Indus Valley Civilization.

[Minimalist]

Dig, without checking, I feel sure that Texas A&M does.

Charlie mentioned some correspondence with a professor....Indiana Univ? who was quite open to the possibility.

[DougWeller]

That does surprise me Doug, personally I don't give a damn if 'Adam' was American, Chinese, or Polenesian, just as long as we find out and America must be seen as the place to research. If only to disprove an early history.
The history of mankind is all men's heritage.

Why the surprise? People have all sorts of interests within the wide range of archaeology.

[Digit]

I meant I was surprised that your studies were old world based rather than new world. I can understand subsequent specialising in a given sector of course but it struck me as backward looking by Yale.
A bit like British colonials teaching African children European history rather than their own.

[DougWeller]

I meant I was surprised that your studies were old world based rather than new world. I can understand subsequent specialising in a given sector of course but it struck me as backward looking by Yale.
A bit like British colonials teaching African children European history rather than their own.

Oh, I didn't do archaeology there.

I imagine that the situation is partly historical, Yale built up a good reputation in a certain area, etc. It's the same in the UK -- and really, there are a lot of people wanting to study those subjects. Why shouldn't Britons or Americans study the history and archaeology of other countries? They'd be pretty insular otherwise.

Doug

[Digit]

Oh I agree that such studies should take place, I misunderstood you.
History, archaeology, politics etc should be studied in the early stages as a world wide theatre, later you can specialise, but the broader picture is essential IMO.
I studied engineering, the early parts were general, detailed studies followed. Helps you understand the other guys problems and ideas.

[Beagle]

http://www.cycleoftime.com/articles_vie ... dArtigo=33

Another article on the Aryan Invasion Theory (so called). Also, the links at the bottom of the page provide a lot of interesting reading.

Worth bookmarking 'till you've read them all.

[daybrown]

I have so many objections to just the first page-
http://www.cycleoftime.com/articles_vie ... dArtigo=33
That I would not bother with the rest which must therefore be based on flawed premises.

I've tried dialoguing with with posters on this on usenet, but not gotten any feedback, much less attempted refutation of my points.

For one, they just cannot imagine an advanced culture without a top down power structure ruled by kings. He mentions a city without monumental architecture, without wondering why that is, or looking for other examples that wold enlighten him.

In "The Birth of Tragedy", Nietzsche pointed out that whereas Dionysianism (a typical Native European religion) was based on works of theater the Levantine religions were based on works of literature. The former made claims of allegorical truth while the latter made claims of literal truth. This works for the Vedas as well. Like Homer, they were never intended to be literal histories, but each as an instructive narrative, a novel.

It didnt *matter* where the river that dried up was. What mattered was the response of the Aryans to the changes. The author of the link just does not get it. The Aryans have always taken place names and applied them to similar situations wherever they went.

Thus there is a "Memphis" on the Mississippi.

[kbs2244]

Well, wasn’t that the real reason that “Carthage must be destroyed.”?
It was a loose confederation of trading families, without a top heavy, royal or central style of government. They just got an army or navy together when there was a need. No standing armed forces.
Just the opposite of Rome.
Yet they were very successful and prosperous.
Rome couldn’t afford to have such a competing form of government being successful.

[daybrown]

Thjat's a reasonable view of Rome & Carthage. But the Aryans didnt have a single city, that if destroyed, would have had much impact. If we pick it up from the domestication of the horse 6000 years ago, and the emergence of Tripolye 5500 years ago, the city was immense, but diffusely spread out along the banks of the Dneipr, and supported not only with the local grain production, but seasonal roundups of immense herds of livestock off the Steppes.

A lot like the Mongols, but back then, Amazons. Living on the open range, on a horse, was in their blood. When there was a bad drought, then they were driven south looking for greener pastures, in this case all the way to the Indus. But what the Indian historians dont want to think about, was what kind of political situation the Amazons ran into.

Which we've seen umpteen times since. Namely a steep alpha male power structure with draconian force & goon squads exploiting the shit out of the peasants and slaves. Who see a chance for new management in the Aryans. Who dont want to stay there, and soon as the steppe greens up again, they're gone. Leaving their language in the hands of a new power structure, but the rest of the culture pretty much the way it was.

Think about Alexander the Great going up into Parthia. It'd been duck soup to rape and pillage across Persia, picking up supplies from the locals on the way. But up there, there was nothing but grass. He had a real logistics problem. And sure his hoplites could kick ass on anyone. but this bunch lived on their horses, and he could not catch them.

And had he captured the city, no big deal; it was like a sale barn. they'd just move their seasonal trading to another town. Alexander could go anywhere he wanted in Parthia, but wherever he went, he was getting sniped at, and wherever he went, all there was was grass. No loot.

Which in ancient times, was the prime motivator for joining the military.

[Minimalist]

Carthage evolved to the point where they were a "republic" in the same way Rome was a "republic." They had a Senate mainly made up of the rich merchant families.

Unlike Rome, the Carthaginians hired mercenary armies to do their fighting and didn't have quite the control over them that the Romans insisted upon. In any case, while it is true that Rome and Carthage were natural allies for a couple of centuries, as soon as the Romans expanded beyond the borders of Italy war broke out. The Med wasn't big enough for both of them.

[daybrown]

<The Med wasn't big enough for both of them.>
The world was not big enuf for both Rome & Persia either.

I think its instructive now to consider, that in the days of the Roman republic, the legions were manned by the sons of yeoman farmers who were 6+ft tall.

But then Crassus manipulated the grain market, bankrupted farmers all over Italy, the land was consolidated into landed estates worked by cheap immigrant or slave labor... and the supply of strong farm boys dried up.

So- recruitment expanded beyond Italy, and beyond the empire as well. And since the legions were no longer made of farm boys who had some investment in the rights granted them by a republic, the system fell into tyranny.

Just a few generations after Caesar, by the time of Claudius, the legion standard had been reduced to 5'6", and the entire Praetorian guard was made up of humongous Germans. Hence, for the first time, we hear the phase, "Das Kaiser".

And it was not long before the Praetorians, like the CIA, were assassinating leaders and selecting their replacements. The Praetorian power was felt thru the entire bureacracy, and it commited outrageous atrocity while everyone turned a blind eye, lest they join the ranks that include men like Vince Foster or Sen Wellstone.

Gibbon commented how all the outward forms of the institutions of the republican process were maintained, while their functions were gutted.

The Persians were despised because they were all seen as just slaves of the king. Unlike the Romans, they were not hypocrites.

[DougWeller]

I have so many objections to just the first page-
http://www.cycleoftime.com/articles_vie ... dArtigo=33
That I would not bother with the rest which must therefore be based on flawed premises.

I've tried dialoguing with with posters on this on usenet, but not gotten any feedback, much less attempted refutation of my points.

For one, they just cannot imagine an advanced culture without a top down power structure ruled by kings.

Actually the problem is they want evidence, not just imagination.

He mentions a city without monumental architecture, without wondering why that is, or looking for other examples that wold enlighten him.

And they probably don't like paraphrasing that turns 'very little' into 'no'.

[Minimalist]

The crisis among the Roman peasant farmer preceeded M. Licinius Crassus by a century and half. The growth of the latifundia began in earnest after the Second Punic War and by the end of the Second Century BC had caused a significant crisis. After the defeat of Aurasio the Romans found themselves in a serious predicament.

Thoroughly defeated in every engagement, Rome faced a manpower crisis similar to those faced during Hannibal's offensive in the Second Punic War. Prior to Marius, Rome recruited its main legionary force from the landowning citizen classes, men who could equip themselves and who supposedly had the most to lose in the case of Roman defeat. In previous wars, temporary relief from this traditional rule would be applied, but never on a long term basis. Recruits from the Roman capite cens (head count) and freed slaves (voluntarii), were used primarily in support and militia style functions.

Especially since the end of the Punic Wars and conquests in the east, the small landowning classes had dwindled to dangerous numbers. Wealthy Patrician and Equestrian elite land owners bought up small farms from struggling families and worked them with vast numbers of imported slaves. The jobless and landless mobs in Rome swelled out of control and led directly to the rise of the Gracchi, who championed political reform for the common citizens. By the time Marius came to power, the typical Roman recruiting base was literally non-existant. There simply weren't enough landowners available who weren't already fighting the Germanics or Jugurtha to field a new army.

Marius' idea would turn out to be the single greatest reform the Roman legions would undergo. Probably without realizing the massive implications his reform would have on a social or political basis, he had little choice but to 'break' the law in order to fulfill his political and military ambitions. He offered the disenfranchised masses permanent employment for pay as a professional army, and the opportunity to gain spoils on campaign along with retirement benefits, such as land. With little hope of gaining status in other ways, the masses flocked to join Marius in his new army.

Besides gaining an army, Marius gained something else: the extreme personal loyalty of the Roman head count. The recruiting of the masses would change the entire relationship between citizens, generals, the Senate and Roman institutional ideology. Prior to Marius, the armies may have been loyal to a general, but were fighting in theory for the survival or expansion of the state, including their own lands. After Marius, they fought for their Legate, provided they liked him of course, and for the plunder and glory he could provide. With nowhere to return to in Rome or beyond, these new soldiers became career full-time professional soldiers, serving terms from 20 to 25 years. A whole new class of citizen was developed from this simple change in military philosophy. While providing an immeasurable impact on the common people, this change would also have a profound effect on the entity of Rome itself. The extreme loyalty to generals rather than state would lead to open rebellion, civil war, military political power and eventually the crowning of emperors

http://www.unrv.com/empire/marius-reforms-legions.php

BTW, the US Army is now offereing enormous bonuses to recruits to enlist or re-enlist. At what point does a citizen soldier become a "mercenary."

[Cognito]

The Praetorian power was felt thru the entire bureacracy, and it commited outrageous atrocity while everyone turned a blind eye, lest they join the ranks that include men like Vince Foster or Sen Wellstone.

What? You imply that these individuals died under suspicious circumstances? You should know that bucking BIG MONEY in Washington is a life limiting exercise ... there's nothing suspicious about that!

[daybrown]

http://www.unrv.com/empire/marius-reforms-legions.php
Thanx for the link Minimalist. Of course, Crassus could not have succeeded had the system not already been corrupted. But since we have the word "crass", he epitomized what was going on.

And yes, the danger of the professional mercenary army is emerging in the postings. Not that anything we say about it will have any effect. I'm sure there were Romans who understood as well. Seneca, Cicero, & Cato left us fine rhetoric, but it didnt save the republic.

We have a kind of defacto republic here. If you can engage in discourse without resorting to ad hominum your proposals may be advanced, altho like Cincinattus, you'll remain on the farm.