Post 201. 
Who should I believe? The Dr or the Mr?!? 
Now you’re talking! I’m all in favor.
In fairness, I never specified that I was using the technical definition from Anthropology. I tend to use that sort of definition in these discussions because the common definitions are often too broad and carry too much baggage. (Myth, cult, race, and some others are words with similar issues.) Having based my assertion on the unspecified technical usage, I was simply curious as to what definition DrDeth (and probably Derek) was using and I had no intention of driving a semantic hijack.
Do you need a British physician or surgeon?
:eek: :smack: That emphasized portion makes absolutely no sense. You know who’s slightly right-of-center? The Democratic Party since 1992, that’s who.* That’s Bill and Hillary and Barack.
- And to be honest, there’s a good argument to be made that “slightly” understates the degree to which the Democratic Party is to the right-of-center.
None of those is a Dictionary of Anthropology. I asked which Dictionary of Anthropology you used. So the answer would be “None”, then?
But you very strongly indicated it when you said "
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
anthropologists had dropped “preliterate” from any definition of primitive.
[/QUOTE]
This indicates you were talking about a term of art, not whatever a google trawl of dictionaries would dredge up.
But I’ll drop the hijack too, it’s not very productive.
*Why the FUCK *would I or anyone else in GD be expected to use a Dictionary of Anthropology? We are not using technical terms here.
If you wanna hang your hat on “anthropologists had dropped “preliterate” from any definition of primitive.” that’s post 198. Tom used the term in post 165, and I replied in post 189.
But since you asked i checked to see if there is a online Dictionary of Anthropology. There is: http://www.webref.org/anthropology/anthropology.htm
"
primitive: a derogatory term used to describe small-scale, preliterate, and technologically simple societies."
But now you’re gonna drag out a “No True Scotsman” or similar attack on that source.
As to wasting time on the hijack, that’s your fault, entirely.
Still chortling over the idea that the Incas were “primitive”.
And no, we shouldn’t celebrate Columbus Day.
Well compare them to Europe, Asia and Africa all of which had Large scale literacy, metallurgy, science, to one degree or another.
Incas still had human sacrifice, mainly children, something Eurasia had commonly given up some 1500 years previously, if not earlier. Child Sacrifice is pretty damn primitive and barbaric. Go ahead, try and defend that. :dubious:
Incas did practice advanced agriculture, something common for over 5000 years on the other side of the Atlantic.
I can’t see how the Incas were any more advanced than the ancient Babylonians, and still without useful metallurgy.
Their writing system was not quite as advanced as the ancient Egyptians from 3000BC.
Why’s that funny? It seems to me that if we made a spectrum with “primitive” on one end and “modern” on the other, the Incas would probably have a lot more in common with a lot of the societies on the “primitive” end of the spectrum than the “modern” ones. What should I know about the Incas that I apparently don’t that makes them something other than “primitive”?
It’s very simple. They cast aside the dictionary definitions of the word, and insist on using a definition in two specialized books, neither one of which can be verified online.
Humpty Dumpty did the same.
Pretty much everything about them. They had a highly organized empire (the largest empire in the world at the time) linked by a well-maintained road system, an efficient system of agriculture, and complex systems of distributing food and other goods. They built massive structures whose construction is still poorly understood. Aside from the lack of a system of writing and metal tools and weapons, the Incas had a lot more in common with the Roman Empire than they did with cultures that are usually considered “primitive.” They had limited child sacrifice, but then the Romans had gladiatorial games and engaged in other barbarities. If the Incas were primitive, then so were the Romans and ancient Egyptians.
Romans had given up human sacrifice for centuries. They had extensive literacy. They had metallurgy.
At best the Incans were no more developed than the Ancient Egyptians or Babylonians… who at least had bronze age technology. highly organized empire, efficient system of agriculture, and most certainly built massive structures whose construction is still poorly understood.
Babylonia at least had a system of writing that the merchant class used, not just the priests. They had bronze and later iron. And, they had the wheel.
So, they had everything the Incans had, and much more.
But the massive numbers of deaths in the arena were arguably far worse, since they were done purely for entertainment rather than for religious reasons.
In terms of how their Empire was organized and governed, I think the Incas ran an even tighter ship than the Romans.
The wheel would have been of limited use in the Inca’s mountainous domain.
Well, *you’re *not, that much is clear. Me, I generally prefer to.
It was #204 that caught my eye, actually. Well after #198.
Webref? :rolleyes: Well, at least it’s not just a Google dump.
All I’ll do is point out that the actual source of that definition is a 404 page, so it’s easy to infer the anthropologists at UCSB don’t think it’s all that valid a definition anymore…
Sure, whatever you say.
That’s better?
Technology, science, literature, metallurgy- all hallmarks of Civilization that the Incans didnt have.
Yes, the MesoAmerican empires were rally good at enslaving other natives and making them stack big stone one atop the other. Not the hallmark of civilization I’d hang my hat on.
At their best the MesoAmerican empires were 5000 years behind the Eurasian/North Africa civilizations.
What you call a Google dump I call a “dictionary cite”, which is a lightyear better than any of your cites- which are, nonexistent.
Yep, as I predicted, attacking my source. :rolleyes:
I note your complete lack of a “better” definition.
:rolleyes: