world the appearance of farming estates begun to develop so agriculture practices was on the rise and expanding to more territories wich until then had only had pastoralist practices mainly iberia and gaul wich begun allowing the acumulation of wealth and the apearance of yet more trade particulary exotic and luxury goods such as wine amber and so forth
ofc that some regions mostly mountain regions farming is harder and breading goats and sheeps is just easyer to the luigii who lived in a mountenais regions same for the germans who lived in an heavily forested region but they still wanted the luxury goods of the perfumed civilized people so if they couldn´t get it by trade they got it by weapons just like the kelts did for hundreads of years until the appearance of a landed nobility wich discovered it was easyer to produce and trade then to risk their lifes in batle so more wealth concentration more creation of farm steads more wealth more slaves to work the lands means higher productivity smaller farmers are forced to sell their land so more concentration of wealth
the grachi roman revolution wasn´t exclusive to the romans the growth of agriculture was clear and it had clear effects on how society was changing
hope this helped sometimes i loose focus and go off topic
So regarding the Iberian Peninsular, the changes in climate actually increased agricultural production leading to a more developed society (greater social stratification, development of hill forts [oppida?], nobility etc), unlike more exposed locations such as Britain where agricultural surpluses decreased? So how important is the climate (specifically regarding agricultural production) in shaping social development?
Exactly. Social development seems to be greatly connected to climatic variation in ancient times. One other good example of this is the Medieval Warm Period that occurred between 950 and 1100 A.D, which everyone recognizes as the time period when the Early Middle Age ended and the High Middle Age began. This period is marked by a huge increase in agricultural surpluses and the re-development of large population centres (bourgs or burghs) and the first great population boom in Europe. This gave rise to a new trading society, dominated my a new middle-class of merchants - the bourgeoisie.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gypsy
This is very interesting. But perhaps it could be said that food production influences the social development more than just climate itself. Increases in infrastructure can also lead to increases in food production and greater social stratification. The only example of this I am aware of is pre-pharaonic Egypt (4000-3500 BC I think), where the creation of dykes and irrigation ditches led to an increase of the lands carrying capacity from around 150 people per km2 to around 1500 people per km2, which helped encourage social stratification. The only problem with this explanation is the 'chicken and the egg' problem of which came first, social hierarchy or increased food production. So would it be correct to conclude that food production as a function of climate has a significant impact on social development.
if you consider that "having" the right person on the leadership was considered crucial to please the gods and ensure good harvests yes altough normally the growth of social stratification happened when troubles ocured kings and nobles have always been born out of the ranks of heroes who "save" the people during times of strife
you have as examples the american civilizations where after a few traumatic events sacrificing people became routine or the bbylonian myth/tradition of picking a new king who would rule for 15 days to be sacrificed later so the old king could return to the throne guilt free of any sin towards the gods
not to mention ofc the way that religious high strata was always involved in the pickings of who gets what namely higher lords and kings positions since fertility and survival have always been associated with apeasing or getting aproval from the gods sooner or later it became the basis for kingdoms and hereditary hierarchy since having the right "special" or "divine" blood was essencial
not to mention the godkings like in egypt or the highpriest king of ... todays england the queen or king are the supreme ruller of the anglican church ...
what must be understood is that as new agricultural practices became prevalent into lands where before they where not used (in our case iberia and gaul and britain particulary the creation of new farms or concentration of lands who allowed for better productivity ) the increase in food allowed for populational growth but not better wealth division
amongst the lusitanii/gailicii the practice of having only 1 heir was and still his wierdly enough normal so all other less suitable sons had to go and find a living somewhere else thus the constant complaints of caesar that the lusitanii roose in rebellion every year when the reality was that they where driven out of their homes so as not to split the land given some weapons and goodluk prays and told to carve out a new life as mercenaries tradesman or whatever but his family lands belonged to their brother
so the appearance of farming into iberia created more wealth but not better wealth distribution in gaul the more wealth was available the less people had acess to it same as in rome winning the punic wars and the influx of money that was gained by trade only increased the depletion of roman citizens availble to be recruited for the legion more people but less qualified people since the small and medium land owners where swallon by the big oligrchic families
also i´ve read up some articles on mountain regions farming and it´s not impossible so even in germania and the luigii regions there was room for the appearance of small farm or at least small plot of land in front of their houses to complement the pastoral lifestyle wich altough increasing the available wealth wasn´t suitable for big land industrial farming so you get a better distribution of wealth (i recomend searching youtube engineering an empire the inca agricultural practices )
the celtic practices in gaul and britain also saw some technological evolutions that enabled better yelds on their fields so even if there was a decrease in the productivity overall due to the climatic events the way that new fields and new areas where being braved for farming combined with new technologies and the beggining of the appearance of larger scale industrial farming more then compensated for it imho (for instance many archeologist have proven that the kelts could get more out of their small farms per plot then the romans but the romans compensated that with massive slave work and sheer scale )
but thats just my interpreation based on my very incomplete knowledge of what was going on back then and it´s a macro view of the events some places might have had diferent developments also my knowledge expands well into the 1st century so much of the information and interpretation might not be pertinent to the 3rd century bc altough it becomes so as we progress forward
Well, food production and fertile soils are directly dependant of climatic conditions. If you have a wet Winter and a hot Summer, food production will be higher, despite improvements in techniques or infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gypsy
It is pretty much established that increased food production precedes social stratification: agricultural surpluses permit trade, trade allows the acquisition of rare materials and products (wealth), and this wealth is mainly kept by an elite that either works the land and creates the surpluses, or by chieftains that begin to emerge from an horizontal tribal society. Wealth and prestigious items come only if there is something to trade them from, or if they were lucky enough to have an easily accessible ore vein or raw material like ivory. In that case, foodstuffs are interpreted as the luxury item, and thus the biggest share would be given to the ruling elite, thus creating the social stratification.
Yes, it is food production (and not money) that makes the World go round!
Cheers guys.
Thanks for the great replies.
Both the Lugiones and Sweboz will have the option for pastoral agriculture. There have also been discussions on allowing it for certain parts of Britain and Ireland, but not in the first release.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gypsy
Your welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus
Yes you are correct. When I say the coastline was larger I mean that the coast around Morcambe extended further out to sea. However, as you point out, the inland areas around the Humber were more sodden than today, something which is reflected in the archaeological record of the Iron Age.
Likewise, although the eastern coast of East Anglia extended further out to sea, the vast majority of the Norfolk Fens were swamp and marshlands. A similar situation also existed around the Bristol Channel. Iron Age communities took advantage of this landscape and it was in these regions that we have much evidence for salt production.
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiagoJRToledo
That being the case how do you explain the marked continuity in settlement pattern and material culture in Galicia? Also we don't observe marked changes in the socio-settlement structure of the Netherlands and Jutland until about 100 years after we observe them in Gaul, Iberia and Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by TiagoJRToledo
Northern Portugal and Galicia are a special case, seeing as the social stratification originated from "prestigious" megalithic constructions, that originated a species of ancestor and heroic worship, and the descendants of these ancestors were regarded as more important in the community, which in turn lead them to leadership positions. Also, the terrain heavily influenced the sites that were chosen for settlement, and although this elevated and walled enclosures were easily defensible, they were a pain to access and to sustain commercial ties with far-off peoples, which in turn slowed down contacts and cultural exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennus
Regarding the second point, I would argue that the motor for socio-settlement structural change was the fact that contact with oriental cultures (Hellenes, Phoenicians), that had much more complex societies and architectural constructions, were spread across the Mediterranean Basin. It is easy to then infer that these contacts and ideas would take much longer to reach the Netherlands and Jutland, seeing as their main "envoys", the Romans and Southern Celts, confined themselves to the Left Bank of the Rhine, and due to military conflict, it took much longer for these "innovations" to permeate those regions.
herm brennus the river of oblivion (styx (?) ) stayed in northwestern iberia so the romans where afraid of crossing rivers over there cause they believed they would forget everything
should make a nice cartoon romans taking straws to see who would go 1st on crossing a given river and then the dude who passed over to the other side (the poor 17 year old schmuck) when asked "hey decimus do you still remember who you are?" and then dude replyed "no who are you?" and the romans runned all south in panic
until someone stops and thinks "hey if he didn´t knew who he was how did he knew how to talk that we were talking to him and that his name is decimus?" - damm roman deserters XD
@Brennus and @TiagoJRToledo and @moonburn
Might any of you hint me at some literature which covers climate change in Syria and Mesopotamia (in fact, I'd be interested in the whole area of the Alexandrian/Seleucid empire at its largest extent, but especially in Syria and Mesopotamia) between 4th and 1st century BC?
can´t help you there there´s just no books to mu knowledge most of my climatoligy knowledge comes from documentaries
i´m sure there´s planty of articles going around one extremly interesting altough not limitated to that time period was about the diferent strain of cereals and trying to pin point from where they came from and trough wich lands it went by to acquire certain caractheristics and at wich point trough domestication strains of diferent cereals became diferent species of the wild occurring seeds
ofc altough very interesting it opens more questions then answers since most wild species have been lost
the cheakpeak (not sure how to spell it right) was fairly interesting it went all the way to turkmenistan and quizirguistan trying to find the original plant and constantly being slapped in the face by new genetic modified seeds wich dogooders left on those distant lands to try and increase the productivity (wich actually only drains the soil and makes the farmer dependent on the seed salesman ...)
as you can imagine it brings about alot of conjecture on the climatological situation of the crescent quarter but overall it was far more fertile then today (wich is wierd cause back then there where no damms ... ) and the weather was milder and more forgiving since it allowed them to grow barley for beer soup production \p
http://books.google.it/books?id=IZ65...epage&q&f=true
about the seulecids maybe you can find references about clima there but not so sure you might have to infer from interpretations
Thank you, I already found a start in "A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East" by D. T. Potts (Editor). The very first chapter "Introduction to Geography, Climate, Topography, and Hydrology" (T.J. Wilkinson) could provide a good start, especially since the Companion is fairly new (2012). But I don't know yet whether he treated the topic well - I always suspect a barrier between Classicists and Geophysicists/other Scientists.
Edit: I found a book by geologists who say that from ~300 BC onwards the climate at least in the Ancient Near East reached favorable conditions, this is among what I was interested in.
http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&l...nistic&f=false
Pardon but, I believe you mean the river Lethes and not the Styx which...as far as i remember it was the mythological frontier between Earth and the Underworld for the Classical Greeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonburn
As for the Lethes, there is a legend here in Portugal that identifies that myth with the River Lima in Northern Portugal. It is said that, the roman consul Decimus Junius Brutus (#$%#& romans!!), crossed that river and then called his soldiers by name as they were afraid of crossing it and to loose their memory.
That's right. Here on the other side of the border it's called the Limia, and apparently the legionaries didn't like idea of amnesia induced from from crossing it, because they equated it with the infamous Lethe. So Decimus Junius Brutus crossed and called them all one by one by name.
Problem is, how the hell do you remember the names of 5000 legionaries?
if he was rich he had a specialized slave whoese only work was to remember the name of people
it was very usefull for political people trying to gain favour i can´t recall the name it was given to those specialized slave my classics teacher gave it once on the roman social organization and he went on for around 20 minutes explaining what kind of specialized slaves there where and what where their jobs the diference beteween state slaves and private slaves and so forth
after it he went into the original shopping centers or malls with 6 story where in the lower store there where fruits and vegetables and further up the scale more and more expensive products such as clothing armour and so forth
there´s also memory tricks once can use if you fallow the organized list all you have to remember is maniple1 century 1 8 names (10 if you count the 2 slaves) and so forth
nomenclatvr i think the name was or something very similar for that kind of slave
what one can find with some google skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclator_(nomenclature)
the name was nomenclator and i imagine that if that junius wanted to have a political career he would have one such usefull caracther wich should exist in eb2 and it should give 1 influence
Ermmm it's a legend :) ...Quote:
Originally Posted by sirtim
Anyway if something even close to that really happened, all he had to do was to shout the name of a couple of centurions for the whole herd to follow...I am sure he could remember those...bloody romans...