Swords and "urbanization"

kronckew · 11th October 2008, 09:24 AM

just a few general comments

1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban'

in english,

Civil:
Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state.
Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community.
Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual.
Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable.

2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah).

these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them.

the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions.

thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.

Nonoy Tan · 11th October 2008, 10:09 AM

Aside from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" I recall another thougth-provoking work by Stephen Oppenheimer, "Eden in the East - The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia."

I highly recommend it as well.

Such works challenge many of our assumptions on the origins of "civilization" and organized societies.

Nonoy

11th October 2008, 09:24 AM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	just a few general comments 1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban' in english, Civil: Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state. Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community. Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual. Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable. 2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah). these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them. the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions. thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.

11th October 2008, 10:09 AM	#2
Nonoy Tan Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 293	Aside from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" I recall another thougth-provoking work by Stephen Oppenheimer, "Eden in the East - The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia." I highly recommend it as well. Such works challenge many of our assumptions on the origins of "civilization" and organized societies. Nonoy