6 ms·

And no mention in the article of the ways of culture that managed the systems.

lurk2 1y ago
There was a lot of insistence that the indigenous method was better, but no actual evidence that it was, nor even arguments as to why it would be (besides some vague allusions to it being “more flexible”). A lot of these noble savage narratives emerge from Latin American studies (history, archaeology, literature, etc.), particularly among Mexican and American-educated academics. There is truth to the idea that the complexity of indigenous systems is unappreciated by the general public, but there’s always this underlying fetishization of a pseudo-magical indigenous “way of knowing” contrasted with the (historically far-better performing) European scientific method. Indigenous cultures are redeemed from European military conquests by insisting that the European way of knowing is myopic and selfish (being focused on profit over sustainability, the individual over the community, etc.) in contrast to the indigenous way of knowing, which is holistic and communitarian. The author does have publications related to these irrigation systems, though, so maybe she has a valid point to make and the article just didn’t land for me.
- syspec 1y ago
  Very well stated. It's really weird to come across such articles, because they always add this mystic to these cultures that actually ends up coming across as the generic "in touch with nature" noble savage archetype
  - mstipetic 1y ago
    I mean, weren’t they? My kids can name more superheroes and Pokémon than animals and plants. My neighbors don’t notice when it doesn’t rain in March and April (when there should be 22 rainy days) and get annoyed when it does because it ruins the nice weather.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      The Spanish colonists would have no problems with those things though, they just were out of their element there but people were in touch with nature almost everywhere until very recently.
    - luckylion 1y ago
      Why would your neighbors worry about rain, unless they are farmers or otherwise directly impacted? We've generally abandoned "being in touch with nature" for focusing on specific niches, and it's so incredibly more efficient that you can have large groups of people who focus on systems based on purely made up things, like sports. If they both needed the probability of rain three days from now, who do you think would fare better, the ancients with their ancient wisdom, or your neighbors with modern sensors and meteorological models?
      - reycharles 1y ago
        I would say they would worry if they were even remotely in touch with nature.
      - jorgen123 1y ago
        You may be thinking about a short term need only. Longer term (annual and more) if you are in a state that is susceptible to drought and wildfires, you would worry about the lack of rain during a period when it is supposed to rain. The rain fills aquifers and increases soil moisture content which carry you through the dry season.
        luckylion 1y ago
        In general, yes. But most advanced societies delegate these topics because it's very inefficient if you and everyone else studies wild fires, rain patterns, deer impact on soil compression and what not -- it'll be much more efficient if a few study it deeply and then present the results and concrete actions. Division of labor goes for division of scientific labor, too. Granted, there seems to be an increasing trust issue in taking those results as true, but that's a separate issue.
  - bobmcnamara 1y ago
    It fits today's narrative better.
- Spooky23 1y ago
  If you study this stuff in the americas it’s depressing as the Spanish in particular slaughtered people and culture so completely and unimpeded for so long. The evil and barbarism of this colonial episode is difficult to fathom. The 20th century horror show of slaughter ran in relatively short episodes… this imperial era ran for hundreds of years. Because you’re left with archeological evidence, whose interpretation is always very conservative, and limited oral tradition, it’s easy to veer into legend, because honestly that’s that who have to work with.
  - tomrod 1y ago
    The Spanish, the Portuguese, and most importantly, diseases that killed massive proportions of the population.
    - Spooky23 1y ago
      Diseases imo are empathized because they contribute to the body count and have an “act of god” nature to them. It’s an easier story than to describe a type of industrial genocide. Read about the Mit'a system that was perverted by the colonial government to essentially improve the return on assets of the colony versus slaves or other means of cheap labor. It broke down the society of the native population completely and made it impossible for them to respond or react to disasters.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      The disease aspects are inseparable from colonialism. Here's a quote from a recent survey on the matter [0] that describes the current understanding much better than I would: The contours of Indigenous depopulation were shaped not only by disease but also by complex colonial factors including violence, forced labor, exorbitant taxation, malnutrition, and dislocation. Archaeology has shown that Native populations were not destined to be decimated but were made vulnerable through the policies, choices, and behaviors of colonists. [0] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429274251-5/colonialism-indigenous-population-decline-americas-matthew-liebmann https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97804292...
  - 1y ago
- dopidopHN 1y ago
  I see your point and I agree. Grabber “the dawn of everything” comes to mind on that “noble savage” phenomenon That being said : there is something to be said about the Spanish cargo culting those canals in that specific plain… and failing to maintain it. While we know it was fertile for generation before. The article hint at private ownership being a factor? I could see that. But 100% agree : I spend the article asking “ok, what is the culture then” But it looks like it happen: irrigation work Spanish take over irrigation it stop working I suspect sabotage was a bit factor, too.
- elif 1y ago
  Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Even if academia is swinging to a "too respectful" position (which I would dispute), the lack of respect in your position is certain.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > the lack of respect in your position is certain. Pointing out there are other possibilities isn't a lack of respect. If you believe A or B could have happened, you see someone say B happened, it is fair to say that A might have happened as well, that doesn't mean you believe B couldn't have happened.
  - handwarmers 1y ago
    perhaps "modern times" are modern because they adapt to the times, innovate, and replace what is old with what is new in pursuit of improvement.
  - scythe 1y ago
    You might look no further than Spain. There are dams built by the Romans which are still operating. Of course nothing that's literally from the modern period is centuries old, but that's a tautology!
  - luckylion 1y ago
    > Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Why would anyone build something only to neglect it? If one of the requirements was "it shall work for 500 years and never be maintained", then I'm sure you could get plenty of things designed and built for that requirement. It's just that it's a lot more expensive and not particularly useful, so nobody bothers.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Off the top of my head: 1. Various aqueduct systems constructed by the Roman Empire are still in use today. 2. Persian qalats. 3. The Grand Canal in China. 4. Roman Roads 5. Hawaiian aquaculture systems 6. Aboriginal Australian fish traps Monumental architecture (e.g. the Pyramids) would make the list substantially longer. > Even if academia is swinging to a "too respectful" position The issue isn’t that they are attributing accomplishments to these civilizations, but instead that they are attributing these accomplishments to a way of knowing that is purportedly superior to that of the Europeans, which is just farcical when you consider that every modern technology has either been invented or scaled based on European models of thinking (e.g. the scientific method, mass production, free market capitalism, etc.) Like I said, this is mostly just a product of Mexican and American humanities departments being populated by people with an axe to grind; there aren’t any STEM graduates in South America concerned with the mystical knowledge that their ancestors are purported to have possessed.
- notarobot123 1y ago
  The claim actually made was that culture, not just technology, is what made these irrigation systems successful. It's an interesting insight. Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea?
  - lurk2 1y ago
    I understand what you’re saying. I’m not sure that the distinction is all that important, however. Culture is just a form of technology. > Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea? I don’t mean to imply that European models get everything right, but I think it would be far-fetched to bet against these models; historically, they’ve worked, and they’ve worked far better than any other model. The author does have a paper she linked to (which I missed on my first reading), so she might have a more compelling case to make than I originally assumed.
    - suavesito 1y ago
      I would say it reversed. Technology is _just one_ form of culture.
- pxmpxm 1y ago
  I imagine this is just a symptom of infallible argument/humanities departments rewarding group think narratives (colonialism = definionally ultimate evil) with grant money. Doesn't take long for academics to understand the game. Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers (macre econ development divergence in hipanola, property rights in subsaharan africa, unrelated culutral anthropoly etc) that allude to climate change as the key driver for the phenomenon observed. Clearly NSF and NIH wanted a very certain set of content published.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers The author describes herself in these terms: > While I’m an archaeologist, I consider my research to be directed at the modern-day climate crisis. I investigate how resilient farming systems emerge and adapt to climate change and natural disasters. My fieldwork takes place on the north coast of Peru, where I study ancient irrigation in arid farming zones. She doesn’t have any other social media profile so I don’t want to be overly cynical about her motives. Anyway, I think the climate angle is potentially huge in a lot of these fields. There has been a trend in academia in the last few decades to focus on holistic analysis. This has led to a lot of academics trying to tie their research to disparate issues for both grant money and social status, but I also suspect that a lot of it is born of a genuine to come up with a grand unified theory of all the world’s problems. You see it with figures like Aldous Huxley around the mid-20th century (Huxley’s conclusion in his final novel, Island, is that “Nothing short of everything will do,”). The new wave that seems to have started in the 2010s has taken on a considerably more political bent (“Everything is political,” “Climate change is a product of white supremacy,” intersectional feminism, etc.). These theories aren’t necessarily “wrong,” but the scholarship they produce is so bad that they are hard to take seriously.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  Episteme vs metis ? https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ (The free market does sound closer to metis... but is also EXTREMELY focused on the short term, see : negative externalities. )
- suavesito 1y ago
  I think that most people that are "scientific" are unable (because of our education) to _try_ to think about the validity of this way of _understanding_. I like to think that societies in Latin America (and, importantly, all around the world) survived thousands of years not because of luck, but because the cultures (language, traditions) they developed had ingrained the "scientific knowledge" necessary to survive in the conditions that lived in. An important part of it was that they did not see only as rulers and owners of the world, but only as one part of it. That is one of the basis of what people call magical thinking, but it is sound once you stop disqualifying it just because the word "magical" is in it. And, I mean, literally, only those who could adapt and understand their world to survive, survived. The knowledge maybe was not as fast evolving as the scientific methods allows to be, but it is, ultimately, the same method. Try, fail, and repeat. Those who were successful survived. The knowledge ingrained in the culture, traditions and understanding accompanying it was, and _is_, a fundamental part of the solutions that allowed them not to only survive, but to thrive in their environments. The first comment in this post says that you do not need the culture to carry out the solutions. That may be true, but it does miss that our culture is the strongest (after "basic necessities") incentives we have to choose some things over others. Or understanding of the world is our culture, and our understanding of the world is what makes us take some actions instead of others. You might be able to mimic technical solutions, but to fully understand them, you need the culture that developed them, as it is _literally_ the understanding of the world that allowed the solutions to exist.
selfselfgo 1y ago
[dead]
notarobot123 1y ago
> The Moche and Chimu canal was tied to a complex labor system that synchronized cleaning and maintenance and prioritized the efficient use of water. There's also a link which points to more details but it doesn't look to be accessible: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/management-of-late-andean-irrigation-systems-on-the-north-coast-of-peru/0AD23E3C78CABB831A1229FA97E6C916 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/a...
- like_any_other 1y ago
  That single sentence, which is the totality of the description given in the long and winding article, doesn't actually explain anything - the efficient use of water is the obvious goal of any irrigation system, especially in a desert. But how did it efficiently use water? The only hint of information is "synchronized cleaning and maintenance", and not a word on synchronized how or with what, or why this should help. It's like describing how a car works with just "it is efficiently designed to help you travel faster, and uses skilled maintenance workers".
  - BlueTemplar 1y ago
    I know nothing about the subject, but it only took me a few minutes to follow references to find what looks like it might be the answer that you are looking for ? https://www.proquest.com/ https://www.proquest.com/ openview/768dad5fa2923211ed1128cfa33d5a29/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar (It does sound like a great idea for a layman-focused documentary, and I would be surprised if none exist yet.)
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      Oh sure - but given that that is what the article is purportedly about, it would be nice if it had been included in the text itself.

There was a lot of insistence that the indigenous method was better, but no actual evidence that it was, nor even arguments as to why it would be (besides some vague allusions to it being “more flexible”). A lot of these noble savage narratives emerge from Latin American studies (history, archaeology, literature, etc.), particularly among Mexican and American-educated academics. There is truth to the idea that the complexity of indigenous systems is unappreciated by the general public, but there’s always this underlying fetishization of a pseudo-magical indigenous “way of knowing” contrasted with the (historically far-better performing) European scientific method. Indigenous cultures are redeemed from European military conquests by insisting that the European way of knowing is myopic and selfish (being focused on profit over sustainability, the individual over the community, etc.) in contrast to the indigenous way of knowing, which is holistic and communitarian. The author does have publications related to these irrigation systems, though, so maybe she has a valid point to make and the article just didn’t land for me.

syspec 1y ago
Very well stated. It's really weird to come across such articles, because they always add this mystic to these cultures that actually ends up coming across as the generic "in touch with nature" noble savage archetype
- mstipetic 1y ago
  I mean, weren’t they? My kids can name more superheroes and Pokémon than animals and plants. My neighbors don’t notice when it doesn’t rain in March and April (when there should be 22 rainy days) and get annoyed when it does because it ruins the nice weather.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    The Spanish colonists would have no problems with those things though, they just were out of their element there but people were in touch with nature almost everywhere until very recently.
  - luckylion 1y ago
    Why would your neighbors worry about rain, unless they are farmers or otherwise directly impacted? We've generally abandoned "being in touch with nature" for focusing on specific niches, and it's so incredibly more efficient that you can have large groups of people who focus on systems based on purely made up things, like sports. If they both needed the probability of rain three days from now, who do you think would fare better, the ancients with their ancient wisdom, or your neighbors with modern sensors and meteorological models?
    - reycharles 1y ago
      I would say they would worry if they were even remotely in touch with nature.
    - jorgen123 1y ago
      You may be thinking about a short term need only. Longer term (annual and more) if you are in a state that is susceptible to drought and wildfires, you would worry about the lack of rain during a period when it is supposed to rain. The rain fills aquifers and increases soil moisture content which carry you through the dry season.
      - luckylion 1y ago
        In general, yes. But most advanced societies delegate these topics because it's very inefficient if you and everyone else studies wild fires, rain patterns, deer impact on soil compression and what not -- it'll be much more efficient if a few study it deeply and then present the results and concrete actions. Division of labor goes for division of scientific labor, too. Granted, there seems to be an increasing trust issue in taking those results as true, but that's a separate issue.
- bobmcnamara 1y ago
  It fits today's narrative better.
Spooky23 1y ago
If you study this stuff in the americas it’s depressing as the Spanish in particular slaughtered people and culture so completely and unimpeded for so long. The evil and barbarism of this colonial episode is difficult to fathom. The 20th century horror show of slaughter ran in relatively short episodes… this imperial era ran for hundreds of years. Because you’re left with archeological evidence, whose interpretation is always very conservative, and limited oral tradition, it’s easy to veer into legend, because honestly that’s that who have to work with.
- tomrod 1y ago
  The Spanish, the Portuguese, and most importantly, diseases that killed massive proportions of the population.
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    Diseases imo are empathized because they contribute to the body count and have an “act of god” nature to them. It’s an easier story than to describe a type of industrial genocide. Read about the Mit'a system that was perverted by the colonial government to essentially improve the return on assets of the colony versus slaves or other means of cheap labor. It broke down the society of the native population completely and made it impossible for them to respond or react to disasters.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    The disease aspects are inseparable from colonialism. Here's a quote from a recent survey on the matter [0] that describes the current understanding much better than I would: The contours of Indigenous depopulation were shaped not only by disease but also by complex colonial factors including violence, forced labor, exorbitant taxation, malnutrition, and dislocation. Archaeology has shown that Native populations were not destined to be decimated but were made vulnerable through the policies, choices, and behaviors of colonists. [0] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429274251-5/colonialism-indigenous-population-decline-americas-matthew-liebmann https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/97804292...
- 1y ago
dopidopHN 1y ago
I see your point and I agree. Grabber “the dawn of everything” comes to mind on that “noble savage” phenomenon That being said : there is something to be said about the Spanish cargo culting those canals in that specific plain… and failing to maintain it. While we know it was fertile for generation before. The article hint at private ownership being a factor? I could see that. But 100% agree : I spend the article asking “ok, what is the culture then” But it looks like it happen: irrigation work Spanish take over irrigation it stop working I suspect sabotage was a bit factor, too.
elif 1y ago
Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Even if academia is swinging to a "too respectful" position (which I would dispute), the lack of respect in your position is certain.
- Jensson 1y ago
  > the lack of respect in your position is certain. Pointing out there are other possibilities isn't a lack of respect. If you believe A or B could have happened, you see someone say B happened, it is fair to say that A might have happened as well, that doesn't mean you believe B couldn't have happened.
- handwarmers 1y ago
  perhaps "modern times" are modern because they adapt to the times, innovate, and replace what is old with what is new in pursuit of improvement.
- scythe 1y ago
  You might look no further than Spain. There are dams built by the Romans which are still operating. Of course nothing that's literally from the modern period is centuries old, but that's a tautology!
- luckylion 1y ago
  > Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Why would anyone build something only to neglect it? If one of the requirements was "it shall work for 500 years and never be maintained", then I'm sure you could get plenty of things designed and built for that requirement. It's just that it's a lot more expensive and not particularly useful, so nobody bothers.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > Can you point to an engineering feat in modern times which is still functional after hundreds of years of neglect? Off the top of my head: 1. Various aqueduct systems constructed by the Roman Empire are still in use today. 2. Persian qalats. 3. The Grand Canal in China. 4. Roman Roads 5. Hawaiian aquaculture systems 6. Aboriginal Australian fish traps Monumental architecture (e.g. the Pyramids) would make the list substantially longer. > Even if academia is swinging to a "too respectful" position The issue isn’t that they are attributing accomplishments to these civilizations, but instead that they are attributing these accomplishments to a way of knowing that is purportedly superior to that of the Europeans, which is just farcical when you consider that every modern technology has either been invented or scaled based on European models of thinking (e.g. the scientific method, mass production, free market capitalism, etc.) Like I said, this is mostly just a product of Mexican and American humanities departments being populated by people with an axe to grind; there aren’t any STEM graduates in South America concerned with the mystical knowledge that their ancestors are purported to have possessed.
notarobot123 1y ago
The claim actually made was that culture, not just technology, is what made these irrigation systems successful. It's an interesting insight. Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea?
- lurk2 1y ago
  I understand what you’re saying. I’m not sure that the distinction is all that important, however. Culture is just a form of technology. > Perhaps we can learn lessons from ancient cultures about how we might be able to efficiently manage our resources and achieve more with what is available. Is that so far fetched an idea? I don’t mean to imply that European models get everything right, but I think it would be far-fetched to bet against these models; historically, they’ve worked, and they’ve worked far better than any other model. The author does have a paper she linked to (which I missed on my first reading), so she might have a more compelling case to make than I originally assumed.
  - suavesito 1y ago
    I would say it reversed. Technology is _just one_ form of culture.
pxmpxm 1y ago
I imagine this is just a symptom of infallible argument/humanities departments rewarding group think narratives (colonialism = definionally ultimate evil) with grant money. Doesn't take long for academics to understand the game. Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers (macre econ development divergence in hipanola, property rights in subsaharan africa, unrelated culutral anthropoly etc) that allude to climate change as the key driver for the phenomenon observed. Clearly NSF and NIH wanted a very certain set of content published.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > Same thing with climate change, i've come across a pile of random definitely-not-climate-science papers The author describes herself in these terms: > While I’m an archaeologist, I consider my research to be directed at the modern-day climate crisis. I investigate how resilient farming systems emerge and adapt to climate change and natural disasters. My fieldwork takes place on the north coast of Peru, where I study ancient irrigation in arid farming zones. She doesn’t have any other social media profile so I don’t want to be overly cynical about her motives. Anyway, I think the climate angle is potentially huge in a lot of these fields. There has been a trend in academia in the last few decades to focus on holistic analysis. This has led to a lot of academics trying to tie their research to disparate issues for both grant money and social status, but I also suspect that a lot of it is born of a genuine to come up with a grand unified theory of all the world’s problems. You see it with figures like Aldous Huxley around the mid-20th century (Huxley’s conclusion in his final novel, Island, is that “Nothing short of everything will do,”). The new wave that seems to have started in the 2010s has taken on a considerably more political bent (“Everything is political,” “Climate change is a product of white supremacy,” intersectional feminism, etc.). These theories aren’t necessarily “wrong,” but the scholarship they produce is so bad that they are hard to take seriously.
BlueTemplar 1y ago
Episteme vs metis ? https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ (The free market does sound closer to metis... but is also EXTREMELY focused on the short term, see : negative externalities. )
suavesito 1y ago
I think that most people that are "scientific" are unable (because of our education) to _try_ to think about the validity of this way of _understanding_. I like to think that societies in Latin America (and, importantly, all around the world) survived thousands of years not because of luck, but because the cultures (language, traditions) they developed had ingrained the "scientific knowledge" necessary to survive in the conditions that lived in. An important part of it was that they did not see only as rulers and owners of the world, but only as one part of it. That is one of the basis of what people call magical thinking, but it is sound once you stop disqualifying it just because the word "magical" is in it. And, I mean, literally, only those who could adapt and understand their world to survive, survived. The knowledge maybe was not as fast evolving as the scientific methods allows to be, but it is, ultimately, the same method. Try, fail, and repeat. Those who were successful survived. The knowledge ingrained in the culture, traditions and understanding accompanying it was, and _is_, a fundamental part of the solutions that allowed them not to only survive, but to thrive in their environments. The first comment in this post says that you do not need the culture to carry out the solutions. That may be true, but it does miss that our culture is the strongest (after "basic necessities") incentives we have to choose some things over others. Or understanding of the world is our culture, and our understanding of the world is what makes us take some actions instead of others. You might be able to mimic technical solutions, but to fully understand them, you need the culture that developed them, as it is _literally_ the understanding of the world that allowed the solutions to exist.

selfselfgo 1y ago

[dead]

notarobot123 1y ago

> The Moche and Chimu canal was tied to a complex labor system that synchronized cleaning and maintenance and prioritized the efficient use of water. There's also a link which points to more details but it doesn't look to be accessible: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/management-of-late-andean-irrigation-systems-on-the-north-coast-of-peru/0AD23E3C78CABB831A1229FA97E6C916 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/a...

like_any_other 1y ago
That single sentence, which is the totality of the description given in the long and winding article, doesn't actually explain anything - the efficient use of water is the obvious goal of any irrigation system, especially in a desert. But how did it efficiently use water? The only hint of information is "synchronized cleaning and maintenance", and not a word on synchronized how or with what, or why this should help. It's like describing how a car works with just "it is efficiently designed to help you travel faster, and uses skilled maintenance workers".
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  I know nothing about the subject, but it only took me a few minutes to follow references to find what looks like it might be the answer that you are looking for ? https://www.proquest.com/ https://www.proquest.com/ openview/768dad5fa2923211ed1128cfa33d5a29/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar (It does sound like a great idea for a layman-focused documentary, and I would be surprised if none exist yet.)
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    Oh sure - but given that that is what the article is purportedly about, it would be nice if it had been included in the text itself.