Out of curiosity, were there cases where, within the span of a couple of generations, there were huge cultural and social shifts such that the culture or society before and the culture or society after could be understood as functionally two separate cultures or societies? With exception to the Industrial revolution and perhaps the discovery of agriculture, I can't personally think of any. But my knowledge of history is limited so I would like to know if such a thing has ever occurred.
AHQ: Cases where radical cultural or social changes occurred?
- Thread starter HumptyDumpty
- Start date
Lord shang in the state of Qin to the point that Yuri Pines argues sima quan did the best he could with Qin sources maybe,
the fall of al andalus???
collapse of Cahokia??? anyone with a better knowledge could refute or restore these.
and amarna would have been one if the Ramessides hadnt reverted the changes
qin is the reorganization from Zhou feudalism to the Millitary agriculturalism of Qin Legalism
al andalus was a golden age of scholarship and convivencia to the Almohades and Catholic kings
Cahokia goes from maybe centralized urban states to the more familiar Powhattan confederacy model.
Amarna was radically different from every other era of Egyptian art and culture to the point you can tell the difference between Amarna art and other periods. I may be over selling how radical these changes were.And they were highly localized unlike the industrial revolution or discovery of agriculture nor as radical as those changes
The West before and after the World Wars are different enough that they could be considered two different civilizations, but going down that rabbit hole would inevitably lead us into current politics.
Last edited:
Lots of Romano-Brits ended up having kids who were Saxons. Lots of Anatolian Greeks ended up with Turkish grandchildren.
Probably Byzantium before and after 540 or during the Reign of Heraclitus, where it ceased to be a Mediterranean Empire.
American revolution had a big change of identity. Look at a lot of wars. Think about a Gaul between 60 BC and 30 BC.
Probably Byzantium before and after 540 or during the Reign of Heraclitus, where it ceased to be a Mediterranean Empire.
American revolution had a big change of identity. Look at a lot of wars. Think about a Gaul between 60 BC and 30 BC.
To my knowledge this pretty much never happens without some huge, lengthy disaster be it manmade or natural or otherwise sustained pressure from an external society. For the latter case, the Ainu of Hokkaido are a good one. In 1200, the Ainu grew several different grains and agriculture was an important part of their diet, although fishing and hunting were also quite important. A few groups also raised pigs and made pottery. They lived in villages and did not make many fortifications and carried on some trade with Japanese merchants.
300 years later, the Ainu only tended small gardens at most since hunting, fishing, gathering, and imported Japanese grains dominated the diet. Pigs had long since stopped being raised and they relied on imported Japanese pottery. Their villages often had large hill forts, since the Ainu competed violently over the rights to trade for all manner of things with the Japanese.
The only real social change after that point became the emergence of a far more egalitarian society compared to the one before where chiefly lineages received certain preogatives and privileges. Their religion and rituals were more or less the same as ever since they still maintained eternal flames and sacred spaces for their deceased.
300 years later, the Ainu only tended small gardens at most since hunting, fishing, gathering, and imported Japanese grains dominated the diet. Pigs had long since stopped being raised and they relied on imported Japanese pottery. Their villages often had large hill forts, since the Ainu competed violently over the rights to trade for all manner of things with the Japanese.
Not true at all. Even in the general area there were still large mound complexes for a century or two later, and they were only abandoned because the people who made them left. The decline of Cahokia led to an influx of population and Cahokia-esque styles and architecture to the southeast in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia who continued living in a similar manner until the 16th century when drought, epidemic disease, and increased warfare stopped the construction of large mounds and formed new ethnic groups because the populations became very mixed.
The only real social change after that point became the emergence of a far more egalitarian society compared to the one before where chiefly lineages received certain preogatives and privileges. Their religion and rituals were more or less the same as ever since they still maintained eternal flames and sacred spaces for their deceased.
They were not centralised urban states. There is very little evidence Cahokia made vassals out of even its nearest neighbours, even if Cahokia's rulers were respected for the ritual complex they commanded. Cahokia was a ritual center for a confederation that would have essentially been the same as the large confederacies encountered by De Soto, which in turn were simply larger-scale, more socially stratified versions of their direct descendents like the Creek or Cherokee.
thanks i dont know much so i might have misunderstood that and there is also pipestone to consider.
The Quiet Revolution in Quebec, completely changed the culture of Quebec in a period of 10 years from a mostly rural conservative Catholic society akin to Ireland to a modernist welfare state. Secularization in education, healthcare, and welfare diminished the power the Catholic Church had on daily life. Young women who were required to join convents to enter the teaching and nursing professions left with secularization. Total fertility rate Political society changed completely with the Union Nationale going from running Quebec like a one-party state to complete irrelevancy and extinction, and the birth of the modern Quebecois identity and the Quebec sovereignty movement.
Ireland over the past 30 years is basically the same thing. Spain post-Franco too. You can see why I'm not an integralist despite being a politically conservative Catholic.
It's after 1900, but I think the Sexual Revolution might count. It's not quite to the point where I'd call Western society before and after different societies, but there was a pretty stunning turnaround in some aspects of that society. The increase in acceptance of sex outside marriage and reduction of interest in marriage as an institution was pretty dramatic.
I think the cause here was legalized birth control. One invention and things change.
One could talk about the invention of the Internet but I'm not going further due to it hitting on current politics.
Agreed--largely. Wikipedia mentions that the invention of antibiotics made treating STDs easier, which led to alterations in sexual behavior. And while these inventions undoubtedly helped make the Sexual Revolution possible, I think we shouldn't underestimate the contribution of people like Kinsey, whose work was published seven years before the pill was was approved by the FDA for contraception.