Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Malkier ians.


Recommended Posts

2209779511_704a28fac4.jpg?v=0

 

Yeah well that's not what my completely unsourced graph says!

 

Seriously though, your graph has lots of problems, not least of which is that it could have been completely made up for all we know.  Secondly, it doesn't say what you claim it says.  Thirdly, it reflects a relatively higher infant mortality rate which would of course scew the average lifespan lower.

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly did the makers of this graph calculate the ages of dead cavemen?  Did they cut the bones and count the rings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only becasue I was married to an anthropologist.  You can tell the age of an early human based on the bones by:

 

-wear on the teeth

-rings found in the teeth (just like a horse)

-the growth of the skull sutures

-the seperation of the bones at the joints if they are not scattered

 

Mostly this allows the Anthro to classify them as infant, youth, maturing adolescent, mature adult, and adult of advanced age.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fescue, either I wan't clear enough our you missed my point, in either case we agree.  I took the same evidences of literature, literacy,  and the relative ease of access to books as indicators of printing, which to my mind was one of the great signals that brought on the renaissance.  I just didn't articulate them as well, nor did I go to the trouble of explaing how literacy could raise life expectancy.  We agree, you just did all the work.

 

RJ is quoted at something called the Elf Fantasy Fair on  April 7th 2001

 

I dislike the view of the world of the Wheel of Time as medieval. I think of this as the 17th century, as it would have developed without gun powder. Look at the things, I mean, moveable type and printing presses and books are not uncommon and mechanical clocks and a lot of other things. If you look at what's going on you'd realize that we're not looking at a medieval world. We're looking at the 17th century, minus gun powder.

 

I think that puts paid to the notion that Randland is medieval.

 

 

Thank you for the RJ quotation, Cloglord. For some reason, I had it in my mind Randland was 17th century technologically but couldn't remember where I'd read it. Good to see I'm not hallucinating again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot about all those ancient greek and roman tombstones lying around, I'm sure that they give an accurate representation of the spectrum of lifespans for their respective civilizations.  Too bad your graph doesn't show a single blip of data for the medieval period in europe....

 

I guess you're right and I'm wrong, what to do? -sigh-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

By that same argument I could make a case that Europe during WWI was more technologically advanced than the middle ages, but that the population level, lifespan, and hygene levels were no better.  For me, if RJ says it, its enough.

 

I agree that RJ clearly stated that Randland more nearly approximates 17th century Europe then Medevil Europre. That does not answer my point. RJ was a pretty good historian. The civil War in Cairhern is a pretty good analogy to the 3o Years War, etc. My point was that the 17th century while slightly more technalogically adnanced and having more new "Ideas" floating around was still a very violent and dangerous era. Indeed, at the end of the 30 years War much of central europe's population had been killed (i.e. Cairhern and the Arath Plain). Yes we had Galilaeo (Rand's Academemies) but we also had the Inquisition (both Catholic and Protestant versions) i.e, the Whitecloaks, Red Ajah, (accusations about being a darkfriend were as effective as acqusations about being a witch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot about all those ancient greek and roman tombstones lying around, I'm sure that they give an accurate representation of the spectrum of lifespans for their respective civilizations.  Too bad your graph doesn't show a single blip of data for the medieval period in europe....

 

I guess you're right and I'm wrong, what to do? -sigh-

 

First: if I come out as thinking-I-know-it-all: I'm sorry. When I think something obvious, I can put it quite harsh (but not necessarily correct).

 

Roman tombstones can be found: in the catacombs under Rome. For the earlier ones: I don't know where they can be found (though the ring-counting could work: human bones do form yearly rings; it would be very costly though, and the remains are not THAT numerous)

 

As to the graph: we seen several like it in our lessons. Most from highly recognised scientific magazines. The main thing it proves, is that there's not much difference between the Greeks and the 1800 English. Meaning that, for life expectancies, "Medieval" or "17th Century" are approximately interchangeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reiterate that that is only true as far as know using an incomplete and debatable archaeological archive, and also only within certain areas where there is more evidence.

 

Furthermore, the results are very iffy because of the high infant mortality rate. When more than half of humanity did not live past childhood, that can create a large statistical misconception as to the average age of living. However, for those who did manage to survive past childhood, the chances of them living a longer life increased exponentially. I return again to the documented evidence of known harpers in Ireland in the middle ages, almost all of whom lived into their 50s and well beyond (there is at least a few who were said to have lived into their 90s while still harping). This is a case I know well according to what I have been taught; other places I'm sure will have variation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

 

Timeline for humans

Homo sapiens live on average 32.6 years in Swaziland and on average 81 years in Australia. The oldest confirmed recorded age for any human is 122 years, though some people are reported to have lived longer. Although there are several longevity myths mostly in different stories that were spread in some cultures, there is no scientific proof of a human living for hundreds of years at any point of time. The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961, as well as other sources:

 

Humans by Era Average Lifespan

(years) Comment

Neanderthal 20 Homo neanderthalensis is a similar species of modern humans but is still in any case a fellow member of the genus Homo.

Upper Paleolithic 33 At age 15: 39 (to age 54)[4][5]

Neolithic 20   

Bronze Age[6] 18   

Classical Greece[7] 20-30   

Classical Rome[8][9] 20-30   

Pre-Colombian North America[10] 25-35   

Medieval Britain[11][12] 20-30   

Early 20th Century[13][14] 30-40   

Current world average[15] 67 

 

These represent the life expectancies of the population as a whole. In many instances life expectancy varied considerably according to class and gender. All statistics include infant mortality, but not miscarriage or abortion. This table also rejects certain beliefs based on myths that the old age man had a higher life expectancy. The sharp drop in life expectancy with the advent of the Neolithic mirrors the evidence that the advent of agriculture actually marked a sharp drop in life expectancy that humans are only recovering from in affluent nations today.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

 

Please note that the average life expectancy did not increase until the beinning of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

errr sorry (???) credit to poster of FORESHADOWING thats what that passage ment to me too.

 

 

 

and dont discount the Orphan factor

 

Rubes and smalltowners are generaly suspicious/distrustful of outsiders making it difficult for people to actually settle someplace new and even upon settling making it difficult for them to become part of the community, while with time they may become generally accepted their are still plenty of coplins to evoke the heritage card.  This might have given some a something to belong too.

 

While i am not really interested in picking apart the call to arms, i will say that on those few pages (malkier rising), that was absolutely the most moving/powerful moment of that book for me, I was ready to ride for malkier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhmm, Cubarey, your citation doesn't carry any more weight with me than Thorum's graph did.  Firstly, you quoted wikipedia, while useful, it is hardly a definative source for anthropological surveys.  Secondly, the wiki cites another encyclopedia as its primary source, an encyclopedia neary 50 years old.  Do you mean to suggest that there hasn't been any more recent research to cite?  Thirdly, the citation doesn not give any information about the sample sizes.  If they found 30 neanderthals in the swiis alps, it does not nessecarily give us accurate data across the continent, or even throughout the time period.  the paleolithic period wasn't a decade or even a century long.  without a sufficently large sampling there is not way to accurately quantify the "average life expectancy," of any of the groups.  Lastly, your citation doesn't take into account the twice before mentioned phenomenon of infant mortality rates scewing the average lifespan.  Which to my mind nicely explains the sudden jump in the early 20th century.

 

I'll also point out that neither your survey nor Thorum's graph give any information about 17th century europe, the specific time period that Jordan linked to WOT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most striking difference between Randland and our world pre 1900 is the lack of epidemic diseases. There seems to be no smallpox, bubonic plague or flu. This fact, alone, can easily make for a much higher average lifespan in Randland than any time period in European history pre invention of vaccines and antibiotics. While, as mentioned, average lifespan hasn't necessarily very much of a correlation to the number of old people in a society it certainly is an decent indicator. Those children, after all, dies of something which to some degree is bound to affect the rest of the population. Starvation strikes everyone and while children are more likely to die from direct causes a starved man in his prime is more likely to get sick than a well nurtured one.

 

The lack of epidemic diseases is puzzling. Even if disease were wiped out during the Age of Legends 3000 years are plenty of time for new to emerge. I think anyone can agree that there havn't been anywhere near enough Aes Sedai since to put down an epidemic. It is probably one of those small faults we have to accept an an otherwise great story.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communities in the World of the Wheel are not as close to each other as they were in Europe ... or anywhere in the history of the real world.  Any population figures from our world, or life expectancy data, (whether it qualifies as "reliable" on the cloglord test or not) is irrelevant here, because there are major forces in play in Randland that aren't in play in our own history.  Most notably the lack of (or near total lack) of population pressure.  This means that the land can produce more than enough food for everyone, even using if they were using pre-medieval farming techniques.  It also means there is lots of space between communities ... communicable disease will almost quarantine itself, given a little time.  Additionally, despite the lack of sufficient Aes Sedai to control disease, there are Wise Women (or the equivalent) in every little village, and in the south, at least, alot of them are probably Kin.

 

In short, there are enough differences that any data from our real world, on this question, is rendered moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most striking difference between Randland and our world pre 1900 is the lack of epidemic diseases. There seems to be no smallpox, bubonic plague or flu. This fact, alone, can easily make for a much higher average lifespan in Randland than any time period in European history pre invention of vaccines and antibiotics. While, as mentioned, average lifespan hasn't necessarily very much of a correlation to the number of old people in a society it certainly is an decent indicator. Those children, after all, dies of something which to some degree is bound to affect the rest of the population. Starvation strikes everyone and while children are more likely to die from direct causes a starved man in his prime is more likely to get sick than a well nurtured one.

 

The lack of epidemic diseases is puzzling. Even if disease were wiped out during the Age of Legends 3000 years are plenty of time for new to emerge. I think anyone can agree that there havn't been anywhere near enough Aes Sedai since to put down an epidemic. It is probably one of those small faults we have to accept an an otherwise great story.

 

 

 

I disagree with this.  From the stories stand point, Emond's Field has a sickhouse where those with a contagious disease are quarantined.  While I can't recall any specific mentions of contagion, except maybe in reference to sheep, the presence of a sickhouse does seem to indicate the presence of contagious disease.  It's just that having someone actually catch something didn't have anything to do with the plot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are specific mentions of contagious disease.  In CoT ch 30 Egwene compares the feeling of fear in the Salidar Aes Sedai's camp to the fear in Emond's Field when there was an outbreak of spotted fever.  But, besides having a sickhouse in which to quarantine the sick, Emond's Field is miles and miles from the nearest town.  There is contact only sporadically with the outside world.  Distance is the best way to isolate illness, and Randland is full of open spaces, with only intermittent contact before the current crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any population figures from our world, or life expectancy data, (whether it qualifies as "reliable" on the cloglord test or not) is irrelevant here

 

Come on, one was completely unsourced, and the other came from a wiki entry that cited its primary source as an encyclopedia almost 40 years old, that's not the "cloglord test," unless you meant that the "cloglord test," and common sense are synonomous terms, in which case I agree entirely. ;D

 

Also Arangar in the "At the Gardens" chapter in KoD's mentions that this age was full of nasty diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I just meant that you spent an awful lot of time disputing the validity of evidence that had no real bearing on the issue anyway.  ;D

 

I imagine Aran'gar's comment falls into the same category as the rest of the Forsaken's complaints about this new "primitive" world.  They grew up in a fantastical utopia.  A chicken in every pot and a Restorer in every hamlet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I already mentioned: the graph shown looked very much like a lot of them we've seen in lessons. Those were from internationally recognised scientific magazines. I don't have those courses with me now, so you're gonna have to wait if you don't believe it. I've got the feeling you don't wanna believe anything. If you wanna see them, tell me. I'm not gonna put time in copying etc. them if you don't wanna believe it anyway.

 

As to the 17th century: 1800 isn't very far from the 17th century.

 

RAW's arguments make more sense: one of the main reasons for a lower life expectancy were less developed agricultural techniques, which meant the amount of land available simply could not feed all people in Western Europe at that time. This problem is not present in Randland: some areas are totally undeveloped. This means that there's enough land present, so this factor doesn't come into play.

 

I believe we have enough reasons why there are still plenty of lively Malkieri: this land-area + a better hygiene for most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graph shown "looked like." or came from?  And they were your lessons, not mine.  In any of the classes I had, the professors cited were they got their information.  Feel free to look it up ,and provide a citation, if you want, but as I and Raw have said, it pretty much a non issue.  I say it because your graph doesn't say what you say it says.  1800 England is pretty far away from Romania in 1600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communities in the World of the Wheel are not as close to each other as they were in Europe ... or anywhere in the history of the real world.  [....]  Most notably the lack of (or near total lack) of population pressure.  This means that the land can produce more than enough food for everyone, even using if they were using pre-medieval farming techniques.  It also means there is lots of space between communities ... communicable disease will almost quarantine itself, given a little time.  .

 

Which in itself is quite interesting, what's keeping the population down? Under the above mentioned circumstances the population should grow with something like 2% a year! (Double in 35 years!!!) The only two phenomenas that's in the long term been able to keep a population from increasing (eg. Europe 1300 - 1700), famine and epidemic disease are absent. (Yeah, I now I remember the spotted fever incident, but still, epidemic diseases seems to be at least quite rare) The other great reason for population decline is war, but that's a temporary effect. To keep the the population from growing the fighting would have to be continuous, which we know it isn't.

 

Any natural reasons for the low population ruled out only the Dark One remains. But how exactly does he influence the population size. The obvious thing would be to use a tool, one of the ones ruled out above.

 

So how? Has the Dark One power to influence the fertility of humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how? Has the Dark One power to influence the fertility of humans?

 

Thats exactly what I think.  There are a couple of comments made by Elayne after she knows she's pregnant that led me to believe that there is an unusually high incidence of stillbirth in Randland (unusually high even for a pre-industrial society).  Add to that the fact that the population decline seems to have slowly accelerated the longer the Dark One was imperfectly sealed (presumably as the seals were weakening), and seems worst in Randland (physically closest to Shayol Ghul), there seems to be a pattern.

 

Understand, this is pure opinion ... a very subjective assessment ...

 

As to the specific means, I have no idea, but if I had to guess I would say he put some kind of interference between "wherever" normal souls are before they're born and their physical receptacles in Randland.  So, many of the bodies develop, but are born without a soul to give them life.  That is speculation that is way out there, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...