On the Singular Case of the Missing Wheel

 

We have not dealt with the archeological evidence regarding the transition of the Venethi lands to Slavic lands thus far and for good reason.

Archeology is necessarily a study of material culture and material culture is, well, not necessarily biological or ancestral.  Were a hypothetical modern homo sapiens to leave this earth for the prairies of Manitou and were he to be buried with his “stuff”, an archeologist, call him A, doing a dig 1,000 years from now – pretty much anywhere in the Western (and not only) world would have to conclude that our hypothetical Billy Bob was, in fact, Chinese.  The copious “Made in China” labels would clearly attest to that fact.  If one were to look beyond mere labels and instead insist on examining the “substance” of the finds – as an academic competitor of our future archeologist might claim we should – this latter (and, of course, latter day) archeologist, let’s call him B, might conclude that by the early 21st century we were all firmly American all over the world, what with our Old Navy clothing, our Katie Perry music albums and our Hollywood movies.  Both A and B would be, of course, wrong.

Archeology, as can thus be readily seen, cannot tell us much about the people who lived in a given place if the question that we are asking it to answer for us is of the specific biological identity of the owners of the material in question and where we otherwise know little of such owners.  It would be perfectly acceptable to adjudge an archeological dig as more “Olmec” or more “Indian” – there we are dealing with two separately identified (and geographically dispersed) cultures, each rich in findings also separate and independent from the dig in question.  But how does one determine whether something material is Slavic where one has not defined what objects can be undoubtedly associated with Slavs (and, in some cases, where one has not been able to even come up with the definition of what is a Slav – as some historians and other academics have failed to do).  How does one determine what belongs to culture A vs culture B where both live right next to each other?  How does one determine whether a sample is, e.g., Venethic, where one is unable even to answer who the Venethi were?  For all these reasons, we have been reluctant to tread in this area (similar arguments apply to linguistics which we will tackle but not now).

Nevertheless, one argument that is frequently made about the Venethi to Slav transition is of interest and we feel may be brought up at this juncture because it is both so utterly typical of similar such arguments and because it conjures a counterexample which comes to us, curiously, out of the same time in question but out of another part of the “Venethic world.”

The argument involves a wheel.  More precisely, the argument involves a potter’s wheel.  Sometime at the time of or shortly after the migration of the various Germanic warrior bands (maybe, in some cases, tribes) into the Roman Empire, the area in question suffered a “cultural collapse” which when it began to be reversed it began to be reversed slowly and from a lower civilizational niveau.  The collapse has been associated with the departure of these Germanic bands (or tribes).  The slow reversal with the alleged arrival, settling down and picking up the pieces of what was left by the Slavs.

In this respect we see a disappearance of sophisticated wheel-based pottery and then a reappearance of simple, hand-made pottery.  The potter’s wheel does not reappear in Central Europe until much later in time.

So, let us first note the typicality of this explanation in its depiction of the Slavs as the (relatively) more primitive people.  Once that depiction or, really, assumption is made, the story of the cultural change suggests itself, of course.

Now, one might think, however, that to draw any definitive conclusions from one specific geography may be rather precarious and that if one were not inclined to examine the effects of the collapse of empires in general before opening one’s mouth, at a minimum, one ought to review the happenings around the Roman Empire at the time of its collapse.

(BTW if one ever suggests that, perhaps, just perhaps something different is at work, the word “defensive” appears on the horizon with the words “nationalistic” and “chauvinistic” close behind, at first on stand by, but clearly battle ready – try it out for yourselves – in truth, this whole experience with benevolent academic paternalism makes it easier to relate to the African experience).

We do not usually quote recent sources as we try to dig into the original records and see for ourselves “what is out there”.  However, in this case, given our archeological tangent, we think it fair (and so as to preempt any suggestions of us undertaking any digs ourselves) to make an exception.  The following comes from the article by the cherubic (if slightly more hirsute than your typical aerial baby) Bryan Ward-Perkins  “Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?” in the English Historical Review (published by the Oxford University Press in 2000).  Doctor Perkins is a member of the faculty of history at Oxford University and, as per his information stub, is both a historian and an archeologist by training.  We apologize to Doctor Ward-Perkins upfront for the inevitable flood of emails, then calls, then faxes, then letters that is destined to follow this here publication, as Doctor Ward-Perkins will be called to “recant”, “correct”, “deemphasize” or, at the very least ,”limit geographically” his findings and conclusions (in case this fails, another, more pertinent (of course) authority will be, properly incentivized and then trotted out to contest the below – wanna bet?).  In the meantime grab a beer and read on:

“[I]n Britain, and again in contrast to Gaul, Roman ways of doing things disappeared peculiarly fast, and with exceptional totality.  Towns, coinage, architecture in brick and stone, complex industries, and even basic technologies, like the use of the wheel for pottery production, all vanished during the fifth century, probably along with widespread  literacy in Latin… towns themselves disappeared and were sometimes replaced by iron-age hill-forts as political centers; almost all signs of economic sophistication (such as specialized mass-production industries and the use of coin) disappeared.”

(Oh, Professor Ward-Perkins also published “The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization”) .

But wait! (say, the Scientists of the Wheel (i.e., the SOFTWs)):

“An inferior group of invaders – this time the Anglo-Saxons playing the role of the primitive Slavs replaced the local Roman (even if, by then, sub-Roman) population!  Well, duh!  This just proves our point!”

The Professor then says: “This happened autonomously within western Britain, long before the Anglo-Saxons reached his area, even in seemingly heavily romanized regions like modern Gloucestershire.“ 

(BTW The remaining portion of the above article will make it clear that the Professor is not exactly a crackpot fascist or Welsh (or any other) “nationalist” – attaching, for this purpose, all the vitriol that our opponents would, to that term).

And, we can add from ourselves, this too happened in the future Kingdom of Gwynedd (remember the cousins of those Venethi Ceasar drove away from Bretagne? They were, oh yes, in that other Bretagne).[1]

Does this mean that the same happened in Central Europe to the Venethi?  Maybe.  Maybe not (the Professor Doctor notes himself that Gall was different, what with the Franks looking after things).  But, one would think, it behooves the scientists who allegedly study these things (with, we suspect, passion and prejudice though) to at least examine what entails a cultural collapse and whether a cultural collapse must necessarily be indicative of a population exchange –

?

– that it must when such a population exchange is a presupposed conclusion is another matter, of course.

[1] What is the first known of the name Gwynedd?  Oh, yes, here its: “Cantiorix hic iacit/Venedotis cives fuit/consobrinos Magli magistrate“.  And by the way, Venethi may have been a Wallach-like term to denote the “Others” – not one with a German origin but rather with a Celtic one.   More on that soon.

Copyright ©2014 jassa.org, All Rights Reserved