Kalkreise dates to 15-16 AD Germanicus Campaign-NOT Varus!

[Goffredo]

YES. Glad you noticed as it was intentional. Its funny to see relativisits get uptight when you use their own methods.<br>
<br>
paraphrase "Who kills by the sword dies by the sword."<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

First, Rufus, hat off to your post. But then my, like your academic background, is history, so I'm opinionated.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Rufus writes (and other acknowledge) "The Germanic and Gallic tribes, the Parthian/Persian empire, the Greeks, Seleucid Syria and Asia Minor, the Ptolemaic Egypt, Arabia all of these people and hundreds more had civilizations which in there own way were important and "advanced". Although I am willing, for tranquility's sake, to agree to some extent (e.g. that Romans were not good, just a big piece of OUR heritage), I would like to point out that you are overextending your relativism too much by placing (see above) the Germanic and Gallic tribes in the same list as the other true Civilizations. I accept the claim that the Celtic Culture in Gaul (Spain, Britain) were quite sophisiticated. But Culture and Civiliaztion are not the same thing!<hr><br>
<br>
Pray enlighten us. My personal interpretation of “civilisationâ€ÂÂ

[Goffredo]

The following is not 100% jocular if only becuase I do not have so clear an opinion as to be PROUD. I have doubts. Maybe this is where my pride should rised.<br>
<br>
Glad to see you are proud. It is so strong an human emotion. Is your pride relative or do you claim there is something special about your world view? Should the non-relativist be ashamed of his views or is he entitled to be proud just as you are?<br>
<br>
I am joking but I do think that relativism can be pushed too and lose sense of proportions. The problem is where is to set the objective (absolute) threshold. Speaking of our world - that of the recent 20th century, and opening 21st century, I ask: do mass indoctrinations, shoahs, pogroms, terrorisms, political assasinations, infibulations, capital punishment, and all other sorts of imaginative human behaviour fall under any form of regulation. Mind you that regulation has to have some form of authority and be based on solid ground ELSE a good lawyer can defend his "savage" client invoking some relativistic arguement. Imagine someone saying: "In this proud country we infibulate women because it is the right thing to do". How impotent is relativism to take a stance on this.<br>
<br>
The issue on how to interpret and judge past history and our beloved ancients, and not our familiar selves, is in my view an interesting one. But I fear that relativism is inadequate to not only understand, comprehend the present, but say anything profound about our past (which, by the way is a very short time span in evolutionary terms).<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 4/19/04 12:40 pm<br></i>

[Bill Altimari]

Well, I never expected to add so much new life to this debate. I certainly didn't expect to be called (by someone who doesn't know me) unhelpful, unprofessional, and ridiculous--and all in a single posting. I wonder if that sort of language and those sorts of <em>ad hominem</em> attacks qualify as "barbaric." I was saddened that these words came from a member of the American military, to whom I dedicated my recent novel. Ironically, I deplored the politicizing of archaeology, and I was presented with a response suffused with political correctness and moral relativism. Just a few brief points:<br>
<br>
"Still, we must be more responsible when we study the past, and as painful as it is for me to say this, we must be careful not to make value judgments about past civilizations."<br>
<br>
Frankly, this is astounding. Should we create a time capsule and leave a note admonishing people a thousand years from now not to make value judgments about Nazi "civilization"? The moral nihilism explicit in the above quote could come straight from the BBC or <em>The Guardian</em>. <em>Of course</em> we should make value judgments. It's what separates us from the lower primates. If the day comes when we no longer make value judgments, civilization has ended.<br>
<br>
All cultures are not equal, then or now. To claim they are is to create an atmosphere in which barbarism thrives. Abetted by the spiritual comfort given it by various politicians, academics, and journalists, barbarism is thriving in many parts of the world even as I write this. It's interesting to note that for all of his copious literary lauds of uncivilized people, Tacitus never chose to live among them. The late Kenneth Clark was intrigued by people like Tacitus who chose to extol the virtues of barbarism. Clark's bemused response to these people was that they could indulge in this fantasy because they had never really given it a try.<br>
<br>
Bill Altimari<br>
author of <em>Legion: A Novel of the Army of Rome</em> <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

First of all Bill, my comments aren't meant to be personally directed toward at you, but toward some of comments made by you(not all), and others on this board regarding this subject that I happen to disagree with stongly.<br>
<br>
My purpose is not to propose a relativist stance for modern history or modern life. As you point out, my profession stands against relativism by its very nature. Hitler was an awful person, no doubt about it, but should future historians condemn all Germans or German society in the 1940's as animals because one man and his cronies? The reason I feel so strongly about "relativism" in ancient history, however, lies in some of the points I made above. We are all descended from both of the civilizations in question in some degree or another. My family may be from Italy, but no one can deny the impact the fall of the Empire had in changing the way Italians lived, even if ethnically we were not as affected by the German flood as, say France, or Britain. This is where I believe the point must be made about value judgements in ancient history versus modern history. Who is to say we would have developed a free democratic society(something we all regard as good) today if the Empire had not fallen. We can't. Now I suppose you could argue that by relativist logic maybe in the long run we would have been better if Hitler had won World War II,maybe we'd have an even better system in a hundred years. Well some could certainly argue that, with a totally relativist view of the world, but I would not. As I said, my relativism relates to ancient history, and in the specific context of this board, it is against the view that we would somehow be better off if Arminius and his Chereusi hadn't destroyed Varus's legions(since we are partially on the subject of Hitler, let us not forget that it was the Germanic tribes under Arminius that were defending their territory against an Empire that saw itself as culturally superior to others and justified its expansion as self defense).Based on the sources we have, tell me how anyone can know that we would have a better world today if that event didn't happen? Please explain how morally(since that is argument against Arminius) the Germans were more barbaric than that of Rome. Were the conquest and enslavement and /or destruction of local populations, the organized mass persecution of religious and political disssenters, and the use of blood sports for the entertainment of the masses any more civilized than the similarly brutal acts of the Germanic tribes ? If the Allies in World War 2(minus the Soviets) had executed millions of people in camps and had governmental systems that systematically and purposfully murdered civilians with no remorse simply for conquests sake, than I would say we need to be more relativist in our approach to World War 2. The point is in ancient times, there just isn't enough moral parity to say one civilization/culture was somehow "better" than another, or that one particular civilization would have led us faster to the modern, "Western" civilization we value today.<br>
Rome built its wealth and granduer after conquering an empire, so did the German tribes that followed them. I 'm sure 146 BC many people bemoaned the fall of Greece to the "uncivilized" Romans, and cried about the destruction of a superior civilization. Historians make this same judgment about the so-called Dorian invasion and "dark ages" in Greece in 9th century BC, failing to realize that those "dark ages" were simply the beginnings of the building of one of the most important and influential civilizations of the Mediterrenean.<br>
<br>
My point Bill, was not to insult you, and I since you clearly took my post as an attack of you personally, I apologize. As I said, my comments were directed at certain points you made in your post.Some of the points I was arguing against were from other posters on this board, not you. The reason I employed harsh words to battle some of the views of the pro-Varus folks is because they were in fact harsh in their evaluation of people and cultures for whom THEY have never met and ,in fact, know little about. We know a lot about Hitler. We know much less about Arminius, his Germanic bretheren and the thousands of peoples, cultures and civilizations whose voices have not been passed down the ages as well as the Romans and Greeks. My point is that I would hope that we all would all not be so judgmental in looking at people who are so far removed from us, and that we owe them the same respect(historically) that we pay to Varus's legionaries. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rufuscaius>RufusCaius</A> at: 4/20/04 1:42 am<br></i>

[Chariovalda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>The following is not 100% jocular if only becuase I do not have so clear an opinion as to be PROUD. I have doubts. Maybe this is where my pride should rised.<hr><br>
<br>
I am overawed by your humility.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Glad to see you are proud. It is so strong an human emotion. Is your pride relative or do you claim there is something special about your world view? Should the non-relativist be ashamed of his views or is he entitled to be proud just as you are?<hr><br>
<br>
Well, for something that was meant as a humorous, playful remark – and I admit, a bit of a challenge – it seems to have ruffled your feathers. Not to be outdone in humility, I throw myself to the earth, cover my clothes with dust and ashes and beg for mercy.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I am joking but I do think that relativism can be pushed too and lose sense of proportions.<hr><br>
<br>
Any concrete examples? There’s a difference between relativism as an attitude towards one’s object of study in historical and social sciences, and the use and abuse of analogies in modern politics. A “relativistâ€ÂÂ

[Chariovalda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Look if the Allies in World War 2, executed millions of people in Camps, and had governmental systems that systematically and purposelly murdered civilians with no remorse simply for conquests sake, than I would say be need to be more relativist in our approach to World War 2.<hr><br>
<br>
Well, this way OT, but I'd like to add that the study of one part of WW II - the eastern front - can be and is increasingly done in a "relativist" way because of the nature of the two opposing regimes. In terms of deaths directly and indirectly caused, Hitler and Stalin gave each other a good run for their money. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I was too sarcastic and evidently gave the impression I was offending. Ok maybe I was offensive, just a bit, not too much I hope, but not against the person(s) on this forum, but because I keep getting upset with this type of issue. Its my problem, not yours. SORRY.<br>
Ciao<br>
A not very proud alternating relativist-absolutist with many doubts<br>
<br>
Jeff<br>
<br>
p.s. the "proud doubter" bit was just to annoy you. Sorry again <p></p><i></i>

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Considering I am just about to make the decision to go back and try to finish my PhD in History/Anthroplogy, on the Roman 3rd century, you folks are intimidating the hell out me...<br>
<br>
Does anyone still study the Binfordist (among others) General Systems Theory approach anymore? This is where cultural model are abstracted as a system of Ideology, Social Structure and Economy in relationship with environmental factors; i.e. The Roman culture model would be an adaption of a stable system to a set of socio-environmental factors. "Right" and "wrong" are emic perceptions. Or has post-processualism (whatever that is) replaced the admittedly continuously inadequate attempt to reduce culture to a quantitative model. I haven't had a Method and Theory class in 20 years.<br>
<br>
Gaius <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>I was too sarcastic and evidently gave the impression I was offending. Ok maybe I was offensive, just a bit, not too much I hope, but not against the person(s) on this forum, but because I keep getting upset with this type of issue. Its my problem, not yours. SORRY.<hr><br>
<br>
No offence taken, Goffredo. I was perhaps a trifle (*cough* *cough*) too sarcastic in return. Be assured, I'm quite opinionated on a whole range of things, and am quite moralistic in my attitude to modern politics. Relativism then often goes into the freezer... <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Does anyone still study the Binfordist (among others) General Systems Theory approach anymore? This is where cultural model are abstracted as a system of Ideology, Social Structure and Economy in relationship with environmental factors; i.e. The Roman culture model would be an adaption of a stable system to a set of socio-environmental factors. "Right" and "wrong" are emic perceptions. <hr><br>
<br>
Erm...not as part of modern history, at least not in the Netherlands (this may have changed as during the last couple of years Dutch universities have adopted the American model).<br>
But above is still part of Marvin Harris' standard textbook "People, Culture, Nature", so I suppose it's still taught in US universities. I have to say that in my slowly but steadily growing library on early state and late prehistoric societies the archaeologists' and historians' use of anthropological theory seems to be rather eclectic. In other words, they use / adapt what fits the evidence and / or their own ideas, rather than just adopt theories from cultural anthropology wholesale. Nothing on the Roman Empire, alas.<br>
<br>
And by all means, go for that Ph. D.! The 3rd century needs more attention! <p></p><i></i>

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Cariovalda,<br>
<br>
Marvin Harris is kinda past tense now in the US. Harris was a response to the old school archaeologist "If we don't know it is... it's a religious artifact". Harris argued all things are ultimately materialistic, and any cultural mythology was developed to shine on the blue-collar folks. Plain and simple. Binford argued all artifacts found in a dispositional or cultural context functioned at one time within the system of that culture. The occurrence is in a meaningful pattern that has a systematic relationship with the economy, social structure and ideology within their use. Unlike Harris, who attributed everything to materialism, Binford argued artifacts were at the mercy of transient fashion and decorative style. These factors themselves having a functional quality of use or rejection within a society. Binford argued with proper analysis artifacts reveal the intangibles that went into the form of the object-- "data relevant to most, if not <strong>all</strong>, the components of past sociocultural systems are preserved in the archaeological system." In history poor areas, like the 3rd century, this approach could be a useful tool. It's done in an intuitive sense anyway. And archaeologist still use the "religious significance " as a default.<br>
<br>
Sidebar story: A Chacoan "artifact of unknown function", the T'chamajila, which is wooden 4 ft. long curved stick, sharp on the outer side, has been interpreted (mostly by strictly academicians) as a ceremonial hoe. This based on a perception of Chacoan society as peacful agrarians. A friend and archaeologist, Tony Lewtonski, made some copies, and being a combat vet, saw it had a sword like function similar to a Japanese boken. (The interpretation, depending on your socio-political up-brought is apparent here). He wrote a paper "The Scream of the Butterfly" on it. In fact, when a T'chamajila is handed to any itinerant martial artist not knowing what it was, they would inevitable swing it with great glee at anyone passing by. Any attempt to hoe with it was awkward and left wear patterns not found on the original. I dont think Tony's paper got the recognition it deserved, but he was a known Republican.<br>
<br>
This is a bit OTalso, but... I tried to use GIS based systems theory to do systems theory based predictive modeling in Police work with limited success. I always had to fight to do it, and though the analysis was <strong>always</strong> sucessful, it was never repeated. Police, as a subculture, are very reluctant to change, and proudly illiterate. They can't accept that a college boy can "kick some ass" And now that, here, the State Police run EVERYTHING behind the scenes, I quit trying. No one had the slightest interest in trying to document the problem domain (first step) and then, (second step) to predict criminal behavior in space/time. The State Police invented "the box", and enforce that it is tight and contained, despite the rising crime rate and cover-ups that they have been recently endicted+ with. I have attempted to explain an analytic approach to crime analysis to elected officials, some of whom are even highschool graduates with no sucess.<br>
<br>
Enough.<br>
This has little to do with Kalkrise...<br>
<br>
Gaius<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sidebar story: A Chacoan "artifact of unknown function", the T'chamajila, which is wooden 4 ft. long curved stick, sharp on the outer side, has been interpreted (mostly by strictly academicians) as a ceremonial hoe, based on a perception of Chacoan society as peaceful agrarians. A friend and archaeologist, Tony Lewtonski, made some copies, and being a combat vet saw it had a sword-like function similar to a Japanese boken. Any attempt to hoe with it was awkward and left wear patterns not found on the original.<hr><br>
Okay, so much for the Chacoa (or whoever).<br>
How is this approach at all relevant for the Romans? How many Roman implements of unknown use are there?<br>
(Serious question provoked by profound ignorance.) <p></p><i></i>

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Vincula<br>
<br>
How many? Dont know... go through any excavation catalog and start counting. Most publications don't go into the grey areas. Just what will build strong papers. There was a wood spindle and dish like object found inside a Gallic G, I think. Undoubtedly "religiously significant", since the actual function is unknown. How does this relate? You miss the point. You build a model of Roman ideology, social structure, and economy (intangibles) from the remnant artifacts (tangibles). You abstract a complex model of what was going on, say, at Kalkrese, from a set of hypothesis that remain after multiple quantitative analysis tests eliminates as many as possible.<br>
<br>
Method and Theory can be developed and tested in societies not the target society... much of archeology is adaptation from someone else's work done elsewhere. Reconstruction archaeology is is not unknown in explaining the equipment of the Roman Army. This is a lot of what reenactors do, I think.<br>
<br>
Also, see Petculescu's work on armour paltes used in the field, not in a 'sports' or 'parade' context. An example of an original ceremonial interpretation of an object based on an assumption of a style pattern thought to be "too complex" by modern perceptions to be used in a utilitarian function.<br>
<br>
Some of you involved in excavation in Europe can better answerer Vincula's comment.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gaiusdeciusaquilius@romanarmytalk>Gaius Decius Aquilius</A> at: 4/20/04 12:35 am<br></i>

[Chariovalda]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Marvin Harris is kinda past tense now in the US. Harris was a response to the old school archaeologist "If we don't know it is... it's a religious artifact". Harris argued all things are ultimately materialistic, and any cultural mythology was developed to shine on the blue-collar folks. Plain and simple.<hr><br>
<br>
Decius,<br>
<br>
The book I mentioned is just a general introductory textbook, and as such it’s very broad (treating the different branches of anthropology, for instance) and it's still in print - now in it’s umpteenth edition. So I suppose (I could be wrong) it’s still used in that capacity.<br>
As for his relatively simple materialism, I noticed that long ago (and is not as prominent in the book I mentioned). It’s basically a further development / elaboration of elements of Marxist thought. I enjoyed Harris’ popular books, but even I recognised the relatively crude materialism in it. My favourite was the explanation of the ritual cannibalism of the Aztecs.<br>
But anyway, I thought Binford’s ideas were mentioned in Harris’ book. I have to look it up, though.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Binford argued all artifacts found in a dispositional or cultural context functioned at one time within the system of that culture. The occurrence is in a meaningful pattern that has a systematic relationship with the economy, social structure and ideology within their use. <hr><br>
<br>
I’m talking here as somebody with a history background with a slowly evolving interest in, and knowledge of, archaeology and anthropology. But I think the answer to your question is “yesâ€ÂÂ