Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Invasion Mania
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
The thread concerning DNA evidence to confirm/deny invasions is fascinating. As contributors to this thread have commented the use of DNA in analysis is far from conclusive. As such I would like to move away from the DNA but still consider the invasion thesis. Two issues are striking from the conversation on the ‘DNA thread’. First, the defining of invasion (an emotive term guaranteed to generate passionate discussion) appears to require consideration. Invasion, in my mind at least, is identifiable by an attempt to conquer or merely the arrival of large numbers of people that impacts upon the indigenous population. As the latter perspective seems synonymous with migration, and this term is already acceptable in archaeological and historical parlance, then the defining attribute for invasion must be the attempt to conquer. Second, there seems to be an ‘either/or’ situation developing in this discussion, as described by Artorious (Message 1: DNA thread) whereby either invasion is considered or all social development is ‘home-grown’.
To initially provide a framework for discussion I would suggest focussing on any ‘pre-Celtic’ and/or ‘Celtic’ invasion scenario. My interest lies in a) what is meant by invasion in these settings? b) what evidence other than DNA can be utilised?
My suggestion is that the notion of ‘pre-Celtic’ invasions is an anachronism. It is not until the Bronze Age that the possibility of considering concepts such as individualism, social stratification, property, tribal identity and authority (in the shape of chieftains) can be made. Further, it was not until the Iron Age that these concepts seem to solidify and influence the direction that society adopts. Without such a ‘world view’ any notion of ‘invasion’ would appear to be vacuous (however, this does not deny the significance of migratory movements into the British Isles). In a similar vein I believe that ‘Celtic’ invasion(s) while plausible are improbable.
N.B. the aim is not to present a passive, peaceful pre-history, whereby violence is not a feature of the social groupings that exist. The current work of Rick Schulting would deem this to be false. However, there is a massive shift from accepting interpersonal violence to the possibility of invasions. -
Message 2
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
I would be curious to see land usage and population numbers. Could be migratation in undevelopped lands, could be pushing indigenuous population out of cultivated regions. Probably a lot more lowkey and localised over a long period than the quick sharp replacement of the top that 'invasion' cunjures in the mind.
-
Message 3
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Thanks Elistan,
I agree the importance of regional variation is vital, however, I believe it is also possible to postulate general trends. In the hypothesis I’m working upon, the issues of land usage and population are of central importance, I also believe that climatic shifts are also immensely significant. Taking the issue of land usage first, and employing the Mesolithic as a starting point, we have a situation in the British Isles whereby the lifestyle of transhumance accommodates a ‘hunter-gatherer’ existence. These patterns of transhumance were occurring in a dynamic environment, within which closed groups thinly populated the most accessible parts of the British Isles. This seems capable of not only allowing a subsistence lifestyle to be achieved, but also accommodates population growth (the figures I have uncovered guesstimate the population @1,100-1,2000 and steadily rising to 2,750-5,500 by 5,000BC). The crunch, I believe came at the end of the Boreal (climatic) period, this occurs at 5,200BC. The ushering in of a new climatic regime, coupled with pressures of population increase leads, to a change in lifestyle for Mesolithic folk.
Whilst the Atlantic climate regime is not a malevolent factor it does not have the same dynamic growth associated with the preceding Boreal period. The effect of this is to open up some of the previously impenetrable forest cover. The legacy of the twin effects of population growth and climatic change was felt in the latter part of the Mesolithic. At this point I would reiterate that such factors were obviously tempered by regional factors (social and environmental variations) – revolution is not implied, just cultural change commensurate with the pace of other changes in the Longue Duree. The shift concerns the social structure of the original Mesolithic groupings. I think (and I believe I can back it up with contemporary archaeological thought) that many of the original groups divided, and in doing so maintained some of the original patterns of transhumance, as well as incorporating the newly opened up domain.
This decision to divide need not be acrimonious especially given the interrelationships of kith and kin that exist. Indeed, given the patterns of transhumance the newly formed groups would undoubtedly have met at specific times at specific places. Given a millennium or so some of these sites would be revered by the Neolithic folk. The Late Mesolithic also sees the commencement of limited inter-group reciprocity which grows phenomenally in the Neolithic. The reason this is mentioned is it would appear that the social structure of groups is altering. As the original Mesolithic groupings divide into smaller interpenetrating groups which interact on a cyclical basis, this would suggest a move from early Mesolithic characteristics of consanguine families towards exogenous partnerships.
If this is plausible this becomes one scenario to question the meaning of ‘pre-Celtic’ invasion. What would the ‘invaders’ find? In the late Mesolithic - Early Neolithic there is no concept of property to expropriate; the material culture is limited, hence plundering is similarly restricted and there is no authority to replace. Migrants on the other hand will be far less disappointed. An early Neolithic ‘farmer’ from Europe would enter a situation whereby reciprocity between groups was increasing, communal production and consumption (ritual landscape and associated feasting) were influencing social relationships and exogenous relationships allowed entry into the group. -
Message 4
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Hi Bebakunin
A very interesting post and agree that as DNA evidence is suspect in proving either one way or the other re invasions/migrations then other solutions need to be found. You make many valid points concerning migration and invasion and the structure of society in early times in relation to the possibilities of such migrations or invasions.
At what point though does a migration perhaps become an invasion? So could what you call a localised killing or stealing of land from one who was there before still be seen as migration or does it become invasion? Can migrations ever be seen as a peaceful process? I would say yes, if the people were invited, which could have happened but perhaps not in very ancient times? What would the displaced people call this process in their owns eyes? The Irish seem to see them all as invasions in their myths. This is not to say they were right of course, but it is worth considering.
Your point of the anachronism of 'pre-celtic' invasions is well thought out considering the hypothesis that there could not have been the tribal structure in place at this time to warrant such a claim. I would have to agree that the social structure of Chieftans and Kings probably didnt exist before the Bronze age due to population sizes so anything previous to this must have been on a much more localised scale, resulting most likely first from trade and then from smaller settlements.
It is then to the bronze age we must look for the social organisation and ability to form a leadership. These must have been formed when the population increased and communities had to organise to defend themsleves. So what happended along the Rhine and the `Germanic' lands to start off the migrations of Beaker peoples from there along the coasts and into Britain and Iberia? Also why did they not penetrate the heartland of France? What happend around 2500-2200BC that caused these migrations? I presume at this time, in the bronze age there was the social structure of Chieftans and Kingship? This structure was already in place further south in the middle east so was most likely evident at this stage, or perhaps at some later stage of Beaker migration? -
Message 5
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Thanks for the post Artorious,
With regard to the question of delineating between migration and invasion the criteria, I guess, would be social harm. This accommodates the issue of killing and stealing of land. On a more abstract level, social harm could be any action or arrival that would impede the indigenous population in the satisfaction of their needs or continuation of their lifestyle. I could expand on this more if needs be. Migration, therefore, is not necessarily harmful to the community, and indeed could have beneficial effects for existing social arrangements.
With regard to the movement of the Beaker peoples across Europe, I’m afraid I can’t make much comment. At the moment I’m doing some research into the prehistory of the British Isles for a book I’m writing. Whilst I’m covering the ‘Beaker phenomena’ within the British Isles I haven’t touched much on the situation on the continent. I also take on board the ‘Irish’ situation and the perception of invasion from Iberia… I must admit I haven’t come to any conclusions yet.
I agree on your last comment regarding looking to the Bronze Age for the criteria for leadership, in fact I think it could be even more closely located in the Later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. What do you think? -
Message 6
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Hi Bebakunin
I think later bronze, early iron is too late for the development of leadership. The organisational skills required for building megalithic sites must have required some sort of leadership I feel.
I suppose we could ask a deeper question, is leadership a natural human attribute? Could it always have existed? In the animal world we would not deny the existence of leaders amongst the great apes. Who is to say humans were any diferent? When this leadership quality would have led to widespread combinations of tribes or groups under one leadership is another question.
I would say early bronze age. And another question then arises is when the Leadership took on a religious significance. In a study of myths early kings only ruled for a year before being sacrificed. When and how did this idea develope?
I place it at beginning of Bronze age as near east history shows us Chieftans/Kingship established by 3000 BC at least and so perhaps existed earlier. Even if we give 500 years for the process to establish in nothern Europe we still get a date of 2500BC, around the time of the Beaker people arival, with their new weopons, bronze, horses and the like...They could have had chieftans, and they could also have caused the populations of these isles to gather togther their own tribes under leadership to defend themselves? -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Re: message 5.
Bebakunin,
fascinating thread. I thank also Elistan and Artorious for their interesting replies.
Kind regards. -
Message 8
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Re: Message 6
Ah, the vexed questions concerning leadership being a natural human attribute. First, from a general perspective I would concede that leaders can develop within just about any human context but I don’t see why this should be an inevitable process. My contention is that leadership may develop in times of adversity. This unwelcome situation could come in many forms, the adversity, however, must be at least be perceived as a threat to the manner in which a living is made (this could involve a myriad of social or environmental factors including hostile neighbours or invaders!).
In locating leadership, as a dominant trend within the various social groupings, in the Early Bronze Age, therefore, involves speculating on any potential disruptive social or environmental factors specific to this moment. Obviously, there are several issues raised by archaeological research which are pertinent to this question – the apparent increase in individualism (and what social processes this replaced) as recognisable in the increasing use of a material culture, changing burial practices and the construction of megaliths. These remain amongst the foremost and most challenging issues. However, personally I feel that the concept of leadership remains an anachronism at this moment.
To address this complex question further, I think certain criteria are needed, these include: a) the nature of authority b) the spatial and temporal limits of authority c) the extent of influence the leader has over her/his ‘subjects’.
P.S. Artorious - I am fascinated by your reference to the sacrificing of leaders after a year – is this a ‘British’ phenomenon or ‘European’. An expansion on this topic (or references that I could follow up would be gratefully received!!)
P.P.S. Paul Ryckier – thanks for the encouragement – it can be quite daunting setting off your first thread, especially given the quality of existing threads!! -
Message 9
Posted by Goldfinches (U2947535) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Re: Message 6
To address this complex question further, I think certain criteria are needed, these include: a) the nature of authority b) the spatial and temporal limits of authority c) the extent of influence the leader has over her/his ‘subjects’.
Ìý
Is it at all possible that any part of the Althing (Iceland) or the Tynwald (Isle of Man), as examples of earliest surviving parliaments/legistatures, demonstrate the carrying forward of long established principals - such as public assembly, public address by leaders, the dispensing of justice by leaders etc? -
Message 10
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Hi Bebakunin
Just do a search for 'sacrificial king' or 'priest king' to find out more about this subject. I think it may have started in matriarchal society, then when patriarchal took over the sacrificial king became a `mock king' as patriarchal kings would have been too important by this time to sacrifice.
Further to your reply, I dont really like the term `anachronism', it is too easy a way out, as is the term `heirloom' in an archeaological context. If you use these terms you will leave yourself open to misinterpretation. It would be better to explain fully why you think the concept of leadership cannot have developed this early and find evidence for it and find a basis for refuting the current evidence in support of it. -
Message 11
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Re: Message 10
Apologies, you are right Artorious, the term ‘anachronism’ is far too lazy. With regard to the development of leaders in the Early Bronze Age I would need convincing. Again, the pivot of the issue revolves around the concept of whether leadership is a ‘home grown idea’ or is transmitted from Europe via either migration/invasion. I don’t think there is an validity in leadership developing in the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age as a result of ‘home grown idea’, for there seems to be little evidence of any disruptive factors of sufficient magnitude to warrant such a development. The construction of the Neolithic Ritual Landscape and the development of Bronze Age megaliths are obviously used as a reason for the development of leadership but I would question the necessity. At this point I’ll refer to the criteria I set for analysing authority per se (given no criticism has been received concerning this to date):
"To address this complex question further, I think certain criteria are needed, these include: a) the nature of authority b) the spatial and temporal limits of authority c) the extent of influence the leader has over her/his ‘subjects’."
I would suggest that, on evidence from at least the Neolithic context, the construction of the ritual landscape was undertaken at specific times (i.e. at points where emphasis on the production of food was at its lowest). If this premise is acceptable then the following points can be made:
a)Nature of authority – specific. Relating primarily (exclusively) to the construction of specific places
b)Spatial/Temporal limits – Authority does not impinge on everyday life, that is, it has no role in subsistence existence that was being practiced.
c)Extent of Influence - Even at times where ‘authority’ was regarded as legitimate it must be negotiated: first, within the context of communal production and second, within the parameters of ancestral authority
In essence, while would concede that an individual could have played a more prominent role than others in these building projects I see no necessity to attach permanent or far-reaching authority here. The label coordinator seems to me to more appropriate for such a position.
With regard to the European introduction of authority I'll return asap -
Message 12
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Re: Message 9
Is it at all possible that any part of the Althing (Iceland) or the Tynwald (Isle of Man), as examples of earliest surviving parliaments/legistatures, demonstrate the carrying forward of long established principals - such as public assembly, public address by leaders, the dispensing of justice by leaders etc?Ìý
In many ways this is 'probably' representative of longer standing forums for debate, and could have been the oral re-affirmation of the norms within social order of the time. Again, however, I would be hesitant of establishing a role for leaders, especially in earlier representations. For example, Moffatt implies in 'The Sea Kingdoms' that the key role of the 'Deemsters' was located in their memory and oral ability. There doesn't seem to be any authority attached to the individuals themselves (Moffatt, 2002, p.12). Further, the initial role of the Tynwald appears to be negotiation (ibid., p.189). -
Message 13
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Saturday, 4th February 2006
Re: Message 10:
Doh!
With regard to the European introduction of authority I'll return asap
Ìý
This sentence was supposed to read:
With regard to European influence on the introduction of authority in the British Isles blah blah... -
Message 14
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Sunday, 5th February 2006
It would appear that the Beaker phenomena (Late Neolithic – Early Bronze Age) could be a contender for the first form of ‘invasion’ experienced in the British Isles.
They could have had chieftans, and they could also have caused the populations of these isles to gather togther their own tribes under leadership to defend themselves?
Ìý
I would concur that if a ‘full blown invasion’ did occur then the incoming Beaker folk may have constructed some form of authority, which could have been personified into the social role of leader. Although I’m unaware of any evidence that could support such an invasion theory. What about a long term ‘invasion by stealth’? Here the concept relies more upon small groups coming over and displacing individual families or small communities over a long period of time. The accumulative effect of this being the indigenous population gradually being worn down by attrition and ‘drifting’ westwards (?) away from the ‘danger zone’. If this occurred it is plausible that a leader may have risen to counter such a threat, however, again I remain sceptical.
Let me elaborate, I maintain on another thread (‘Time Gentlefolk Please!’) that the key developments of the Neolithic are the introduction of inter-group reciprocity, communal production, and centralised distribution (at specific cyclical moments). The key characteristic of these processes is the construction of social bonding and the instigation of obligations within the community. Therefore, any small ‘invading party’ which was intent on ousting a family from a desirable location would face the wrath of the larger community (tribe/proto-tribe). This response from the indigenous population, therefore, can occur without the creation of a leader. -
Message 15
Posted by Bebakunin (U2999013) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
Re: Situating the Origins of Leaders in Late Bronze/Early Iron
Whilst not wishing to base an argument based upon some form of determinism, IMHO, a key issue that needs addressing is the climatic shift that occurs during the latter part of the Bronze Age. This was potentially disastrous for some communities, Cunliffe notes in some regions the ‘growing season’ would have reduced by up to four weeks. This would have had profound effects upon the choices available, and such potential adversity may have seen the rise of leaders in certain areas.
Against this backdrop we must place certain social developments that I concede would have started in the earlier Bronze Age – but would have solidified through the passing of time. These include an increase in social stratification and individualism, which is seen in the increase of material culture (and the extension of such a culture into everyday time - see ‘Time Gentlefolk, Please!’ Thread).
A key to understanding this period (again IMHO) is the lessening of the concept of ancestral power. Whilst this remains a monumental influence we see the rise of ‘heroism’, which is indicative of the social power inherent within groups to change circumstances in the ‘here & now’.
The major process, however, for the consolidation of power comes with the instigation of property. Here, I think the speculation raised by Roger Thomas (British Archaeology May 1998, No. 34 – available online) is most salient. Here we see not only the introduction of property but a shift in the orientation of the community. This shift appears to make the community more insular, and combined with the notion of land being a valued resource, is more conducive to the increasing reliance on leaders. -
Message 16
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
Hi Bebakunin
I have the flu this week so have some time to message...
Very interesting posts the last two. The last paragraph of this one introduces a very interesting point concerning the importance of the shift to property and land value and the like and the move away from the ancestral worship. Does it mention in the book when this may have occured? -
Message 17
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
This is a tad off topic,but it explains some of the problems associated with the low density of DNA samples.A new study has been released on the comparison of extant Basques with the remains of historical Basques [600-700ADE] and prehistoric Basques [3000-1500BCE].There are significant differences between the mtDNA [female] sequences for these three time periods,which is totally unexpected.
The prehistoric populations have a 17-23% frequency
of Neolithic migrants.This % is substantially diminished in the current populace.It appears that there was an appreciable redistribution of female genes in the Basques territories{that were sampled} between 3000BCE and 600ADE.The new study has identified serious misconceptions about the "supposed" isolation of the Basques and it is evident that a lot more specimens will be required before the problem can be resolved. The female population "appears" to have been more mobile than the male populace
The UK and Ireland have a greater density of samples,but a lot more historic and prehistoric specimens are required to identify past population movements with a reasonable degree of credence.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.