Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: POTF 16 - Nominations

  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,352
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default POTF 16 - Nominations


    POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it. You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

    Post of the Fortnight - Rules
    -Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!
    -Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

    - Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

    - There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

    - Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

    - The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

    - The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

    -The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

    -In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.


    - Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

    - People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.


    A nominated post should:

    1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
    2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
    3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
    4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
    5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.


    Good luck everyone!
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  2. #2
    Flinn's Avatar oh man.. I did it again!
    Patrician Citizen Content Emeritus Gaming Director Modding Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    10,983
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: POTF 16 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    On a serious note I hadn't realised the caste were so clearly gene-defined. I was taught the caste system was more fluid prior to the British regularisation to the point it was (exaggeratedly) declared almost the invention of John Company.
    Yeah, I think that theory falls into that category of ideas that were emotionally appealing to scholars like the view that Neolithic technology was spread primarily via cultural diffusion rather than extermination and replacement. Post WWII, a lot of scholarship was trending toward a view of prehistory that was more optimistic regarding human nature. It was seen as a corrective to simplistic thinking, and of course there was for obvious reasons a desire to undermine anything that could be used to promote Social Darwinist type ideology. So in some cases, new evidence has shown that the corrective was in fact an extreme over-corrective. The reality was in between in these cases, but factually turned out to be closer to the early Twentieth Century view than the late Twentieth Century view. Which is not to say that the arguments didn't seem plausible based on the knowledge at the time. All this appears to have broken the brains of sociocultural anthropologists who now live in an antipostivist world of make-believe, while physical anthropogists have become biocultural anthropologists fusing the work of old school sociocultural anthropologists with the evolutionary perspectives and hard sciences of their own field.

    The genetic evidence for the caste system is pretty clear. It looks like the caste system was well established by about 2,000 years ago and by 1,500 years ago it became so fixed that India's population structure was basically frozen in time at that point due to endogamy. Castes vary in their degree of Ancestral North Indian and Ancestral South Indian ancestry. The higher the caste, the more ANI, the lower the caste, the more ASI. ANI is basically a 50/50 mix of Yamnaya and Neolithic Iranian Farmers. ASI is basically a 75/25 mix of South Asian Hunter Gatherers and Neolithic Iranian Farmers. Indo-European male haplogroups range from 25% in the northwest to 14% in the south, whereas they range from 50% in the highest castes to near 0% in the lowest castes. Within India, genetic ancestry tends to have a greater correlation with caste than with language group or geography (though all factors correlate to some degree).

    Here are a few important papers:

    A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

    Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

    Reconstructing Indian Population History

    EDIT: Looking at these radiocarbon dates, probably best to consider 800 and 1800 to be 130 years. The individuals within each time-frame aren't necessarily contemporaneous.
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Yeah, I think that theory falls into that category of ideas that were emotionally appealing to scholars like the view that Neolithic technology was spread primarily via cultural diffusion rather than extermination and replacement. Post WWII, a lot of scholarship was trending toward a view of prehistory that was more optimistic regarding human nature. It was seen as a corrective to simplistic thinking, and of course there was for obvious reasons a desire to undermine anything that could be used to promote Social Darwinist type ideology. So in some cases, new evidence has shown that the corrective was in fact an extreme over-corrective. The reality was in between in these cases, but factually turned out to be closer to the early Twentieth Century view than the late Twentieth Century view. Which is not to say that the arguments didn't seem plausible based on the knowledge at the time. All this appears to have broken the brains of sociocultural anthropologists who now live in an antipostivist world of make-believe, while physical anthropogists have become biocultural anthropologists fusing the work of old school sociocultural anthropologists with the evolutionary perspectives and hard sciences of their own field.

    The genetic evidence for the caste system is pretty clear. It looks like the caste system was well established by about 2,000 years ago and by 1,500 years ago it became so fixed that India's population structure was basically frozen in time at that point due to endogamy. Castes vary in their degree of Ancient North Indian and Ancient South Indian ancestry. The higher the caste, the more ANI, the lower the caste, the more ASI. ANI is basically a 50/50 mix of Yamnaya and Neolithic Iranian Farmers. ASI is basically a 75/25 mix of South Asian Hunter Gatherers and Neolithic Iranian Farmers. Indo-European male haplogroups range from 25% in the northwest to 14% in the south, whereas they range from 50% in the highest castes to near 0% in the lowest castes. Within India, genetic ancestry tends to have a greater correlation with caste than with language group or geography (though all factors correlate to some degree).

    Here are a few important papers:

    A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

    Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

    Reconstructing Indian Population History
    Those studies seem to support an Aryian Invasian Theory, although not necessarily the violent one proposed by the 19th century scholars.


    Out of curiosity, has any gentic studies been done on the Indus Valley Civilization tonsee how they compared?

    EDIT: Looking at these radiocarbon dates, probably bes itt to consider 800 and 1800 to be 130 years. The individuals within each time-frame aren't necessarily contemporaneous.
    Yes, but the 1800 CE Eastern Mediterranean bodies would more sense if they died as a group at the same time, than as individuals at different times. If the bodies represented different times, then where are bodies of South Asian and locals that one would expect to see? Unless this was a cemetery reserved for the very rare eastern Mediterranean group that happened to die in the area, and that seems unlikely.

    The article said the area was a traditional pilgrimage sure for Hindus, that it was not near any major trade route. It thought these eastern Mediterraneans were unlikely to be religious pilgrims, but what if these were people originally from the Eastern Mediterranean who had gone native and adopted local religion while at an extended stay in India? These bodies indicated a mostly land diet, not marine, which could support the idea of an extended stay in India. Merchants might have come to India with h their servants and stayed, eventually adopted the local religion. They might have been killed during a pilgrimage to the area, in what I can think could have been a rock slide or a flash flood. Other articles talked about possibly being killed by hail stones, but a rock slide seems to me that if make more sense. Or drowning while crossing some local River in a storm.

    The 9th century CE South Asian/Indian bodies were more likely to have been separate events, given the diversity of backgrounds of the bodies. But it too could have been a single event as well. If the Eastern Mediterranean were not religious pilgrims, perhaps they were travelling with a group of pilgrims initially and then later join up with majornSilk Road routes later on.

    Under the patronage of Finlander, patron of Lugotorix & Lifthrasir & joerock22& Socrates1984; of the Imperial House of Hader

  3. #3
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,352
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 16 - Nominations

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    @Roma_Victrix

    Sorry a much delayed response to #68 (two years yes I type I character a day...)

    In defense for the delay I am trapped now in SE Idaho where the libraries are a travesty, and my wife moved to the USDA from University and Fed's do not take kindly to spousal free-riding of e-research access so it's been a chore to answer you with diligence. Anyway.

    Okay. I can't really argue for or against that since I don't know much about the subject. Do you at least have a source that provides a counterargument? That's something I could use in the article. Our own private musings about it, however, are not permissible over at Wiki, because that is tantamount to "original research", a cardinal sin in their guidebook. We're only really supposed to report what secondary sources say on the matter, although we have a good amount of license when it comes to constructing an article, using a variety of sources to piece together a narrative. I'm also able to be judicious about what goes in or out of an article, so if you have a source that convinces me otherwise, I'll gladly remove this statement as giving too much weight to one particular historian versus the consensus of others.
    Finding a consensus in numismatics is tricky, claiming one is more likely than not to provoke acrimony. In retrospect what I typed a while ago is I think was sort of too broad and not really focused on what caught my eye. It was this that I notated have only recently been able to put my finger on what I felt was off with the source.

    “The Macedonians were also the first to issue different coins for internal and external circulation.”

    I can see you are following Kremydi in the Brill Companion closely – fair enough. I however really don't think the assertion made by the author can stand. It looks to me to be an attempt to attribute novelty and innovation to Macedonia that does not exist.

    The full chapter is online (*) here is a extended quote:

    The Macedonians had practised a sophisticated manipulation of coinage
    since the fifth century. They struck according to the Attic system of a drachm
    subdivided into six obols, as can be proven by the legends ΔΙΟΒ and
    TPIH—abbreviations of the Greek words diobolon and trihemiobolion
    on fractions of Alexander I and Perdiccas II;lh at the same time however,
    they created denominations that could be exchangeable with local currencies.
    The octadrachms of Alexander I weighed ca. 29 g, the same as the
    octadrachms of Abdera,17 and corresponded to the triple staters of the
    local "oriental" standard which was based on a stater of 9.82 g divided into
    trite, hekte and hemiekta; this was the dominant denominational system
    of the mints around Pangaion.'8 The heavy octadrachms of Alexander, just
    like the large denominations of other northern Greek mints, were exported
    to the East and have been found in hoards from western Asia Minor, Jordan
    and Egypt."' The Macedonian tetradrachm, of just over 13 g, was on a
    local standard which was possibly created to facilitate the exchange
    between silver and electrum.-" The adaptation of Macedonian coinage to
    different standards used by Thracians, Athenians, and northern colonies,
    reflects, on a monetary level, the complex environment in which this ethnos
    was destined to survive and develop.


    Silver coins of a smaller denomination, the tetrobols, were used for payments
    of wages. In the fifth century the Macedonian state issued two
    types of tetrobols: light tetrobols with a horse on the reverse and heavier
    tetrobols with a cavalryman on the same side. These two series circulated
    in different areas: the light ones are found within Macedonia proper,
    whereas heavy ones have been found at Olynthos and on the upper banks
    of the Axios river, in Paeonia. Both areas were beyond the borders of the
    Macedonian state in the period under consideration. The practise is clear:
    lighter coins were accepted for transactions within the borders of the
    kingdom, whereas heavier coins were used for payments abroad."1 The
    application of a double standard—clearly made to provide maximum
    benefit from coining—was a Macedonian innovation, initiated at an early
    date. The distinction between coins intended for internal circulation from
    those intended for export can also be traced in the use of numismatic
    legends. Like most fifth-century coinages, especially in the north, Macedonian
    coins bore no legends. The exceptions were the octadrachms, traded
    in the east, and the rare octobols, issued in order to facilitate exchanges
    with Athens. They show that legends were added when they were necessary
    for the acceptance of the coins in distant regions. The distinction
    between coins for internal and external circulation originated in Macedonia
    and from there spread to the rest of the Greek world during the Hellenistic
    period. This sophisticated approach shows an elaborate monetary
    system at an early date. Recent finds further reveal the widespread use of
    minuscule silver fractions, such as obols, hemiobols or trihemiobols; their
    use points to an economy with a high level of monetization in everyday
    transactions.


    I first though thid was was an attempt to suggest the Ptolemy system of coinage . That is projecting a known system back in history. That would be incorrect, but I this the error is larger. The author is deliberately vague in using light and heavy. They are the conventional terms used in the literature but as used above suggest simply a difference in weight, not the reality that the light coins are also not good silver, but adulterated with copper in a significant but rather randomly in variable ways (Kraay pg 20-22 [1]). The nominal conclusion is real and rather uncontroversial - the King's of Macedonia used adulterated silver for internal use and generally nobody accepted such away from Macedonia (well perhaps money changers at a hefty cost). The problem is that the ideal does not is not innovate just rather shady and an expression Gresham's Law. But even if it was deliberate policy just implemented haphazardly, Macedonia sill would not be an innovator, but a but a follower and a second rate one at that. Particuallry given the high variability in the adulterating and lacking other evidence for such a system a very conscious and formally regulated like the Ptolemaic one (inscriptions, text of laws, comments in histories etc).

    To be pedantic one can point out that Electrum currency was notational by its very nature and with the limited accuracy of non destructive assays of the day. Thus in effect the general innovation would seem to be that of Lydia or Ionia. That is an overvalued coin (by metal weight) circulating only were the law made it valuable (or trade patterns allowed a used based on trust).

    More to the point the Billion currency of Lesbian Koinon predates the Macedonian 'Free Horse' adulterated coins by at minimum 60 years (up to over 100 on consideration not likely that would probably require the early date for electrum that is out of fashion right now).

    https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/...codigo=2449627

    Updated and translated here:

    https://www.academia.edu/6913591/A_contribution_to_the_study_of_the_Archaic_billon_coinage_of_Lesbos

    The coinage meets the criteria asserted by Kremydi it circulated only on Lesbos and possessions elsewhere of it member polis. It is not hoarded externally) or used in any export or trade system. Critically in my view is that the Lesbian coinage is a consistent token composition. Copper of close 60% and a lead of ~3-4% and Silver only around 35%. Nobody could mistake it for hard silver (there is more variation in the early series of issues). That is the issue with the 'Free Horse' Macedonian currency. In some cases it does contain some 25% copper or is just plated (Kraay pg 20) and is thus and obvious overvalued locally. At other times the adulteration is less, 5-15% which suggests to me not me innovation but stiffing hoi polloi as much as you could when you could or had to or wanted to.

    Realistically if any place in the 5th century BC deserves a not for innovation it Lesbos. Simultaneously Mytilene had a production union with Phokaia to produce electrum hektais, the Lesbian Koinon was producing billion currency for internal use and the two leading polis also had standard silver coinage runs as well.

    Lazzarini's work is over 5 years earlier than the Brill companion, and has been reviewed in English [2] in an easily available survey of numismatics . The existence of and general dating of the Lesbsian coinage is over century old. Historian miss things but at the end of the day I can't help but see bias in Kremydi. Consider this and the tone here:

    The introduction of bronze issues that replaced the more expensive
    and impractical silver fractions was another important monetary innovation
    of Archelaus which was apparently very successful.”

    Again innovation? No. Macedonia is only following the Western Greeks, and Sikyon (Warren pg 11-12 [3]) Yes Macedonia replaced its bad silver but again that innovation was 5 decades earlier in the West by Greeks. A fair judge might rather say Archelaus abandoned his adulterated silver and followed the Western Greeks (and realistically nearby Greek cities in the Chalcidice area) in the trend of using bronze. Also sure tiny silver fractions might be hard to use, but you can find hoards of Athenian silver fractions – why because they were practically pure silver and was worth hoarding. I don't think you will find hoards of 5th century Macedonian bronze very often.

    ---


    edit: I think also for Alexander's minting till his death and the activity of the Successors, Price's "The Coinage in Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus Vol. 1" pg 7ff, is a better link than the n 335. It more complete and concise and it lacks the surrounding bits of Meadows adding odd unsupported notions about Alex's monitary policy. Yep Alex the only guy to think of the ideal of using coins as mass communication (but its a childish ideal anyway so I don't know if he mean's it as a compliment or not).



    (*) Link is here at not sure if it stable but is free and available with a facebook or Google registration.
    https://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstr...mydi_11_01.pdf

    [1]The Composition of Greek Silver Coins: analysis by neutron activation CM Kraay - 1962 - Ashmolean Museum (pg 20-22)

    [2]International Numismatic Commission A SURVEY OF NUMISMATIC RESEARCH
    2002-2007
    General Editors
    MICHEL AMANDRY, DONAL BATESON

    https://www.inc-cin.org/assets/pdf/survey-text.pdf

    [3]WARREN, J.A.W. "Sikyon: A Case-Study in the Adoption of Coinage by a Polis in the Fifth Century BC." The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 169 (2009): 1-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42678602.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •