To discover the base of these contradictions let us see what has happened to the distinct Neolithic cultures as we enter the Bronze Age. Remember we are only on the cusp between the two ages. We are not in the Age of Metals, quite yet. We are only verging.
The Paleolithic saw the homo species developing an incredible stone technology. The Mesolithic saw the beginning of cultural differentiation based upon geography, but hunting and gathering was still necessary to supplement the diet. The Neolithic saw the crystallization of three distinct cultural styles, based upon their attitude towards Nature. Now in the Bronze Age, we will see how the clash of these cultural styles will synthesize a brand new culture, based upon the hostile interaction of the three.
Before seeing what happens when cultures collide, let us briefly examine some interacting ecological dynamics. One dynamic of ecology is that populations will expand to fill the ecosystem. Another dynamic -> because of the varied character of the EarthÕs climate each ecosystem will consistently fluctuate between optimum and minimum levels of habitability. This means that eco-stasis is a relatively short term phenomenon. During relative ecological contractions the expanded eco-populations will inevitably be squeezed for survival. Simply speaking, there will not be enough to go around. This dynamic is at the root of eco-competition
This author has suggested that this dynamic led early subspecies of the homo species to hunt the larger predators as well as practice cannibalism upon other tribes. As the earthÕs eco-system heated up for humans, they expanded where they could. Then when their eco-systems became less than optimum, there was not enough to go around. This led to the next level of eco-competition. This time it operated on mainly cultural levels.
Remember that there is virtually nothing remaining from many of these early interactions, so most of this section is based upon imagination and speculation. If that is a problem, read through.
The Hunter-Gatherer cultures were probably squeezed the most. As the Farmers were clearing ground expanding their territory, the Hunters were being forced deeper into the forest. Sometimes the Hunters might retreat and sometimes they probably fought back. If times were hard in the Hunter world, then they could easily steal some sheep or chickens from the defenseless Herders or Farmers. The peaceful farmers and shepherds of necessity had to learn to defend themselves from these Hunter raids. Thus the Hunter raids upon Herders and Farmers tended to militarize these groups.
But a more important dynamic arose. This was the transformation of the Hunter into a Warrior. Of the three cultures, the HunterÕs tools could be most easily turned into weapons. While the shepherdÕs crook or sling, or the FarmerÕs plow could be easily converted to a weapon, it was the HunterÕs bows and hand axes that most easily lent themselves to weaponry. Most probably they had already been used for this task in view of the capacity of Homo species for cannibalism.
The tribes of farmers, herders, and hunters were still probably very small. Hence a powerful tribe could more easily conquer a weaker one. Hence a powerful Hunter tribe, in the midst of an eco-contraction, and very tired of hand-to mouth existence, could easily come out of the forest with their tools to dominate a herding or farming culture.
Thus the small powerful Hunter tribes could have easily conquered the Herder tribes, establishing themselves as military rulers. The Hunter cultures could never grow too large because of the nature of the Hunt. The Hunter dynamic encourages small groups. But if they were strong enough they could easily rule several shepherd groups. Thus Hunter groups in the midst of eco-contraction could have easily set themselves up as military rulers of the Shepherds, becoming Warrior Kings in the Process. Then in the aggressive interactions between these Hunter-led Herding cultures, the dynamic leads to the adoption of the Warrior-Hunter mentality
While the Hunter dynamic encourages smaller tribal concentrations, the Herder dynamic encourages the organization into larger and larger groups. Although these herders had a nomadic lifestyle, very early on they had to group themselves in larger tribes in order to organize and control their scarce resources. It wasnÕt only the strongest who won the best pastureland. It was the strongest and most numerous. Hence in battle amongst themselves, they organized in larger and larger groups. In the nature of aggressive accumulations these groups would organize and splinter at regular intervals. If one group were strong and organized enough they would be able to force large groups to their will. When the groups had achieved parity, they would splinter and break apart. When these groups coalesced under a strong man, it was curtains for the surrounding agricultural settlements, which could not resist their raids. When they fought amongst themselves, their strength was dissipated and unthreatening.[1]
ŅThe second type [of nomad], the most significant numerically and historically, comprises the pastoral nomads who move with their families, belongings, and herds of cattle, camels, sheep, or goats through an annual cycle of pastures whose availability is determined by the alternation of hot and cold or wet and dry seasons. For thousands of years, pastoral nomads have controlled vast areas from southern Africa to the Siberian Arctic. Because they can organize themselves in large or even very large numbers, as in the Mongol invasions, and because they are free of any fixed assets, they have played an important part in the history of Asia and Africa.Ó (GrolierÕs Multimedia 1997: Nomads)
What an understatement!
The Hunter-Warriors left the Forest to become Warrior-Kings of the Herding cultures. They brought their ŌHere and NowÕ Hunt/Battle mentality with them. As they glorified the intensity of the Hunt, they also glorified the intensity of the Battle. An extension of Battle worship was weapon worship. We see a modern manifestation of this in gun worship. In the martial arts, weapons are still an integral part of the training, even those these weapons are rendered somewhat obsolete by the gun worshippers.
This transitional age saw the development of the pastoral military culture as a result of conflict between hunters and shepherds. While the pastoral military culture did not exist in the cultural Neolithic by definition, this nomadic military culture is not quite cultural Bronze Age, either. The cultural Bronze Age was characterized by the development of a settled military culture based upon the domination of the agri-cultures. While we are not quite Bronze yet, the developing military culture will be the culture of the military aristocracy in the Bronze Age to follow. Let us look at some of the dynamics and characteristics of this unfortunate cultural transformation.
This paper has simplistically broken the farming, hunting, and herding cultures into distinct parts, which implies a separation, which distorts the reality. Cultures of all types supplement their diets with hunting and gathering. Furthermore there were all sorts of cultural blends that yield unique societies, which defy categorization. The cultural boundaries are thoroughly fractalized.
While the three cultural types are hopelessly mixed up, there are certain possibilities, which are probable and others, which are improbable. One of the most unfortunate of these probabilities is that peaceful cultures donÕt tend to convert warlike cultures to peace, while warlike cultures turn peaceful cultures warlike. We can see where this is leading. There is therefore an innate tendency of conflicting cultures to become more and more warlike over time. This is the dynamic, which initially transformed the Herding and Hunting societies into warrior societies.
While the Herders were centralizing under strong leaders, the Hunters were still organized on a smaller tribal level, due to the general vegetal density of their geography. Because of the inherent mobility of the pastoral groups and because of the advantages of organizing in larger groups, it tended to be the Warrior-Herder societies that launched the invasions that were to transform the Neolithic into the Bronze Age.
Another unfortunate dynamic is that military cultures tend to get bigger and bigger rather than smaller. The reality is that there is a certain safety as well increased power in numbers. Hence the dynamic that leads to militarization also encourages larger and larger political groupings.
Another dynamic is that in the increasing militarization of a culture, the status of the warrior as protector and soldier rises. This role tends to be played by the male. Hence the male-warrior stock rises. Conversely in a military society based upon war, the status of the farmer, craftsman, herder, and even hunter all fall in relation to the warrior. Hence as any part of the world is militarized and organized into larger and larger political groups, the Warrior-Soldier rises in status with regards to those supplying the fruits of society. As the Warrior rises in status they quickly become rulers. Eventually the leadership is institutionalized and the most powerful warrior becomes King.
To understand the roots of the military aristocracies, let us see how leaders are chosen in the different cultures we have explored. Let us begin with the Hunter culture. We will see that a crucial split occurs based upon the domestication of animals.
Let us look back upon the Tribe and Pack for the Hunter mentality. The leader of the Pack, or by extension the Tribe, is determined by merit. The survival of the Pack/Tribe is so tenuous only the best by test will do. Hence the Pack/Tribe had built in ways of establishing leadership, many times trial by mock combat. In mock combat the fight ends not with death or injury but when one acknowledges the superiority of the other and grants him top dog status. This pack mentality works well when the stakes are small.
Hence while heredity might confer individual genetic advantages, it is not the determining factor. On the small tribal/pack level leadership is determined by ability alone.
This is a Taoist characteristic. Lao Tzu, the traditional, and as we shall see the mythical, founder of Taoism was said to have had no father. Additionally he is identified with his mother. The idea is that he was born of himself. This conception encourages self-reliance instead of family or cultural reliance. Indeed one of the thrusts of Taoism is to break the pattern/chains of the past. These would include family chains, cultural chains and even genetic chains, i.e. cultural conditioning.
Although the Hunter/Pack primarily used merit when determining leadership, the Herders based their choice of leader upon a combination of merit and genetics.
The beginning Warrior culture used the tools of the Hunter and worshipped the Battle as an extension of the Hunt. However the underlying Shepherd culture emerges in the idea of Breeding. The Herding cultures were acutely aware of the advantages of good breeding. They had diligently domesticated wild herds of sheep, goat, cattle and pigs by selecting for certain desired traits. It was an easy process to extend the concept of breeding to humans.
Thus these warrior-kings with the support of all those who had domesticated animals, everyone, it is a universal, was able to set up a dynasty founded upon his good breeding. Also whole invading cultures could consider themselves to have better breeding than the indigenous culture and consequently avoid cross cultural breeding. This idea of good breeding is just as prevalent now as it ever was.
It was another short step from dynasties to ancestor worship. Even now in horse breeding they might even mention a horseÕs famous grandfather. Hence the illustrious ancestor who had made all this possible begins to be worshipped, especially in China. It is obvious that this characteristic is Confucian. Let me foreshadow some themes by pointing out that while the Confucians stressed genetics that Confucius stressed merit as the criteria in the choice of leaders. We will see that the many of the ideas of Confucius differ from those of Confucianism.
We can see that the nomadic cultures had some inherent military advantages. We can also see that these pastoral cultures controlled the large grasslands connecting China, India, Europe, and Africa. Hence the geographical range of their influence was enormous. As their populations grew they organized into larger and larger groupings. In conflict with the Hunters, their leaders turned into Warriors. Thus as the result of population pressures the Shepherd is quickly evolving, or devolving depending upon perspective, into a Warrior-Shepherd.
Additionally because of their war mentality, a stratified society with a warrior-king at the top was developing. The leader was the best warrior and would lead his people to new pastures or into battle. Hence these pastoral cultures are becoming centralized with a warrior-king at the top of the hierarchy. The ability of the Herding cultures to grow allowed them to become the dominant military culture although their leaders cultivated their Hunter roots, through their worship of weaponry.
We see that as populations expand beyond the capacity of their ecosystem that cultural conflict arises. In this conflict military strength determines the cultural outcome, not the moral strength of a culture based upon human rights. These conflicts grow larger and larger. The top warrior is elevated to the role of permanent then hereditary ruler or king. As the warrior/soldier rises in status, the producer, creator falls in status. Men as warriors rise above women as creators in social importance. The more war, the more important the warrior/soldier is, the less important the creators are. This is neither bad nor good. Logically speaking who has time to create when simple survival is at stake.
Unfortunately there is a tendency of a war leader to prolong a war to prolong his power, sometimes throughout generations. We will see that simultaneous with the rise of centralization into larger and larger military grouping, which we call civilization, citification, was the rise of war as an institution. Simultaneous with the rise in status of the male warrior was the fall in status of the creator woman.
The status of women tends to be inversely proportional to the effort a society puts into war and protection. Hence as competition for marginal land increased between these nomadic cultures, a more warlike mentality grew and women were relegated to a more and more inferior role in the tribe.
This unfortunate cultural dynamic, which is not devil inspired, but only a result of increased eco-competition for dwindling resources also had interesting implications for attitudes towards sex. Remember that the womanÕs capacity for non-seasonal sex was probably a major contributing factor to the binding of the male to the family unit. The Hunter is drawn regularly back to the family for its comforts and to have sex. Hence sex and the family structure are intimately linked. Additionally this limits the territory of the Hunter because he must be connected to the tribe to provide sustenance for his offspring.
This binding of the man to the Tribe, while advantageous to the Tribe, has major disadvantages to the growing military culture. The Military Culture does not want their Warrior/Soldier to be bound to the localized Tribe. Instead the military culture cultivates his duty to his collective tribe and minimizes his duty to his individual family.
Thus the glue of recreational sex with one partner is devalued because of its binding value to the woman. The soldier needs to be free to leave the home to defend the borders of this bigger and bigger military organization. He canÕt be bothered with family duties when his nation is under attack, or more likely when his nation is attacking. Hence as the status of women falls likewise intimate sex is devalued.
A distinction needs to be made. In the small, personalized tribe, sex was also more personal. Sex primarily occurred between members of the same tribe or within related tribes. The women was valued and revered for her procreative powers. Hence while monogamy might not have been prevalent, sex was probably a cooperative venture. This cooperation was the beginning of romantic love and was based upon mutual respect.
In these early military cultures the ties to the intimate tribal home are broken, among which the most important bond was personal sex. Now that the culture needed soldiers to leave the tribal home, personal cooperative sex became devalued, while depersonalized violent sex became the norm. As a symbol of his independence from his intimate tribal home, the warrior-soldier rapes the women he comes in contact with to prove that he is indeed independent of his ties. This useful military attitude is encouraged and eventually institutionalized. Good soldiers donÕt make good husbands and fathers and vice versa.
In some ways the domesticated male of the Hunter-Gatherer cultures has gone feral. It takes a woman to tame a man, whether it be mother or lover. Men by themselves tend to go wild. Man at heart is a Hunter. When tamed he uses these talents to provide and protect, and even trains the next generation in the use of his techniques. When untamed, he reverts to the wild becoming a savage beast again. Of course the savage beast in man makes the best soldier. Hence military cultures did their best to isolate men from women, or at least devalue the feminine influence so much that it is disregarded. You sissy, mommaÕs boy, pussy whipped are just a few modern expressions that indicate these cultural residuals. Women, by the way, donÕt go feral by becoming violently savage, when separated from men. They were not the primary hunters of the Tribal cultures.
To show how far we havenÕt come, check out the connection between sex and violence in modern day cultural expressions. Sex is still obscene, while violence is tolerable. Sex and violence are integrally connected like bread and butter, toast and jam, or meat and potatoes. Even in the most acclaimed artistic expressions like SchindlerÕs List, which won many Oscars including best picture, sex and violence are intertwined in an artistic fashion, great lighting and overlays: a rape is combined with a wedding. While reflecting our military culture it does not reflect a healthy attitude towards couple sex.
In the meantime our agricultural technologies were improving, allowing for greater surpluses. The crafts of pottery and weaving were flourishing. With all of his wealth of goods, trade grew in a huge way. While the city of Catal Huyuk in Anatolia was representative of an advanced agricultural center, Jericho in the Near East was representative of a major trade center. These Farming peoples are developing specializations as Farmers, Crafts people, and Traders. No warriors or soldiers yet, weÕre still on the cusp of the Neolithic and Metal Age.
Because women are just as good as men, if not better, at crafts, farming and trading, they had equal status in these early farming communities. Remember that the female gatherers supplied the impetus for settling. Indeed many of the early agri-cultures, including Catal Huyuk, were still producing the fertility figurines, indicating the high esteem in which women, especially mothers, were still held.
Thus at this Age between Ages, another fractalized boundary, the farmers and traders are growing fat and happy. Their arts and crafts are flourishing. Women are still valued as equal human beings. Their society has not begun its stratification yet. In the meantime the Hunter and Herder cultures are developing war based cultures based upon growing populations and shrinking resources. The Hunter/Herder is becoming a Warrior. The strongest and meanest warrior becomes the king. The Herder cultures achieve dominance because of their ability to grow larger. As the war based culture continues, the political groupings grow, social stratification increases with the Male Warrior growing in status. Simultaneously the status of the Woman Creator falls in this herder society. The clash of these two cultural types is inevitable. Enter the Bronze Age.
[1]We see this trend regularly throughout history and into modern times. The Moslem Arabs of the Middle Ages were unable to defeat the Crusaders decisively only because they were fighting constantly amongst themselves. The modern Arab nation could be a powerful international force if they would cooperate. Their power was exhibited in their oil cartels of the 1970s. Saddam Hussein of Iraq was counting on the Arab world rising in unity to defeat the west, but because of conflicting interests, he was effectively isolated.