The Rise of Agriculture: the Worst Mistake in Human History?

I recently found this article by Jared Diamond, a scholar and writer I admire (famously the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel):
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

It's an excellent piece, and not too long, so you should read it for yourself! The gist of it is: structured, populous (agrarian) societies naturally develop lopsided hierarchies, putting a portion of the population at significant disadvantage (compared to the unstructured, sparsely populated communities of hunter-gatherers). The quality of life of the average hunter-gatherer was actually better than that of the average farmer, despite the relative sophistication of the latter's society; the reason for the prevalence of agriculture and husbandry over hunting and gathering is that "quality over quantity" doesn't apply when one population can overwhelm another by sheer numbers. (I bet Leonidas of Sparta would have something to say about that!)

Another interesting point Diamond raises is that gender dynamics tend to be more equal in hunter-gatherer societies -- partially because such conditions are less conducive to hierarchy in general (see above), and also because the practical day-to-day circumstances of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support any house-bound, "idle" population, be they women or an aristocracy. Women who had to be on their feet all the time simply couldn't bear as many children in quick succession -- especially since the children had to be as mobile/portable as everyone else. The patriarchy couldn't simply turn them into brood mares, because the women contributed valuable labor and the children had to be spaced at large enough intervals that their mothers only ever had to carry (whether in utero or on her back) one child at a time. (Methinks twins wouldn't have fared as well in these societies.)

This is actually quite relevant to our own times. Notice how, as women have become increasingly educated (on par with men, especially if we consider university completion rates) and increasingly productive in the work force (issues of equal pay aside), they tend to have fewer children, and said children are born later in the mother's life. Unchecked childbearing, it appears, has always been a way for the patriarchy to turn women into second-class citizens. (Anti-abortion/birth control Republicans, I'm looking at you!)

io9: Let's Bring Back the Greek Gods!

Because they were so much more interesting than the all-powerful monotheist deities people worship now!

http://io9.com/5974126/can-we-bring-the-greek-gods-back-please

Granted, religion isn't meant to be entertaining so much as to provide followers with a roadmap to a pleasant afterlife and an explanation for all questions not yet answered by science. But the Greeks had both those (well, perhaps not always the nicest afterlife) as well as extremely colourful and often interactive mythology. I don't fancy getting abducted by a Greek god, but going to an oracle sounds like quite the experience. (Then again, the oracle of Delphi was supposed to be on psychotropic fumes emitted by the volcanic vents in the area.)

In any case, it sure beats Calvinism!

Abstruse Goose: In Cabin'd Ships at Sea

Whitman in the modern age (courtesy of Brett):

http://abstrusegoose.com/477
(You may have to click on the image to make the font a more legible size.)

It frustrates me to no end when people claim that poetry written long ago is irrelevant to life today. Part of the appeal of literature is its timelessness -- that while the specific time and place depicted might be past, human nature has not changed over the centuries. (I maintain that the Oedipus Cycle is one of the original family dramas. Would anything that messed up air on modern television? (Wait, A Game of Thrones is now on HBO. I take that back.))

Seriously, if you think poetry is outdated, quote your girlfriend some Yeats or Neruda or Shakespeare. Or, if you have a boyfriend, some Anne Bradstreet or Elizabeth Barrett Browning.

The Onion: Historians Admit to Inventing Ancient Greeks

My thanks to Lewis for sending this to me; The Onion is great!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/historians-admit-to-inventing-ancient-greeks,18209/?utm_source=recentnews

I'm a huge fan of classical history, so I find this especially funny. I can't imagine the actual undertaking of creating this sort of cultural richness; it would be like Tolkien x 100!

I wouldn't be surprised if some people got it in their heads to actually believe all this was fabricated though, like the people who think that dinosaur fossils were planted by God or something.

Today

is the 2333th anniversary of the death of Alexander the Great.

*brief moment of silence*

He was thirty two years old. Imagine what the world might have looked like, had he lived.

(Yes, I know he was Macedonian. I tagged this with "Greece" for the obvious historical association.)

The New Yorker: What Atlas Should Have Done

I've actually always wondered about this:


http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2010/04/05/cartoons_20100329#slide=8

*Plothole Alert!* (I jest.)

The New Yorker: A Package for Priam

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2010/04/26/cartoons_20100419#slide=14

What can I say -- I'm a fan of historical humor (both humor about history, and humor from history). I confess I laughed when reading Herodotus last year.

NYTimes: The Elgin Marbles, a Test Case for Antiquities Repatriation

This is personally interesting to me because the Metropolitan Museum of Art was a formative part of my middle and high school years. I knew the Met well enough, at one point, that I didn't need a map to navigate it (being in California nine months of the year has eroded my abilities thereto).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/arts/09abroad.html

It's in part an issue of cultural identity. If the modern state can unequivocally lay claim to a certain cultural inheritance, methinks, then it has extremely valid cause. If it cannot show that it is the only logical heir to a particular classical or historical society (this is generally rather rare, as most cultures, if not political or social entities, have been fairly consistent through the centuries), then others with equal claim, and even those representing the interests of the greater scholarly or artistic community, often claim a physical right to said objets d'art. It's particularly interesting because Classical Greece has spawned so many heirs of the mind; practically all of Western Europe, and the Western world at large, can trace its philosophical and cultural roots to Greco-Roman thinkers.

There is also the question of integrity of historical sites. Of course, no one should go and take apart a centuries-old facade and ship the various pieces off to museums around the world (as much as that happened in the past, and on a smaller scale, continues to happen today). But should a monument that is falling apart be restored on its original site, or should the pieces be distributed to museums (especially pertinent if the originating state does not have the technology or resources to restore the monument, and foreign teams end up taking over the project, often with the intention of appropriating some of the artifacts for their own countries)? Does physical proximity to the historical site add significant value?

There are loads more questions to be asked and answered. Discuss (yes, I read and respond to comments).

El Cid, Cicero, and Napoleon...

... walk into a bar... I'm kidding. Actually, what the three have in common (other than being dead) is that they were all exiled from their homelands, for various (political) reasons.

I know how men in exile feed on dreams of hope.

~Aeschylus, Agamemnon

There is something about the concept of homeland, la patrie, the people and language and culture and physical earth of the places we love, that drives people to live, to love, and to die. To be exiled, for some, is the finest form of agony. That notion, that singular spark, seems to have been lost, or twisted beyond recognition, in this day and age. I am a student of history, and The Song of Roland moves me still -- as does, of course, The Oresteia -- though I have read them both many times.

The line is also much more broadly applicable; hope is, after all, the last thing that can be taken from a person, short of his life.

The Classics Rock! (article)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/02/the_classics_rock

The classics do rock! I definitely get the sense that too many people automatically assume that Latin and Ancient Greek, being "dead languages", are automatically less valuable than say, modern Romance languages, or just modern languages in general. While I don't deny that modern languages are, on the whole, more practically applicable than purely written languages, this doesn't mean that the classical tongues are any less worth study. That's the equivalent of an assertion that pre-modern history is less valuable than recent history, because it was much further past. For all that has changed, human nature remains much as it was a millennium or two ago.

The Classics rock!

A One-Stop Resource for all your Greek Mythology Needs

http://www.theoi.com

An almost-comprehensive compendium of information on Greek mythology. Its strengths are deities of all stripes, mythical heroes, and genealogy. It is very useful as a supplement to Wikipedia, as it is usually more detailed, and its articles more tailored to the knowledgeable reader, rather than a lay audience.