6 ms·

Are we sure elites actually lived on those sites? Eastern Europe always had "warlords", that traveled with their army around their empire (Rus, Avars, Mongols..

Are we sure elites actually lived on those sites? Eastern Europe always had "warlords", that traveled with their army around their empire (Rus, Avars, Mongols...). Transportation of food and goods was not practical over large areas, so the elites moved instead. I bet those "mega houses" were just for slaves!

District5524 2y ago
I think it's pretty far-fetched to draw conclusions from cultures that were at the same place like 4500 years later. How do you think they could have kept like 10000 slaves in place and convince them to remain slaves? And other Cucuteni sites had population estimates around 45 000 people...
- Trow839rn 2y ago
  I do not have to: > The use of house size as a proxy for the economic status and social power of households in a society is based on broad cross-cultural evidence from ethno-archaeological studies and archival sources as it has been found that household wealth and house size are correlated in many societies Basic premise of this study is wrong, based on recorded history from the same region. Nomadic herding warriors do not live in houses, and do not leave the same mark in archaeology records. Early agriculture can support a huge number of people, but they will be malnourished, and always be dominated by meat fed elites!
  - card_zero 2y ago
    Well, no. I mean kind of. These grain-farming Cucuteni were squeezed out by the Kurgan culture, tall pastoralists coming from the East (that culture became the indo-europeans, us), the process possibly assisted by a few hundred years of drought. Ordinarily, the farmers had food surpluses, though having all the bread you can eat is not the same as having all the meat, admittedly. Your nomadic herding warriors leave graves behind - Kurgan - as well as distinctive pottery, as clues to the general area they were being nomadic in, which was initially elsewhere while the Cucuteni were thriving. I don't think maintaining slaves at a distance works as a concept.
- detourdog 2y ago
  Being fed is a pretty good incentive most people are fine with any role in the group if they are fed. The alternative was doing everything on one’s own. I’m sure individuals had preferred roles. I think in this day and age describing them as labor may be more accurate than slave.
  - qwytw 2y ago
    Those dynamics are very very different when population densities are low and land is abundant. Without complex state/regional level hierarchies if you can just form a likeminded group in you community and move elsewhere chances that your local chieftain can't really do too much about it.
temporarely 2y ago
It's a valid notion but is it supported by evidence? Supporting evidence would be evidence of periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements. Also it is likely that the notion of "elites" is different in our age than in the era before the invention of money. Our elites are not elites of mind, soul, or even body. They are sitting on their hordes of extracted wealth. Earlier any sort of elites in an agrarian society (which presumably precludes strongmen type of "elite") would likely be based on group psychology and charismatic power (shaman, priests, divine representative, etc.)
- Trow839rn 2y ago
  > be evidence of periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements Not really. Look at "pax Romana" or Aztecs. Warlords bring peace! If villages are part of the same empire, they are at peace. Without central force there is constant local bickering and fight. Warlords take their tributes (including soldiers) and wage war far away. Or they punish population by killing one man in family. There is no need to burn entire village, it hurts profit. People at that time were able to build huge megalithic structures. It is safe to assume they could organise small army of a few thousands (enough to dominate 20k settlements).
- defrost 2y ago
  > periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements. Or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon There's sparse evidence for exposure to archaeological literature.
- navane 2y ago
  I can see the evolution of roving bands who pillage and burn, to roving bands who suppress and extract, to roving bands who tax and collect.
antiquark 2y ago
Seriously, more skepticism is in order rather than looking at a floor plan and proclaiming "look, Marxism!"

District5524 2y ago

I think it's pretty far-fetched to draw conclusions from cultures that were at the same place like 4500 years later. How do you think they could have kept like 10000 slaves in place and convince them to remain slaves? And other Cucuteni sites had population estimates around 45 000 people...

Trow839rn 2y ago
I do not have to: > The use of house size as a proxy for the economic status and social power of households in a society is based on broad cross-cultural evidence from ethno-archaeological studies and archival sources as it has been found that household wealth and house size are correlated in many societies Basic premise of this study is wrong, based on recorded history from the same region. Nomadic herding warriors do not live in houses, and do not leave the same mark in archaeology records. Early agriculture can support a huge number of people, but they will be malnourished, and always be dominated by meat fed elites!
- card_zero 2y ago
  Well, no. I mean kind of. These grain-farming Cucuteni were squeezed out by the Kurgan culture, tall pastoralists coming from the East (that culture became the indo-europeans, us), the process possibly assisted by a few hundred years of drought. Ordinarily, the farmers had food surpluses, though having all the bread you can eat is not the same as having all the meat, admittedly. Your nomadic herding warriors leave graves behind - Kurgan - as well as distinctive pottery, as clues to the general area they were being nomadic in, which was initially elsewhere while the Cucuteni were thriving. I don't think maintaining slaves at a distance works as a concept.
detourdog 2y ago
Being fed is a pretty good incentive most people are fine with any role in the group if they are fed. The alternative was doing everything on one’s own. I’m sure individuals had preferred roles. I think in this day and age describing them as labor may be more accurate than slave.
- qwytw 2y ago
  Those dynamics are very very different when population densities are low and land is abundant. Without complex state/regional level hierarchies if you can just form a likeminded group in you community and move elsewhere chances that your local chieftain can't really do too much about it.

temporarely 2y ago

It's a valid notion but is it supported by evidence? Supporting evidence would be evidence of periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements. Also it is likely that the notion of "elites" is different in our age than in the era before the invention of money. Our elites are not elites of mind, soul, or even body. They are sitting on their hordes of extracted wealth. Earlier any sort of elites in an agrarian society (which presumably precludes strongmen type of "elite") would likely be based on group psychology and charismatic power (shaman, priests, divine representative, etc.)

Trow839rn 2y ago
> be evidence of periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements Not really. Look at "pax Romana" or Aztecs. Warlords bring peace! If villages are part of the same empire, they are at peace. Without central force there is constant local bickering and fight. Warlords take their tributes (including soldiers) and wage war far away. Or they punish population by killing one man in family. There is no need to burn entire village, it hurts profit. People at that time were able to build huge megalithic structures. It is safe to assume they could organise small army of a few thousands (enough to dominate 20k settlements).
defrost 2y ago
> periodic burning of villages because that's what warlords do to peaceful settlements. Or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon There's sparse evidence for exposure to archaeological literature.
navane 2y ago
I can see the evolution of roving bands who pillage and burn, to roving bands who suppress and extract, to roving bands who tax and collect.

antiquark 2y ago

Seriously, more skepticism is in order rather than looking at a floor plan and proclaiming "look, Marxism!"