Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| A History of Ancient Britain by Neil Oliver |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 99 guests and 1 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
| Review your Reply |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2013-01-18 09:26
Quote:
| So this is what I mean when I say that these types of expansion are motivated by economics. |
|
Expand a bit on what you mean?
If, for example, there was a reason to supply your wife with her tin regardless of the cost to the suppliers (because the option of not supplying her with tin is worse), she would get her tin without war?
There's no need for strong Polytheistic Gods if the primary reason for supplying her is economics? Not a good example, but if perhaps she was setting the fashion for using tin, the market for tin would dry up if she stopped using it.
Luckily, I have some tin spare for when you guys come over.
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-18 00:30
OK - we have a problem here ...
My wife has broken her best Tin Mirror and is haranguing me to no end for a new one.
So I throw on my best toga and head to the marketplace to fetch a new Mirror for my Harpy ball-and-chain.
Well, much to my dismay the vendors are all out of the good stuff, and the 2nd-rate Tin is now more expensive than the 1st quality was just a while ago. (And have you seen the price of slaves lately?!)
Whatever will we do about this travesty?
Well, I'm gonna get my Tin (iron, copper, gold, etc) from the next Kingdom over - and if they don't like it, I'll send my Harpy wife in there at the head of four Republican Legions!
Maybe pick up a few new slaves while we're at it.
Roman soldiers got paid daily. In silver. Every day. All across the lands, soldiers lined up in front of the quartermaster's desk to get paid.
This is expensive, but what are you gonna do?
Well, let's invade Iberia, cuz they got wicked good silver mines.
Of course these are silly examples of what I mean to convey, but historically, if my Kingdom has all it needs, I'll be content with not invading the neighbor. If we don't have what we need - this is another story.
As my society grows it becomes more sophisticated - and so do my Gods.
Now I'm running out of trees or whatever, so I consult my Gods, who tell me through the Priests, that it's OK to get the lumber from the kingdom two rivers over on the right.
So this is what I mean when I say that these types of expansion are motivated by economics.
More later.
I have to run down to the marketplace for a minute ...
Neil
|
guile
Joined:
22-03-2010
Messages: 9
from y fêl ynys
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-17 19:18
hi neil, thanks for the welcome and the further explanation of your idea.
i think you are inverting things though. you say we emulate the gods we invent. the greeks and by extension the romans too created the gods very much in their own image, with good sides and bad sides.
the olympians were the cause of much happiness among mortals, and also made the most terrible errors of judgement as even the best of us might.
in the myths i can recall no mention of gods that were supposed to behave in an infallible manner, from the start kronos castrates his father with a sickle, overthrowing him and ushering in the start of the 'golden age', when everybody behaved as they should with no need for rules. this so called 'golden age' however still allowed kronos leeway to eat his own children to preserve his power base.
this cycle of vicious self interest is present at the very beginning of the greek myths and i'm sure you don't need me to continue detailing it here, suffice to say i can't agree with your statement that the olympians were supposed to be infallible, it is obvious they were going to behave according to their nature, typically lazy and arrogant like the humans who invented them.
did economics drive the roman expansion? yes, but expansion and war was also an end in itself. rather than asking did economics kick start the expansion of the roman empire i think a better question is did the expansion of the roman empire give rise to its economic system? it's a complex subject indeed haha.
the egyptian gods, are indeed something else altogether.
the monotheistic gods are supposed to be infallible [what a terrible contradiction in terms!] and have compelled humanity to incredible heights in their devotions, and also to terrible and revolting lows in the name of their god.
fallible gods have also driven their worshippers to equally fantastic monuments and achievements and also the converse.
to me, it seems that the neolithic gods were more likely to be fallible, as it would be easier to understand how even the most devout of worshippers could suddenly suffer from plagues, crop failures or other disasters.
the robbers are on their way, and they are humans, which god they worship is moot.
reason for edit: repetition :-/
[ This message was edited by: guile on 2013-01-17 21:08 ]
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-17 10:15
It's difficult to know isn't it?
If we accept that Stonehenge represents the heavens, then it is a store of knowledge. Perhaps it is also a homage to the heavens or the gods? If it represents this, then its primary purpose is 'a priori' associated with the Sun, the World and specifically Geocentrism (a fixed world around which the heavens rotate). It could also be associated with Solstice but does not need to be.
But with this goes the geocentric demonstrator (aka disco ball): If you accept that Stonehenge is knowledge of the hinge of the heavens, the a priori link to geocentrism is too much of a coincidence: The evidential link is exceptionally strong.
So (work with me here), if Stonehenge had to be arranged the way it was for operational reasons, the idea of it being a womb entered by the sun at Solstice might be something that someone thought of, but unlikely to be a primary design consideration. So this doesn't specifically say that they considered the sun to be either male or female or even that Stonehenge has any sexual connotation.
But that they constructed two separate arrangements, each showing a geocentric universe, demonstrates extreme confidence in the long term stability of their world: They were so confident that they understood it that someone, somehow, was able to get the idea of Stonehenge off the ground at all.
But here's where Stonehenge seems to me to be a little different to other known monuments to the gods: It contains no apparent modifications to suit the opinion of man. If the construction of Stonehenge was done to suit an imposed religious agenda, I would expect to see symbols, modifications or something else that would point towards some unknown concept.
But there isn't an indication of that: If it is a geocentric monument, it is very knowledge based and the knowledge could only have come through trial and error: Specifically, the ability of individuals to question the opinion of those holding religious status.
So if individuals could question the opinion of others, and monuments could be constructed solely to the Sun, the heavens our world's place in it, the idea of multiple powerful gods may not have been as strong as elsewhere?
If the purpose of some other megalithic structures could be established with reasonable certainty, it might give a better idea of what general direction philosophy was taking?
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-17 00:49
Gentlemen,
I do understand the sweeping compression I employed in writing that, and that the 'list' is imperfect and quite general. It was meant more to be illustrative rather than specific.
George,
The peoples you mention didn't build structures such as those in Northern Europe during the Neolithic. Generally speaking, people with a codified religious paradigm were not hunter/gatherers.
While not a particularly original theory of mine, if the Trilithons at Stonehenge are presumed to be 'The Womb of Mother Earth', the Solstice Sun penetrates it, inferring that they considered (in this case) the sun to be male.
Guile, good to see you.
The Greek & Roman Gods were 'in reality' far from infallible to be sure. But what we read are 3rd-person cautionary tales. The basic PR at the time tells us that they were supposed to be infallible.
Warfare & expansion occur when a culture has the endorsement of their Gods, it's true. But the Egyptians (by and large) only went to war when threatened by externals. On one hand the Egyptians are an excellent example of what I'm trying to convey, while on the other, an argument could be made for their relative isolation, rendering this example unique.
The Romans expanded for reasons exceeding endorsement, yes, but by the time they got around to it in earnest, their pantheon was long-codified within an accompanying, intricate system of trade, rather than theirs being primarily a farming-for-sustenance society. Essentially it was economics which drove them.
We emulate the Gods we invent.
If our Gods are conscientious and hard-working, let's honor them.
If our Gods are powerful, arrogant jerks, look out Corinth, Carthage & Gaul.
If our Gods are self-involved, distracted and prone to contradiction, those miserable Viking robbers are probably on their way!
Neil
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-16 23:09
The "God" idea only seems to have been used once mankind had tamed nature, previously "genus locii" (spirit of the place) were the thing. Often Gods were then associated with these, their ancestors.
Personally, I like the idea of multiple spirits as opposed to a few gods. If you piss-off one god from a small pantheon the rest are likely to take umbridge, but with the genus locii you can annoy each in turn. By the time you get round to the first again, it's probably forgotten you!
|
guile
Joined:
22-03-2010
Messages: 9
from y fêl ynys
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-16 19:17
hmmm. interesting idea but the greek and roman gods were far from infallible, also neither they nor the egyptian gods objected to warfare and expansion.
the removal of these threads from your tapestry reduces it to mere whimsy.
[ This message was edited by: guile on 2013-01-16 19:53 ]
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-16 18:51
Neil , A similar binary opposition can be seen in the view of some hunter gatherers e.g. the Nayaka of Tamil Nadu or the African Mbuti Pygmies who look on the forest as a parent , providing food unconditionally , whilst others approach the environment as a reciporating ancestor , it provides food in return for appropriate conduct .
Btw the sun is often considered to be female and the moon male .
George
[ This message was edited by: tiompan on 2013-01-16 23:18 ]
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2013-01-16 18:17
.
Life/death/afterlife.
These are big issues which affect everybody’s motivation in direct and subtle ways. Always have – always will.
But first, the Neolithic Gods. Are they fallible or infallible?
(I believe the distinction today is marked as Heathen and Pagan, but I may have it backwards.)
I have given this distinction some thought, so run with me here a moment and be sure to let me know where I stray.
Fallible Polytheistic Gods, such as those the Norse lived under, allowed the people great latitude in their pursuit-of-lifestyle. My sense is that since the Gods didn’t stop them, it was OK to raid England & Ireland, et.al.
These folks lived in wooden houses, drank plenty of beer, and yelled: “Yo-HO, Ta-HO!” a lot. Certainly they piled up a few rocks here and there, and I know this because we have some of those piles over on this side, but other than their memory and a few cultural remnants, there’s not much left of their failed belief-system.
Infallible Polytheistic Gods built the Pyramids, Greece & Rome. Great engineers, those people left us all sorts of, not only big intricate buildings, but generated some of the basic Credos and Tenants of Law that survive nearly intact within our National Constitutions today. In short, their influence ripples through several of our important social venues.
In the Neolithic, Sun comes up every day and brings Blessed Warmth and Fertile Life. You can just about set your watch by this regularity. Pure and radiant, what in the Universe is more powerful?
He is firm-handed, but gracious and wise, and his beautiful wife is the Earth itself. As he has anointed us as the People he wishes to orbit within his Vast Domain, this puts us squarely in the center of his world. We otta commemorate that incredibly fortuitous turn by building stuff that shows how clearly we recognize this and how grateful we are to have awareness of it.
In addition, by dividing Light from Dark, Sun has shown us the great analogy to Life & Death, and we will unambiguously incorporate this important self-evidence into our diverse & clever structures.
And so, on and on …
Fallible Gods just sorta lounge about all day drinking ambrosia and tossing an occasional thunderbolt while committing capricious acts which directly affect the poor unworthy humans crawling around in the muck down below. Basically lazy & arrogant - heck, a lot of them just plain quarrel among themselves.
Infallible Gods get out of bed every morning and go to work. They recognize their overarching responsibilities and are conscientious in their various occupations. They seem to perform their functions in near-perfect synchronicity, and so should we.
Therefore let’s go build Avebury or Newgrange or Stonehenge with knowledge aforethought and subtle complexity. As mere puny little Humans we’re always grateful, so let’s do a nice job for the Gods because they do such a lovely job for us.
Anyway, my take is that the Neolithic Gods were infallible. The people did not fear capricious behavior or arbitrary punishment, so they worked from a position of love and respect. This is reflected in the surviving structures that we study today.
A deceptively simple thread perhaps, but one which weaves an elaborate tapestry that goes a long way in explaining their work ethic, lifestyle and ultimate motivation.
Neil
.
| |
|
Main News