A story and a question. by Fremdfirma

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
All this is a possible interpretation of the site, along with several possibilities, but there's still no compelling evidence that there was no government enforcing laws and codes. The very existence of a multi-city system of uniform weights and measures, and uniform building and sanitation codes, argues for a method of creating, implementing, and enforcing these uniform standards.
Conformance does not necessarily mean enforcement. I can think of several ways to get people to conform w/o "negative reinforcement". Can you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Actually no. I lived in Sweden a country that has gone about as far as it's possible to go to live by mutual agreement and the cops there are armed. If under no circumstances was it nescessary to enforce anything they wouldn't need guns but they have them because there will always be someone who isn't reasonable, or is a criminal or just an asshole.

Also in practice building codes do have to be enforced for people to follow them because the easiest and best way to make a bigger profit on any job is to skimp on materials. The fact that things are so uniform means that someone was overseeing the work and ensuring it was to spec and by definition punishing or firing those that were not keeping to the specification.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 4:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Conformance does not necessarily mean enforcement. I can think of several ways to get people to conform w/o "negative reinforcement". Can you?

I can think of several ways to get most people to conform without enforcement. But several thousand, on large municipal building projects? I find it unlikely to the extreme that there weren't a percentage or shirkers who had to be forced to work. Or it could be that the ones who wouldn't work were forced out of the city, but it's force just the same.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 4:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You could drive someone out by ignoring them... yanno, an extended "time out". Also oppositional people respond to reward better than punishment: For example you can "Tom Sawyer" people into doing something by calling it a great honor. Also, since people seem to learn best through somewhat inconsistent reward, you can set up some kind of lottery.

What I find curious about that civilization is the lack of things that we so often expect to see. For example, we think the Indus civilization had a religion. But curiously, we don't what it is. Looking at other ancient civilizations there is no doubt what they worshiped. so what about the Harappans? They had weapons but no indication of warfare.

Individual homes were like little self-contained units with their own water supply. They DID have a market, so clearly individualized goods exchange was occurring. OTOH they had a large granary. Does that mean centralized distribution or storage of grain?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

What I find curious about that civilization is the lack of things that we so often expect to see. For example, we think the Indus civilization had a religion. But curiously, we don't what it is. Looking at other ancient civilizations there is no doubt what they worshiped. so what about the Harappans? They had weapons but no indication of warfare.

Individual homes were like little self-contained units with their own water supply. They DID have a market, so clearly individualized goods exchange was occurring. OTOH they had a large granary. Does that mean centralized distribution or storage of grain?

The fact remains that we don't know what was going on in that part of the world at that time. You look at a site and you interpret it to represent what you want it to be, it's a classic "eye of the beholder" issue.

You seem to think these facts point to a principally cooperative and strife free society free from official repression, but you see that because that's what you want to see, that doesn't make it true. It could be that like Spartans the young males were taken from their mothers at age 8 and drilled to form part of a theocratical military elite. Those that did not or would not conform were then killed. Since the training camps would be more transient than the buildings it would give you the same historic site, you would have weapons because everyone was trained to use them, you would have rigid discipline needed to build large structures, you would have few fixed battlements because these people could physically overwhelm any practical attacker.

This is a different reading of the same ground and yet it has 180 degrees a different interpretation. That is why people have asked for cites that support Siggy's fluffy bunny interpretation, that is why folks have asked for other examples with a better historic record. You cant say "utopia works, look at this lost civilization we know nothing about as proof."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2- Google Harappan army or even Harappan king and see what you get. Which is basically ... they didn't have any.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2- Google Harappan army or even Harappan king and see what you get. Which is basically ... they didn't have any.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Did you try this? Because I got links for both.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"It could be that like Spartans the young males were taken from their mothers at age 8 and drilled to form part of a theocratic military elite."

But you don't have that without a system of beliefs that makes it possible. And that system of beliefs leaks out everywhere from Spartan archeology. Heroic statues. Male quarters. Many, many depictions of war and fighting. What is interesting is that no such evidence has been found in MJ archeology. No heroic statues. No armories. No male living quarters. No depictions of war and fighting. NOTHING to indicate a militarized culture.

Now think about any modern culture - like Sweden. Suppose 5000 years go by and people have only buildings and implements to consider. Are there churches ? With churches around, how do you hide the evidence of religion ? Do you find military camps and armories ? If so, how do you hide the evidence of an army ?

Now try to imagine a society that would have a large-scale religion but no churches - at all. A large army but no camps or armories- at all. Do you think it's possible ?

BTW I can see one way for people to decide on uniform bricks - to prevent overpricing on substandard goods. It would work the same way as ASTM's consensus standards and NIST's national standards, or the Good Housekeeping seal of approval, and completely without a heavy hand of enforcement.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Did you try this? Because I got links for both.

Oh, I got all kinds of links. But when I followed them they said things like.... "There is no evidence of a Harappan army" or "There are no large tombs, no statues, no palaces to indicate a kingship."

Ancient Egypt... hell, you knew there was a pharoah. His (sometimes her) face was all over... on huge statues, inside the pyramids, etc etc. Same thing with ancient China, MesoAmerica, the cultures of the Middle East and South Asia, Africa... kings/ queens, emperors etc always seemd to have big publicity campaigns: Big tombs, big statues, frescoes etc. Same thing with armies: Depictions of warships, battles, the anguish of the enemy, physical remains of barracks and weapons, walls with guardhouses, etc. And gods? Everywhere! But the Harappan civilization was much more obscure, and is notable for its LACK of armies etc.

BTW although portions of Harappa were walled, the entrances were wide, had no barriers and no guardhouses... so unlikely that it served a defensive function.

There was prolly some sort of "upper class" in that civilization because some houses were clearly bigger than others. I wonder if those classes were something like The Keepers of Weights and Measures.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:20 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wonder if the people who are arguing they were just like us ! are having a hard time wrapping their minds around a novel concept.

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Now try to imagine a society that would have a large-scale religion but no churches - at all. A large army but no camps or armories- at all. Do you think it's possible ?

Actually yes on both counts.

Imagine that Quakers had become the dominant Christian sect, groups worshiping in each others homes and in unassuming buildings. Muslims are supposed to pray to Mecca, there are many places where they do that without Mosques. If you had to pray 7 times a day to the Sun God you might not actually build a temple, after all the object of devotion moves. No temples does not mean no religion, it just means no religion like ours --- incidentally this also assumes that none of the buildings found are not temples and that we misunderstood their use.

Most of the Swiss army live at home, keep their weapons at home and drill periodically. In that case you don't necessarily need armouries or barracks. If you look back in our own history we built defenses to at choke points, passes and crossings. Not every major city had a complete city wall if you controlled your boarders -- just like NYC doesn't have a wall today you don't need one if you don't expect a siege.

Here's the problem. It's an extraordinary place compared to 99.9% of the worlds ancient urban centers. It's pretty unique and we know next to nothing about it.

Your math seems to go like this.

For the rest of the world

Palaces == kings
Forts == Armies
Temples == religion

But this is an extraordinary place that doesn't seem to have palaces, forts or temples. You take that equivalence litterally. If there are no palaces, there are no kings, if there are no forts there is no army, no temples means no religion. Now while that is a viable explanation it is not the only one, you like it because it feeds your own preconceptions but it is possible to have kings without palaces, armies without forts and religion without temples. Would that me unusual? Yes, of course but we agreed going in that it's an extraordinary place. If you were intellectually honest you would concede that there are different readings of the ground than the one you prefer, but we all know you won't it isn't the reality of the place you are interested in it's the use of it to support your viewpoint.

If next week they unearthed the fortress of the God emperor with it's huge barracks and the shrine to the God king your interest would evaporate because it isnt that the place itself is interesting as that you can use it to argue from the viewpoint of incomplete knowledge.

So lets ask again. Find a place with a recorded history that complies with the pattern you are proposing and dont really on one interpretation of an incomplete record.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Now try to imagine a society that would have a large-scale religion but no churches - at all. A large army but no camps or armories- at all. Do you think it's possible ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 1:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2, let's assume that the Harappans had an army like the Swiss and religion like the Quakers. As you say: fully distributed. It would be difficult then for a central power to impose it's will on "the people" if the people felt like resisting, since it would be difficult to control the distribution of weapons and even the distribution of ideas. So, where does that leave you? With a society that hangs together by voluntary particpation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:59 PM

Rue seemed to think that the absence of a type of building means the absence of the institutions that would use that type of building. I just showed that there are places where those institutions don't have specialised buildings. I'm not implying these folks were Quakers or Swiss of shared any of those groups world view.

We have absolutely no idea how this society was organized or administered, all we know is that we are unable to identify certain classes of building WE LINK with specific civil functions. You have then taken the leap of logic that no building means that those functions where not there. I trust this refutes that argument.

As an aside. Near my inlaws is a large megachurch built like a large industrial warehouse. If it was raised and you had only the foundations to go on you would never know there was a church there, you would assume that this was commercial property.

Let me repeat to make it clear. There is no evidence either way to be able to say how these cities were organized. You are interpreting the sites and seeing something based on your own sociological biases, something that may not be there at all. You are then using your interpretation of what you see to justify your position. Watch the Red Dwarf episode where Rimmer thinks they found an alien spacecraft that is actually a garbage pod. Everything he thinks he sees reinforces his own prejudices.

Actually there is actual real evidence that you have missed something that would explain everything and show that your right-on-ness may just not grasp how radical this civilisation may have been.

Couple of little factoids. Most of the bodies are missing, more specifically very few people are buried at these sites, it is assumed that most of the people that died were either burnt or given a river burial as is still common in that part of the world. the few that are buried don't have elaborate Egyptian style tombs but seem to be people of rank.

Now here's the thing. You would expect families to be buried together right? Well if you do DNA tests you will find that the women, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, are buried in close proximity to each other. The men are buried all over the place with no specific pattern. This seems to imply that at least in death in this elite it was the woman's family that had presidence. Unlike modern India where the woman joins the mans family when they are wed this could mean that men joined the wife's family.

So my theory as good as anyone else's and better than yours. This was a matriarchal society, which may explain why there is a lack of overt macho posturing in the architecture. If you think on it grand architecture, you know phallic columns thrusting into the sky big grand over the topness tends to be a very masculine expression. Women probably would want something more functional, something tasteful, that may explain why they didnt build like male Greeks and Egyptians, they were not male greeks they were not even male at all.

Does this imply less religion? Probably not, women are the bedrock of most religious faiths, it could imply something closer to a council than a king though. It would also mean that in the absence of an obvious threat you might not spend money on defences better spent of flood defence and irrigation.

Getting down to the crux of your argument though (at least i think it's your point) this wouldn't imply that order was not maintained. The core idea you seem to have is that absent military, obvious government or religion everybody just lives a cool right-on hippy lifestyle with no "man" to hastle them. In reality any system of government that actually believes in maintaining order has to have the means to do that and ultimately in the absence of voluntary cooperation that means use of force. Is force used on every occasion to enforce the most trivial of ordinances? No, but then only you see the jackbooted thug as the only representation of authority. Fact is though that if you dont comply most communities have the ability to force you.

I had a friend in Switzerland -- you know, that place were everyone has a gun... must be a bastion of rugged individualism since everyone can pack "heat." In fact it's one of the most regulated places on earth, his local government decides where he parks his car, if he gets a space to park at all, what color he can pain his house, if he can have a satellite dish or put out laundry to dry on his own property. They can even refuse to register a childs name if it isn't "Swiss" enough. All that and direct democracy. Wonder what that would look like as a set of foundations 5000 years from now?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 5:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch

"Rue seemed to think that the absence of a type of building means the absence of the institutions that would use that type of building. I just showed that there are places where those institutions don't have specialised buildings. "

No, you haven't shown that. I've been busy so I haven't had a chance to get back.

Let's start with the modern Swiss - you seem to think that as a distributed army all they have are guns and knives scattered around most homes. But that's not true. They have armored vehicles and tanks, an air force with fighter-craft, and even a military patrol for their lakes. B/c of modern transport and their distance from cities you'd have a hard time finding them in a future archeological dig. But back then in the time of MD an army located even 20 miles away was just too far to do any good. So if there were armies, even if the people were distributed, you'd expect to find the accoutrements of large-scale military warfare and places for storage - their equivalent of tanks and fighter jets and military installations. And you'd expect to find lots of arms - all over the place, and not just here or there. Any civilization of the time would have spears, knives and arrows - common implements for hunting and butchering. But warfare would require use shields as well. Not only are spears and arrows indicated as 'flimsy' (with only one copper arrowhead found to date) but the other tools and places of war are absent. No shields or leather armor, no chariots, no stables - nothing that can be interpreted as war material.
And what do you make of the lack of war-images ? As Signy pointed out, everywhere else there is no DOUBT as to whether or not those people waged war. With MD, even their capability to do that is open.

Now, the idea of Quakers and (theoretically) Muslims with distributed religions is an intriguing one, and a potential line.

But I'm still busy so this will have to wait.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 5:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You could drive someone out by ignoring them... yanno, an extended "time out".

In a small enough society, possibly. When it gets to the point of a city and surrounding rural areas with many thousands, how would the individual citizen know who the authorities, or the city's people, had determined that they should ignore?

Quote:
Also oppositional people respond to reward better than punishment: For example you can "Tom Sawyer" people into doing something by calling it a great honor.

Again, once the population reaches a certain limit, you can't know enough about every individual to know what pushes their buttons.

Quote:
Also, since people seem to learn best through somewhat inconsistent reward, you can set up some kind of lottery.

Most people, possibly, but not all. People are individuals, not sheep. There are going to be outliers in any society over a few hundred.

I suspect that how people and their social ctructures interact depend to a great extent on how many people there are. In societies where there is plenty of unclaimed and fruitful land, folks who don't fit in to a particular style of society can just up and move somewhere else. At some point this becomes impossible, and they must play by the rules or be forced to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 6:28 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I’m not really sure why Signym is stuck on this strange notion that there were no “temples.” That’s not really the story. There were in fact very large structures that have been identified as temples at Mohenjo daro. Until we decipher the script we can’t say for sure how these structures were used, so we have to use a little common sense. The likely scenario is that this is a temple in which some form of ritual bathing was practiced. Ritual bathing is not uncommon within religion, in fact it is central to Christianity. Ancient cities were often organized around a large temple from which a single authority presided as a pure theocracy, in which the religion and government were inseparable. This is exactly the kind of thing we see at Mohenjo Daro.

And after some looking around, I remember where I read about the Cu Battle Axes in Mohenjo-Daro. I would direct Signym towards a book entitled: “Ancient Indian Warfare,” by Sarva Daman Singh.

“…mighty citadels such as those of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, provided with watchmen’s quarter, suggest the presence of standing garrisons to man the defences. Fighting, then, must have already become a profession, and the army, such as it was, an important factor in the life of these wealthy communities.”
p. 8

“Flat axes of copper and bronze, without the shaft-hole, have been found at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and recently at Lothal and Rangpur in south western India…The shorter axes with a deep and circular edge suggest weapons of war. Several axe-blades at Mohenjodaro bear signs and inscriptions incised on them. The inscribed axe-blades must have been designed for something more important then mere wood-chopping. In view of the time-honored practice of inscribing weapons, it will not be unreasonable to assume that they were weapons of war.”
p.88

This idea that there was no warfare among the prehistoric or pre-Aryan peoples of the Indus Valley I think is a stretch. What I see when I look at the cities of Mohenjo daro is basically a the same kind of culture that existed in the ancient cities of Sumer. A single powerful central authority, probably a ruling clan, which acts not only as the supreme rule of the land, but also as the messenger of the gods, presides with absolute but limited power, setting uniform legal, architectural and economic standards. There was a standing army equipped with copper/bronze spears and probably an elite guard carrying copper/bronze battle-axes and limestone maces. There was also likely a cavalry.

Is it possible that the Harappan civilization was less warlike then the Greeks? Certainly, the Greeks prided themselves on their ability to wage war and they were good at it. Is it possible they were some peaceful amazingly cooperative non-religious anarchist society, like a hive of bees or something? No, not in any way that could have been seen as the kind of thing Sygnym and rue are talking. Human societies in Bronze Age just didn’t work that way - I’m not sure they worked that way today, but certainly not in the Bronze Age when endemic warfare was the name of the game. I think Rue and Sygnym, in their zeal to see the Harrappan culture as some sort testament to ancient egalitarianism have overstated the story. The absence of depictions of war is curious, I’ll grant that, but extremely weak evidence of the absence of war, especially given the archeology.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA

If ya wanna hash out Archeology vs Politics, an interesting and informative discussion so far, I must admit - why not start a thread specific TO it ?

Just a thought.

On topic, this bit crossed my desk a little while ago, point of fact about such colonies, steadings and so forth is that we really DON'T know how things would go, cause never even once (save for the Amish) has the Gov LEFT EM ALONE long enough to find out.

"A Nest of Vipers in This Country"
Anti-Anarchist Propaganda and the McKinley Era Red Scare:
A case study of Home Colony and Tacoma, Washington.
http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/vipers.htm

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Let's start with the modern Swiss - you seem to think that as a distributed army all they have are guns and knives scattered around most homes. But that's not true. They have armored vehicles and tanks, an air force with fighter-craft, and even a military patrol for their lakes. B/c of modern transport and their distance from cities you'd have a hard time finding them in a future archeological dig. But back then in the time of MD an army located even 20 miles away was just too far to do any good. So if there were armies, even if the people were distributed, you'd expect to find the accoutrements of large-scale military warfare and places for storage - their equivalent of tanks and fighter jets and military installations. And you'd expect to find lots of arms - all over the place, and not just here or there. Any civilization of the time would have spears, knives and arrows - common implements for hunting and butchering. But warfare would require use shields as well. Not only are spears and arrows indicated as 'flimsy' (with only one copper arrowhead found to date) but the other tools and places of war are absent. No shields or leather armor, no chariots, no stables - nothing that can be interpreted as war material.
And what do you make of the lack of war-images ? As Signy pointed out, everywhere else there is no DOUBT as to whether or not those people waged war. With MD, even their capability to do that is open.

Ok, it becomes apparent that we are talking at cross purposes here. You obviously are talking in terms of an army capable of taking to the field and either winning or securing territory. This is very different from what Siggy seems to be talking about which is the use of an army to provide internal security/police functions. The implication is that for a hierarchical central style government to assert it's will it needs an instrument of coercion iea paramilitary force loyal to the government and capable of enforcing that governments edicts and laws.

My understanding of the argument is that the absence of an army capable of enforcing the will of an elitist government means that there was no central government asserting control. Since the theory is that centralized authorities like a king could not maintain control by general consensus in the absence of the threat of physical force.

It is that army, the one there to be the instrument of "the man" that I am referring to and that can quite effectively exist in the cities you are talking about. Cities can post guards, enforce security, enforce the paying of taxes, enforce laws etc entirely with units that reside inside the city. That is in effect what the modern police force is, it was modeled by Robert Peel on military style organization and is in effect a small army detailed with keeping public order. You could imagine a system not unlike the way your own founders envisaged a militia, a group of men who would come together only when needed to meet a threat. It has benefits for liberty because bored armies do bad things and it's cheaper than keeping men under arms you dont need.

One other question that hasn't been answered is; prior to the Aryan invasion that ended the civilisation had it been invaded before? Maintaining an army/battlements/chariots etc etc is costly. If you have no history of being invaded, if resources are plentiful enough locally that you don't have to fight the neighboring city state to get more then you probably wouldn't need to maintain a large standing army with chariots, shields etc like you envisage.

This has nothing to do with the goodness or otherwise of the civilisation this is a practical consideration. If you read the Federalist Papers there is a long discussion about how maintaining a standing army is a bad idea, traditionally after wars the US cut back on spending and had a peace dividend, that hasn't happened since ww2 because of the constant cold war situation. Countries that dont expect to be invaded dont keep big armies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
One other question that hasn't been answered is; prior to the Aryan invasion that ended the civilisation had it been invaded before?

The evidence is rather complete that the civilization was NOT ended by invasion.

More later

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 7:21 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The question is often asked how the German people could have allowed the atrocities of the Nazi government? The first response is that they didn’t know, and they didn’t know some of it, but they certainly knew enough that would cause a person to regret not acting. So why? The answer is the ubiquity of rigid ideology. The SS couldn’t be everywhere. What the typical German feared was not being seen and arrested by the SS, but being turned into the SS by their neighbors. So the Nazi government was able to maintain a rigid authority, not so much because of the threat force, but because of the fear of that threat.

Now there are some very critical differences in the way ancient Bronze Age societies worked and the Nazis. Even the Roman Empire with its extremely powerful central authority and huge standing army was never able to elicit the kind of total control that modern regimes have. The concept of the totalitarian state is really a modern thing, but the concept of a ubiquitous rigid ideology is not.

Now Marx would say that religion is the opiate of the masses, perhaps (I’m not sure Marx ever actually said that) but the truth was that societies formed and cooperated because of religion. It was the glue that held ancient societies together. It allowed them a common sense of purpose, a familiar routine and a sense of unity and in doing so they could set aside the typical suspicions, prejudices and fears and begin to trust each other and work together. Religion created civilization.

So really there was rarely a time in antiquity when a State could field enough foot soldiers and guards to physically impose the authority of the state. We can’t do that today, even in modern Police States, so they certainly couldn’t do that in large Bronze Age citystates. What they did do was build a society around the religious symbols and beliefs. The authority of state was granted legitimacy in the eyes of the people through religion. Ethics, laws and morality were not just social norms or state regulation, they were the word of god, and you didn’t disobey that frivolously. Those that did often met brutal ends, if not capital punishment at the hand of the state, then they were stoned in the streets by angry mobs that feared retribution by the gods or were simply angry over their long held religion convictions being desecrated. Perhaps, one of the most terrifying punishes was being banned from the city - cast out into the wilderness, where there was no protection from bandits or wild animals, no guarantee of food and no shelter and no social interaction. In the Bronze Age, the world outside the city-state was a nightmare landscape - you cast out from the eyes of god.

So this concept of cooperation is not farfetched, and actually an important element in the way Bronze Age communities worked. But it was not unique to the Indus Valley and probably not what Signym has in mind. It’s unlikely that Mohenjo-daro did not have some form of armed authority within the city - there will always be a percentage of riffraff, and of course they represent the authority of state. But there could never enough to police the entire city.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you'd expect to find lots of arms - all over the place, and not just here or there. Any civilization of the time would have spears, knives and arrows - common implements for hunting and butchering.

Actually, no. Bronze and Copper were extremely valuable in the ancient world. They didn’t just cast aside bronze spearheads and axe heads when they were done with them. They were reformed or melted down into other tools or implements. The bronze or copper weapons that are found in any Bronze Age excavation are a tiny percentage of those that actually were use - a “lost” commodity.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But warfare would require use shields as well. Not only are spears and arrows indicated as 'flimsy' (with only one copper arrowhead found to date) but the other tools and places of war are absent. No shields or leather armor, no chariots, no stables - nothing that can be interpreted as war material.

Shields and armor was most likely made of natural fibers. Tightly woven cloth or wicker. Bronze armor was extremely expensive and the Greeks, during the Bronze Age, managed to implement it, but most societies did not. Middle Eastern armies, and likely also the Indus Valley, used woven armor, which one wouldn’t expect to survive as well. My understanding however is that the remains of bronze scale armor is believed to have been found in excavations of the Indus Valley. However, I admit it’s puzzling that there is little defensive weapons found, because for a society that has few depictions of warfare, it seems unusual that there is only offensives weapons in the archeology. This corresponds to cultures that rely on fast offensive shock tactics, like the Huns for instance, not a society that is peaceful, but it could also correspond to a society where there was little need for large military campaigns or defense, and therefore more expensive defensive weapons are set aside.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 10:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- Lightening campaigns rely on horses. Altho the Indus civilization knew about horses they didn't have them. I wonder if perhaps the weapons were ceremonial? They seem too light to be effective, but bear the marks of having been used to cut grain.

AFA using religion to tie a society together... in contemporaneous societies religious artefacts are everywhere. Not so much in the Harappan civilization. So it's a puzzle. The one thing that seem to have been built to accomdate large numbers of people is the public bath. That, and the presence of floor drains (and sewage systems) seem to indicate the use of water not only for physical cleanliness but also spiritual purity.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 4:53 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Light war horses were actually ideal for skirmishing troops, but despite my Huns example I wasn’t really thinking of cavalry. I was actually thinking of early Celtic and Germanic armies, which relied totally on offensive tactics with no armor beyond possibly a wooden shield.

I don’t think the Harappan artifacts are too light to be effective weapons either. If they could cut grain, they could kill and it seems likely that cutting through grain or cutting through wicker armor could produce similar marks. Many of these weapons may have been ceremonial, ceremonial weapons are probably more likely to survive then the standard issue, but this means that the Harappan culture was celebrating warfare. It’s very possible, and I think likely, that when we finally interpret the Indus Script we will find it full of wars and warfare.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Frem, 6ix: I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:

Keep your smoke outta my noze and

Keep your health costs outta my pocket.

Okay?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

When you say things like that, you really sound like a self-righteous twat.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
...and you keep your bills from whatever health problems you have because of it, to yourself, I don't care what you put into your body:)

Good. We can add you to the list of self righteous twats too.

In the mean time. You better be going to the gym 3 days a week and passing on the hot dogs an ho-hos because I don't want to pay for your lyposuction or heart surgeries, or the countless pills you're going to be on for the 30 years you out-live me because you didn't smoke.

And, you better not be tanning in the beds or on the beach for that matter either. I don't want to pay for your skin cancer treatments.

Better not go hiking in the woods or ice skating or skiing or snowboarding either, because you could trip and break your leg and I don't want to pay for that.

In fact, I don't want you doing a damn thing besides sitting at home eating tofu and watching TV every hour that you're not at work. Oh... and make sure you give your eyes 15 minutes break every hour, because I don't want to pay for your eyeglasses if your eyes go bad.

OH AND MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!! YOU BETTER NOT HAVE ANY F'ING KIDS YOU CAN'T PAY HEALTHCARE FOR BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO FUND IT WITH AN INCREASE OF $.61 A PACK!!!

You can go to hell now. And take your self-righteous biggotry with you.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 5:48 AM

LEIASKY

Oh. Did I hit a nerve?

Poor baby.

You'll get no pity from me.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
Oh. Did I hit a nerve?

Poor baby.

You'll get no pity from me.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

I notice you didn't at all address the hypocracy of your position that I pointed out.

That's okay.... I didn't expect you to.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 9:06 PM

I do like your sig quote though. Been mine here for about 2 years now. Book's the man.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 11:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Frem, 6ix: I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:
Keep your smoke outta my noze and
Keep your health costs outta my pocket.
Okay? -Signy

When you say things like that, you really sound like a self-righteous twat.-6ix

And when you say things like THAT you sound like a hypocrite. You really think you're a libertarian? Independent? The right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that?

You're just a weasly little hypocrite. You want all the bennies while loudly proclaiming how righteous you are and imposing your health choice on my lungs.

What a dick.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Frem, 6ix: I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:
Keep your smoke outta my noze and
Keep your health costs outta my pocket.
Okay? -Signy

When you say things like that, you really sound like a self-righteous twat.-6ix
And when you say things like THAT you sound like a hypocrite. You really think you're a libertarian? Independent? The right to swing your fist ends at my nose and all that?

You're just a weasly little hypocrite. You want all the bennies while loudly proclaiming how righteous you are and imposing your health choice on my lungs.

What a dick.

Yawn... As I've said before, I've never wanted to force non-smokers to breathe in my smoke. I'm perfectly fine with having designated smoking rooms at the workplace which are properly ventelated, and short of that, heated outdoor places so smokers don't have to stand out in the rain or snow to smoke. And I've also said that I don't think that the government should mandate that private establishments ban smoking when apparently there is a VERY LARGE market of people just like you who want to go drink beer and poison your livers without having to breathe in second-hand smoke and poison your lungs. Let the market decide, I say.

As it is, I have no indoor smoking lounge at my work as of November and they have banned indoor smoking at EVERY resturant and bar in Illinois, so I can't enjoy myself at a bar in Illinois anymore. I live in a world full of hypocrites who will not rest until they have it their way, all the way.... meanwhile, I'm paying for their kids healthcare with my cigarette purchases and my insurance premiums just keep getting higher and higher every year even though year after year I never go to the doctor for anything and the only reason that I'm even paying for it in the first place is just in case I have a brain hemmorage like my brother did at 6 years old which would leave me stuck with a two million dollar hospital bill. It's not my lack of doctor's visits that are making my insurance premiums higher, is it? No. It's the soccer-moms taking their kids to the doctor everytime little Bobby has a sniffle and it's morbidly obese people with their heart attacks and a generation of mindless doped up idiots who are paying their monthy dues to Pfizer for their happy pills they just can't live without. Don't even get me started on how every border jumper with kids gets free healthcare on my dime too.

Show me where the fairness is and which side is being hypocritical here.

The hypocracy sure isn't coming from my side.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 3:24 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think what Six String is saying is this:

1) He prefers not to have his cigarettes taxed out of proportion with other products.

2) He is willing to smoke in designated areas to prevent secondhand smoke from being a problem.

3) He thinks businesses should decide what sorts of amenities they will offer to smokers.

And these three things are pretty reasonable (says the asthmatic who can't stand to be in the presence of smoke for any length of time.)

If I can see the reasonableness in that, why can't anyone else?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 4:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Because they do not want to.
Because they refuse to.

Because when you shove all the hypocrisy, BS and lame excuses aside, it comes down to THEM, wanting to force THEIR morals and standards on US, and using the Government as a bludgeon to do it.

It is the same arguments, the same doublespeak and intentional misrepresentation that lead, via the Temperance movement, to Prohibition, in fact almost exactly the same arguments, and the same deaf ears when any attempt to reason was ever applied.

What RIGHT does the Government have to attempt to prohibit or discourage anyone's behavior by taxing a product.. so called "sin" taxes, what a damned INSULT the very term is to someone who perhaps does not share the beliefs or values of those applying it - would they be so accepting, I wonder, if they had to pay twice as much for non-kosher foods, perhaps ?

I cannot for the life of me understand what drives people to attempt to deny, discourage or disparage rights to others because of how they use them, and then have such a hissy fit when someone suggests that perhaps if they wish to deny rights to others - they should experience that same denial themself FIRST, and get a taste of what it is like.

It's not that they don't see the reasonableness of it Anthony, it's that this isn't about reason, never is, never was - this is about some folk wanting to force their morals on other folk, is what it is...

And once you understand THAT, you understand the rage of the folks getting pushed into the wall by it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:49 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:
Keep your smoke outta my noze and
Keep your health costs outta my pocket.

When you say things like that, you really sound like a self-righteous twat.

Woah, 6ix, I think you misread somewhere. Sig is just saying he has the same right to not be exposed to smoke if he doesn't want to be, that you have to smoke if you want to (which you yourself seem to say later), and that he shouldn't have to pay for your medical bills arising from your habit (which is again something you've said). I'm not sure why you think that makes him a self-righteous twat, it seems more or less reasonable, and in general agreement with what you've said.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:
Keep your smoke outta my noze and
Keep your health costs outta my pocket.

When you say things like that, you really sound like a self-righteous twat.
Woah, 6ix, I think you misread somewhere. Sig is just saying he has the same right to not be exposed to smoke if he doesn't want to be, that you have to smoke if you want to (which you yourself seem to say later), and that he shouldn't have to pay for your medical bills arising from your habit (which is again something you've said). I'm not sure why you think that makes him a self-righteous twat, it seems more or less reasonable, and in general agreement with what you've said.

I'll concede that perhaps you're right here, but as you already know.... sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Signy's argument came off as that I should pay more taxes and I should stand outside in the snow... at least that's the way that the people who want a total ban on smoking speak. It's pure double speak. I can't inherenlty find anything wrong with that post if I were to dissect it in a literal stance, but at the same time, Signy could agree with me and say that I shouldn't be taxed exorbanantly for the "privelage" and I should be able to do it in a comfortable setting, away from non smokers who don't want to breathe it.

I'd say, and I have said before, that probably 85 to 90% of non-smokers and ex-smokers would feel this way. It's just the crazy extremists way out of the ballpark (that seemingly make the rules) that want it to be all or nothing. Signy probably didn't mean it that way, but that's the same rhetoric they use.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 7:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What RIGHT does the Government have to attempt to prohibit or discourage anyone's behavior by taxing a product.. so called "sin" taxes, what a damned INSULT the very term is to someone who perhaps does not share the beliefs or values of those applying it - would they be so accepting, I wonder, if they had to pay twice as much for non-kosher foods, perhaps ?

I cannot for the life of me understand what drives people to attempt to deny, discourage or disparage rights to others because of how they use them, and then have such a hissy fit when someone suggests that perhaps if they wish to deny rights to others - they should experience that same denial themself FIRST, and get a taste of what it is like.

FREM I'm game. Next time it comes up I'll speak out against it. But as 6ix has said many times before, for him, smoking is a choice, and his choice affects me in two ways: It drives up healthcare costs and I don't want to breathe that shit.

6IXSTRING JACK Yes, fat people cost more too. And yanno what? They (me) should be charged higher insurance premiums commensurate with our increased risk, because although I eat well and stay in shape I choose to eat more than I should.

AFA paying for children's healthcare premiums- in my workplace as in most others I pay EXTRA for having a child on my policy.

So, employers should set aside well-ventilated areas for people who want to smoke? What about setting aside areas for people who want to nap on their break? For women who want to pump breast milk, so they don't have to do it in the john? What about exercise rooms? I can think of all KINDS of areas that need special requirements for various kinds of chosen break-time activities. What makes smoking so special? I mean, why should YOU get the $4 per square foot rental, heating, lighting, cleaning, furniture and ventilation subsidy?

So, I can agree to agree on the whole tax thing, but the rest of your argument.... pppffffft!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 7:58 AM

CITIZEN

Well, as an ex/social smoker I happen to agree with you in the broad strokes. Having said that though, and with the full proviso that I don't do this, what with not being single with a misses that visits this site, it's a great way to meet chicks.

"Cold out, what about this smoking ban eh, fancy a shag?"

According to an Irish comedian who spends time on the political satire shows here, people in Ireland are taking up smoking so they can get in on the act of 'Smurfing' (smoking and flirting, with the added extra that in Irish weather smokers often turn blue).

If they had to do something ban like, I really can't see why it wouldn't be along the lines of either making it law that you have to have a no smoking section separate from any smoking areas. I really don't see the necessity of an all out ban. If they wanted to be punitive they could give tax breaks to places that don't allow smoking, specific to the UK that could be an on premises 'smoking licence'. Not that that would be preferable to me, but it's better than a ban.

Having said that though, when I'm out now I smoke a lot less, and feel better for it in the morning, not to mention getting to stand around in the cold and Smurf :p.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In the interests of being nice, I'd like to see well-ventilated smoking areas set aside in lots of places. But I don't see it as a "right" as 6ix does.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:12 PM

I've been on the other side of this question. When I started working there were no none smoking policies on the books. The company I then worked for let people smoke at their desks, even if they shared offices with other people. Admittedly they did try and keep the smokers together but as seating groups and departments close to one another was considered more important that wasn't always possible.

In my case I started out sharing an office with a three packs a day man. I am violently allergic to cigarette smoke and my first two months were miserable as a consequence. I spoke with my manager but space at that time was at a premium and the only way I could move someplace else was if someone agreed to swap desks with me. I got the impression that I was in that room because I was the low man on the totem pole and that my predecessor had moved out when another space became available. I needed the job, so I suffered.

Now some time latter an EU directive banned smoking in the workplace. The company moved to designate the break room as an indoor smoking area and installed more powerful fans. This was universally unpopular. The Smokers didn't like it because they now couldn't smoke at their desks, most other people didn't like it because the building didn't have catering and the break room couldn't now be used as a place to eat your sandwiches. Since all the vending was there you had to take a deep breath run inside and hope the coke machine wasn't too tardy dispensing cans.

Most people ended up going to the nearby pub for lunch, because the smokers could sit at one side and none smokers could sit at the other and we could all eat in peace.

I think what I am saying is this. Back before Jack had even thought about smoking, hell back before jack was even born being a none smoker sucked rocks because you got almost no choice when it came to cigarette smoke. Most people smoked and those that didn't had only their own homes and the outside as clean air spots. All that's happened is that now things have swung the other way. Now instead of the none smoker being the one outside in the cold it's the smoker and instead of the only safe place you could avoid smoke being your own home it's now one of the few places you can smoke.

So Jack we get it, really we do I've dealt with the self same issues that you do just from the other side. Now shut up about it already. Don't keep throwing grumbles about the price of your smokes into every thread no matter how unrelated. We get it, truly, but all it does is make you sound like a bumbling self obsessed drug addict, it does your credibility no good at all and it doesnt advance the conversation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 13, 2008 6:14 AM