TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 12,942
Measuring civilization relative to other civilization is challenging. And realistically is dependant on the value of the person doing the evaluating.
Both the Gauls and the Inca had well established population centres, high levels of agriculture, and well developed artistic sensitivities. The Gauls were iron workers, however, that is more due to the ease of getting iron in NW Europe relative to the Andes than to technical ability (given the level of metalwork displayed with gold and silver). Both were non-literate cultures. The Incans did have a higher level of social organization than the Gauls did - as demonstrated by a unified political structure and the system of labour used to develop high altitude agriculture, travel and trade, as compared to the far less cohesive political/social structure of the Gauls.
Realistically, the Incan culture was probably on a higher level than the Gauls.
The Gauls had a version of the Greek alphabet AFAIK but it was in very limited use mainly by clerics who favoured oral history anyway.
But yeah. A loosely held together chiefdom can have advantages over a strongly centralized kingdom in some contexts. It's not really measurable.
Last edited: