Questions for Archaeology Aficionados

1. Tents:
So in passing I read the other day a little about how the plague numbers don't seem to have been so bad or something like that (sorry no link) that they don't quite add up.
And how hard it is to make estimations about the size of a community.
In addition I read Athens & Sparta at that time and now Troy & Troyans. Before that I had a serious Rome thing not in small part caused by Mary Beard.
My question basically is this: is it a consideration that probably up to the late Middle Ages there was a fluctuating but never zero number of people who lived inbetween settler and nomad life? And doesn't that mean they're not only invisible to us now, but were basically also not part of society back then? Day laborers, Harvest helpers etc. to me that would imply that there was a group that would be very vulnerable on the one hand, but also a huge vector that would have driven the spread of 'culture'.

Why always with the 'came from'? Why always look at things colonial? Why can't it be that story tellers, singers and songwriters moved about a lot earlier too and by that predisposition of lifestyle (jk) were the other vector that transported 'cullture' vertical. Travel with the peons, dine with the kings.
Take Rome and Greek for example, they had their myth where they came from, but in reality they never came from anywhere they were always there, what changed was just the motivation to improve the circumstances.
Through say a group you can communicate with you are impressed by their fancy modern drink cup, the super soft blankets they sleep in, their new ideas, the abundance of corn they carry with them... the possibilities are endless.
So on the example of the Mediterranean region & history, like the Romans said they were from Troy. Maybe what it means the incentive in making the radical lifestyle choice to found a city came actually really through exchange of oral history?

...So yeah do you ever think of this possibility? I hope I expressed myself precise enough to get across what I was asking. It's a question of many strata





A little more philosophical: we always assume conflict and trade. But far more often the exchange between people is communication. That doesn't seem to get the gravitas it deserves. At least that's how it appears to me.

Traveling teaches things that can't be learned by being stagnant..

Traveling as a child moreso..

This is an avenue to sophistication..

The washed city dwellers, the unwashed hick savages of the backwater, and then the in betweens, the former backwater hicks that happened to co-mingle both ways

A good and thoughtful question, by the way.

originally posted by: Peeple
My question basically is this: is it a consideration that probably up to the late Middle Ages there was a fluctuating but never zero number of people who lived inbetween settler and nomad life? And doesn't that mean they're not only invisible to us now, but were basically also not part of society back then? Day laborers, Harvest helpers etc.

Well, yes there were and we do know things about them.

to me that would imply that there was a group that would be very vulnerable on the one hand, but also a huge vector that would have driven the spread of 'culture'.

Uhm.... nope.

Culture is "the habits and practices and technology of a certain group." Nomads are not highly regarded in civilizations primarily because they're outsiders and because they don't have a stake or participate in the cultures they encounter. Traders are more likely a source of exchange of practices and information (as are the scholars of a civilization because they write to others outside their group and they are driven to find deeper answers and more answers.) High level craftsmen would also seek out information from another culture.

But travelers don't have the resources commonly available to civilizations (in other words, "cultures that have settled into cities and city-states and nations").

Why always with the 'came from'? Why always look at things colonial?

Not sure what you're asking here

Why can't it be that story tellers, singers and songwriters moved about a lot earlier too and by that predisposition of lifestyle (jk) were the other vector that transported 'cullture' vertical. Travel with the peons, dine with the kings.

Not much market for it and one of the ways of enforcing local cultures is by plays, miracle shows, and homegrown storytellers. In addition there's a language and symbolic gap -- "nefer netjer" would imply a lot of things to an ancient Egyptian but not to anyone else -- and a man holding two twisted ropes means nothing to someone who isn't an ancient Egyptian (it's the symbol for eternity). Even storytelling pacing and style (themes that the culture likes) are different from culture to culture.

And then there's the issue of sacred stories.

Take Rome and Greek for example, they had their myth where they came from, but in reality they never came from anywhere they were always there, what changed was just the motivation to improve the circumstances.

Not true, actually. They weren't "always there." Lots of moving in and out, wars, takeovers, etc.

So on the example of the Mediterranean region & history, like the Romans said they were from Troy.

A good example of cultural mythmaking. Having important ancestors means you're more than a pile of nobody shepherds building huts. So we see claims of descent from deities (often used to "prove" that a certain lineage is more royal than others) or a noble ancestor (lots of groups try to claim descent from the "lost tribes of Israel") and so forth.

Maybe what it means the incentive in making the radical lifestyle choice to found a city came actually really through exchange of oral history?

They tended to settle where the food sources were easy to harvest and on land that was easy to access for trade with other groups (and later easy to farm). This means along coastlines, in river valleys, along estuaries, etc. Waterways are generally easy to travel (as opposed to lumbering across mountains), have access to one thing we can't survive without for a few days (water) and resources for growing crops (water) and hunting (water, where animals come to drink) and raising animals.

A little more philosophical: we always assume conflict and trade. But far more often the exchange between people is communication. That doesn't seem to get the gravitas it deserves. At least that's how it appears to me.

We actually go into this in anthropology, in studying cultures and in history and archaeology (seeing how materials and words and so forth travel into and through cultures.)

However, unless you know an academic trained in anthropology or archaeology or history, you're not going to run into this kind of evidence. And the stuff on Youtube and on many websites is ...shallow and lame.


Jared Diamond's GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL is a good book on culture and diffusion... more accessible than other books. I also greatly enjoyed THE FIFTH SUN (about Mesoamerica and the rise of the Aztec warlords, which goes into the spread of culture from the Olmecs onward into the Aztecs and the Conquistadores (among many many other topics in that book)

Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present (Hardcover) by Christopher I. Beckwith has also been recommended (many of the books on the Silk Road will also cover this topic)

For an amusing and lighthearted take, I can recommend the Extra Credits (Extra History) video series on the history of beer -- which may sound trivial but is actually a very important substance (byproduct of baking, etc) and has an intriguing history.

a reply to: Byrd

Thank you so much for taking your time to answer. Already know the Jared Diamond one but will check out your other recommendations.


How Greek do you think Troy was? I mean I know it's hard to tell because they didn't leave a written record but what would you guess were they part of the cultural family more or less like mycenaeans?

Sorry for the off topic, but could we do something about the one liners with racist/offensive names in this post?

originally posted by: DragonsDemesne
Sorry for the off topic, but could we do something about the one liners with racist/offensive names in this post?

Good Job, mods killed them and rightfully so.
Cannot believe some of the assholes on this planet wasting oxygen.

a reply to: Peeple

I have nothing to do with archeology, but I don’t believe that day laborers and harvest helpers spread culture. These are very low-skilled workers.

You take a very large period of time and Antiquity and the Middle Ages, but these are very different ways of being. And you do not mark the boundaries of the region that you are considering.

And I do not agree that people choose a lifestyle.

People in each locality adapt to the conditions of life in it. And these conditions largely shape their character and lifestyle.

a reply to: turretless

People migrate.
Especially when they don't own land, or are not considered citizens, with the skills of being nomadic more hunters/gatherers still fresh in their minds.
Genetically we do know that they wandered far and wide up to this day actually, it's a very human thing.
While they might not be writing or producing big shows, or whatever you have in mind when you say low-skill workers have no culture, they do, they sing and they tell stories. That's culture too.
Are you saying people don't migrate and don't tell stories? That's just wrong.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Byrd

Thank you so much for taking your time to answer. Already know the Jared Diamond one but will check out your other recommendations.


How Greek do you think Troy was? I mean I know it's hard to tell because they didn't leave a written record but what would you guess were they part of the cultural family more or less like mycenaeans?

It's difficult to say, because one of the relevant questions is "what time period are we talking about?" (this is also not my area of expertise).

There was a long history of trade with the Myceneans (Greeks) but the boundaries of their lands are not next to each other. Architecturally, their buildings share a lot of features of Middle Eastern civilizations so there was a healthy flow of knowledge and trade through the area. As a city-state situated along a coastline and part of major trade routes, it was also a vulnerable place (hence the nine layers and possibly more in the archaeological record.)

So broadly Middle Eastern and similar to Greek and Roman and Persian areas at the time. It appears to be more Greek than Persian (looking at the artifacts) - BUT... not my area of expertise and this is just a guess based on looking at the artifacts and reading a bit about it.