The Paleolithic peoples tamed the raw materials of the earth. In the broad sense mentioned earlier, the Mesolithic people tamed animals and the Neolithic people tamed plants. Now in the Metal Ages, we are back to the materials in a more sophisticated way. While the Stone Age peoples just shaped materials, the Metal Age peoples extracted the metals from raw materials, combined them and then molded them for use. Hence this new stage is based upon taming the metals of the earth. This stage is quite unique from the preceding stages because of the involved extraction process that is involved.
The first Metal that was tamed was Copper. Technically the Neolithic is followed by the Chalcolithic, the Copper Age, which in turn is followed by the Bronze Age, which in turn is followed by the Iron Age.
Normally copper, by itself, is just used for ornamentation and hence is not associated with any great cultural change. Hence the Copper Age is still considered part of the Stone Age, thus the suffix ÔlithicÕ. Additionally copper might be used in its raw state without the need for mining ore and extracting copper from it. Hence the use of copper by itself is not a real technological advance, while the mining and extraction of copper was a technological advance which led to the development of bronze technology.
Because bronze is made from copper and tin, the Bronze Age follows the Copper Age. Bronze is harder and more durable. It was great for ornamentation but even better for weaponry. Technically the Bronze Age is associated with the development of bronze technology to produce ornamentation, tools and weapons. (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1997: Bronze Age) Practically, however, bronze is associated culturally with weaponry. The big cultural change that occurred in the so-called Bronze Age was that the cultures that developed their bronze technology for weaponry were able to dominate and subjugate those Neolithic agri-cultures who hadnÕt.
Although iron is more plentiful in nature than the other metals and is not a mixture like bronze, it takes repeated smelting at a higher temperature to extract the iron. Hence the iron technology was based somewhat upon the bronze technology. Consequently the Iron Age follows the Bronze Age. However while the Iron Age had its own subtleties, culturally it was an extension of the Bronze. Iron allowed for a better metal technology with which to dominate other cultures but did not change the military aristocracy that was the cultural norm for the Age of Metals.
As in the Stone Age technologies, the Metal Age technologies are homotaxial. While the bronze technology might not be preceded immediately by a pure copper stage, never does the copper stage follow the bronze stage. If a homotaxial sequence skips a step it is most likely because of outside influence. Hence the most successful military technologies were copied as soon as possible to avoid domination. Therefore if bronze chariots are being used against an advanced Hunter culture, they donÕt go through the intermediate steps of developing a copper culture and horseback riding. Instead they go as quickly as possible to the bronze chariot technology. We will see this sequence in the Shang dynasty of China ––indicating an external cultural influence.
Archaeologically, many times the Bronze Age exists without a Copper Age. Sometimes the Iron Age existed without a Bronze Age preceding it. Many times the technology was transmitted immediately with no stages in between. Hence the terms Copper Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age have no years associated with them because different cultures arrived at these different technologies at different times.
The mining, extraction and refining of metals demanded a more complex social structure than any that had gone on before. Many traditional cultural histories link this metallic step with the stratification of society. This is not true. As we shall see, the culture of prehistoric Southeast Asia developed the highest level bronze work with no evidence of social stratification. This author calls this culture Neolithic because of its relative sophistication combined with a lack of social stratification. Most cultural historians would have a hard time calling this Southeast Asian society a Bronze Age culture, even though their bronze work was of the highest quality in the world at the time.
For the uninitiated this might seem to lack consistency. And yet, once the background is understood it makes perfect sense. Remember that the original terms, i.e. Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, were related to the organization of archaeological finds. Even the Stone Age differentiation into Paleolithic through Neolithic was based upon organizing their finds. Even the further subdivision into Early, Middle, and Advanced Paleolithic was artifact based rather than cultural. It was the later archaeologists who started associating people or pre-people and their cultures with these artifacts. For instance the existence or non-existence of homo erectus has nothing whatsoever to do with these ages. The ages only have to do with stone technology. And yet because homo erectus is associated with Mode 1 and 2 lithic technologies, his existence is associated with the early and middle Paleolithic. These associations of years, cultures, artifacts, and subspecies become linked with a sense of progress. In the attempt to describe this progress cultural attributes are associated with the ages associated with artifacts.
The explanation of the preceding paradox is that the technological Bronze Age has been disassociated somewhat from the cultural Bronze Age. Just as the Stone Age artifacts are loosely related with cultural developments so are these Metal Ages loosely linked with cultural developments. The Neolithic is primarily associated with the development of agricultural communities, even though sophisticated Hunter-fisher communities were evolving simultaneously. In a similar way although the Bronze Age is connected with the development of Bronze technology, it is now intimately connected with the establishment of centralized military kingdoms. Hence where bronze technology exists without a centralized military kingdom, it is not considered a Bronze Age civilization, as in Indo-China.
Ethnocentrism colors the early attempts at analysis. The early archaeologists logically studying their own roots focused upon the cultural development of Europe and the Near East. Certain patterns established themselves that were geographically specific. The European scientists generalized these patterns to the globe. The fit was pretty good in many ways. And yet, on closer examination was totally inadequate in other ways.
Because of historic ethnocentrism we tend to look at ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution. Hence the question we ask ourselves is how did we come to be the superior life form with the superior culture on this planet we call Earth. Hence we look for antecedents to our culture to explain our place in the universe. Each preceding step we call stages on the way to our miraculous superior existence.
This type of analysis worked very well in the Fertile Crescent cultural center. First came the Hunter cultures, followed by the Herder cultures, followed by the Farmer cultures. Then came the technologies of Copper, Bronze, and Iron in that order. All is well-ordered in this world view with the Europeans at the peak of technological civilization
If a historian does not feel that shopping malls are the pinnacle of evolution then he might interpret the whole sequence far differently. Instead of focusing upon what we did right to reach this pinnacle, the historian might instead focus upon what we did wrong that has led us to this point of ecological disaster. Then instead of viewing these as positive steps in the right direction, they are viewed as the wrong steps down the path to ecological destruction.
Viewed from a geographical perspective, we arrive at a much different story, one that is more universal, if not on the global level, at least for the north-eastern quadrant of the Earth. In this scheme hunter-gatherer societies evolved in the deep forests of the world, simultaneously with the development of agricultural societies in suitable river valleys, simultaneous with the development of nomadic societies based upon herding in the arid grasslands. Each of these cultures developed their own technologies, crafts, and culture, with their own needs.
A more accurate way of viewing cultural development in the Eurasiafrican land mass would be a series of cultural splits. First were the Hunter-gatherers. Some of them split off into pastoral cultures, others into farming cultures, while the rest remained hunters. The pastoral cultures split again. One group bifurcated off into a farming culture; the other remained pastoral. Thus by the Neolithic we have three cultures evolving side by side. Then in the Age of Metals these cultures came into conflict.
In loosely following the convention that associates the Bronze Age with the establishment of centralized kingdoms, let us examine the cultural dynamics associated with the establishment of these military aristocracies
The beginning of the cultural Neolithic is defined as the first time a farmer tilled the soil. The beginning of the cultural Paleolithic is dated from the first identifiable stone tool identified with mode 1 technology. In a similar way we will associate the beginning of the Cultural Bronze Age with the beginning attacks of the Military Cultures upon the agricultural settlements. These attacks set up some mechanisms that inevitably led to the establishment of these centralized military aristocracies.
Let us examine these mechanisms. First let us look at the varieties of attack. There were a few different possibilities: 1. Just a simple raid, 2. An invasion, or 3. A migration. The difference between the three is based upon residency. A raid is temporary with no idea of staying. In a simple raid the invaders go home. This was the case when the early Vikings invaded Europe at the end of the first millennium. In an invasion the attackers stay as military rulers over the indigenous population, establishing a military aristocracy over a peasant base. This occurred when the Normans invaded England. In a migration, the entire population inhabits the new land supplanting the indigenous population, making themselves the leaders. This occurred when the Europeans conquered the New World. They did not establish themselves as a military aristocracy, as much as they just pushed the native population out of the way, displacing them as they came.
Now while the nomadic and forest cultures began by simply raiding the agri-cultures, they eventually invaded and stayed as rulers, bringing their cultural background with them. These nomads or forest folk left their unpredictable life behind to become military rulers of these agri-cultures. With an invasion, the culture of the conquering culture is overlaid upon the dominated culture, leading to a bicultural society. This occurred all over the Eurasiafrican landmass, from Egypt to England to India and to, as we shall see, China.
Inevitably, unfortunately, the Farmers learned that they must defend themselves and that the best way would be to have a military ruler, who was granted great powers in time of war. Sometimes these rulers might come from their own ranks. Other times the agri-cultures, to defend themselves from these constant raids, might even welcome a domesticated nomadic culture as rulers to protect themselves from the wilder nomadic raiders.
Migrations can also lead to a bicultural society, with the indigenous population the underclass, but tend to be mono-cultural with the migrating population replacing the indigenous population. This is pretty much the case in the United States. The native Indian culture while existent is so submerged and localized that it has virtually no effect upon American society.
After a raid, the raiding party takes their loot with them and returns to the grassy plains from where they arose. This type of raid, while devastating the farming communities in which they occurred, allowed the community to rebuild. These raids permanently transformed the farming communities to which they occurred. Now these military communities became militarized to defend themselves from the next attack.
The militarization of the farming communities was also the beginning of social stratification. The farming communities to provide an effective defense had to centralize under a single leader. Under attack this leader assumed dictatorial powers to more effectively survive the onslaught of the nomadic tribes. If the community had become sufficiently militarized to defend themselves from the raiding pastoral groups then they were also militarized enough to attack their neighbors, which led to the further militarization of the agricultural communities independent of the military pastoral cultures.
Speaking of the Early Dynastic Period of Sumer about 3000 BC.
ÒThe rise in material well-being was accompanied by major changes in social structure, the most notable of which was the emergence of kings or officials of comparable status, at first as temporary war leaders, but in due course as established rulers of the city state. The immediate cause of this was undoubtedly the rise of warfare as an institution and this itself was linked with the increase in wealth already noted: thus, the growing affluence of the cities only served to increase their attraction to marauding pastoralists of the highland and the desert, É, and, even more to the point, rivalry between the cities grew as the opportunities for enrichment increased and this occurred at a time when armament was becoming more effective and the inhabitants found themselves able to support warriors. Whatever the factors responsible there can be no doubt that war had by this time become a well-organized institution.Ó World Prehistory: A New Outline, 1969, p. 106
Simultaneous with the militarization of the agri-cultures was the same glorification of the warrior, stratification of society, and disappearance of human rights especially womenÕs that had already occurred in the nomadic military cultures. Hence as war became institutionalized by the more frequent clashes caused by the ever-increasing populations, human rights was one of the casualties.
ÒNevertheless, it is true that, in emerging from agricultural villages, men gave up the relative equality of that stage. Some became the managers of society; most worked to support themselves and the managers; in the course of wars and economic distress, unfortunate men even found themselves enslaved or forced to sell themselves or their children into slavery. É It may be noted, too, that of the two sexes women were now definitely subordinated in the processes of law and government. Although their position was still fairly high in Sumerian days, it tended rather to sink than to riseÉ The inevitable product of the differentiation of classes was a chain of exploitation, unrest, and attempts at reform.Ó (Rise and fall of the Ancient World by Chester G. Starr, Rand McNally, 1973, p 28)
We are going to see this pattern of Ôexploitation, unrest, and reformÕ regularly throughout Chinese history, as well. It seems that we must acknowledge that this pattern is a universal of social stratification, while social stratification is a universal of military cultures, while military cultures are a universal of cultural clash based upon eco-shortages, which are a universal of the geography of the earth. Sorry about that folks.
Indeed some say that war, itself, is a basic emergent phenomenon of civilization itself and as such is a universal.
ÒA very obvious result of the appearance of civilization was the emergence of war. In earlier times, packs of food-gatherers probably had had only occasional contacts. Even in villages, men had been relatively self-sufficient and clashed with each other rarely. The first cities, however, set the stage for a type of conflict which subsequent civilizations have rarely been able to overcome.Ó (Rise and fall of the Ancient World, 1973, p 30)
Some might say that when enough humans get together that they will inevitably fight. Others of us feel that it is not the number of humans as much as it is the cultural clash based upon geographical cultural differentiation. We would almost be tempted to say that civilization, as defined by large populations of humans grouped in a relatively small geographical area, is caused more by conflict than is conflict a result of civilization. While citification might not be the cause of war, they certainly aggravate the tendency to war once they are formed. Basically people group behind city walls, not for fun, but to protect themselves from exterior attack. The building of city walls is a sign of a hostile environment.
Hence, while acknowledging the universality of war, many of us feel that it is not as a result of the inherent greed and aggression of humanity as much as it is the result of cultural clash. While humans arenÕt inherently violent intra-culturally, they inherently participate in violent cultural eco-protection, as an extension of their earlier tendency towards species eco-protection.
This type of reasoning leads us to focus upon cultural tolerance as the solution to global war rather than upon manÕs aggressive nature. The insight that we belong to a universal human culture with individual variations would be a helpful step in diffusing the instinctive pattern of cultural aggression. Following our cultural instincts will certainly hasten our inevitable extinction. This is why the Taoists counsel that we Ôsteal a march on heavenÕ and reverse these ÔnaturalÕ instincts.
Another major aspect of clash is the cultural blending of the combatants. The independent Celtic tribes of Britain centralized to fight Julius CaesarÕs Roman armies. After the Roman armies left, the leader of the Celts became Romanized. He tried to maintain the leadership he had attained and even adopted Roman customs, independent of Roman presence. In a similar way the Middle Eastern agricultural communities that were constantly raided and then militarized adopted many of the value systems of their attackers. Presumably the subliminal idea being, if their culture turns them into a great military power, let us emulate them so that we can also be great military power to defend ourselves against them. Then comes the inevitable follow up and so we can beat up on our own neighbors.
Hence while this military transformation has occurred from within in this scenario, the result is still a bicultural social structure. The under-culture being the agri-culture while the over-culture is the military culture. In this case the cultural development appears to be indigenous, while being extremely influenced by an exterior military culture. Acculturation is a major way in which culture is spread.
As a sidelight, believe it or not, many times the raiding nomadic and hunting cultures chose their way of life over the sedentary farming life. As we shall Genghis Khan in historical times preferred his homeland in the ÔuncivilizedÕ arid grasslands of Mongolia to the comforts of ÔcivilizedÕ China or Persia. This is mentioned just to show that the settled agricultural life is not for everyone.
While the raiders left the land, the agri-cultures began internalizing their values in order to defend themselves. Hence these early attacks begin the militarization of the agri-culture with its subsequent stratification and suppression of women. These were not voluntary choices but choices brought out by necessity. Obviously the extreme manifestations could have been tempered but the inherent nature of the violent nature of man the Hunter precluded a moderate solution.
Hence we would have to conclude that cultural eco-competition based upon over-population led to the establishment of military cultures as a means of cultural self-preservation. Military cultures tend to be stratified with women at the bottom. Hence the loss of human and women rights to the military cultures would have to be called a universal based upon the inherent geography of the Earth, itself. There was no other possible outcome, i.e. no peaceful outcome based upon human rights, given the body of the beast. The militarization of the Eurasiafrican land mass was inevitable based around the different cultural solutions based upon available geography combined with expanding populations.
What were these cultural conflicts based upon? As always the underlying issue was overpopulation. But there were also some inherent cultural conflicts based upon a variety of issues including land use strategies. Let us examine some of these cultural differences.
Both the nomadic and forest cultures tended to have smaller populations because of the harshness and unpredictability of their existence. Additionally the ideal hunting community itself was also much smaller. Because of the shortness of the life span, there was no need of anyone to take care of the elders of the tribe.
While there were no guarantees for the Neolithic farmers it was a better bet for survival, especially in the fertile agricultural zones. Additionally because of the longer life spans and the fields that needed to be worked, there was always need for more hands to work the field and someone to take care when the farmers grew older. Hence the agri-cultures tended to have larger populations with a higher survival rate. Although the farming communities experienced major population growth, it was because they could feed more people.
The response of the farming cultures to population pressures was to cultivate more of the surrounding land. The response of the Hunting and Herding Cultures was much different. There was no place to expand. For survival they were forced into conflict with the agri-cultures.
There is a tendency to attribute population problems to the farming communities but the herding and hunter populations also experienced the same problems on less fertile land. Hence because of the humanÕs technological capabilities, we tend to expand to the limits of our environment, whether within a farming, hunting, or herding culture.
As each culture expanded they would inevitably run into the other cultures. Each culture had conflicting geographical needs. The hunter gatherers needed forests with abundant game for hunting. The agri-cultures needed land cleared for their crops, while the nomadic cultures needed vast plains of grass for their herds of sheep, cattle, and goats. The agri-cultures with their sedentary ways and their need to clear land supplanted the forest cultures. These forest cultures were forced to retreat as the forests were cleared and the game reduced. There might be raids by the ÔwildÕ forest folk, but they always had to return to the forest, which was perpetually shrinking[1], to follow their own ways. Of course sometimes the forest folk would decide to settle down as the rulers of the agri-cultures, but then they would be leaving their hunter-gatherer ways behind to become ÔcivilizedÕ.
The agri-cultures as opposed to the other two was sedentary with permanent settlements and an annual cycle that they had to attend to. The agri-cultures because of their permanence were able to develop pottery, weaving, and building, leaving something behind for the archaeologists to discover.
The Forest folk were threatened by the Farmers who were eating up their land, leaving it permanently agri-culturized. They were constantly on the retreat as their forests were consumed. The pastoral groups based upon an arid geography were not threatened by the Farmers, except in the fact that the Farmers would fence in the prime land and call it their own. The Farmers only wanted the best land; they did not want the arid grass land of the Herders because it was inherently unsuited for agriculture.
Ironically the Herders could take advantage of the Farmers tendency to clear the Forest. The Herders themselves had no need for clearing a Forest. But if the Farmers cleared the Forest for Agriculture, then the Herders with a simple devastating Raid would exterminate the Farmers. With no one around to till the soil, the land would go to seed. Instant Grazing Land. Hallelujah for the Herders. Disaster for the Farmers and Hunters.
Hence with increasing squeeze for land at the end of the Neolithic, the Herders would raid the agricultural zones, converting them into herding land. They were not threatened by farm land in the same way the Forest Hunters were. Farm Lands permanently destroyed the Forests of the Hunters, while the Herders easily converted Farm Land into grazing land.
However because of the eco-destruction wrought by their herding, the growing nomadic cultures would always eventually move on. The farmers would rebuild maybe with walls for the next time around. In time the nomadic tribes would always return to re-invade the rich agri-cultural settlements.
We see that population pressures combined with different land use policies threw the different Neolithic cultures into inevitable conflict. Let us look at the inherent ecology of each life style.
The hunter gatherers left Nature the way they found her and wanted her to stay that way to continue to provide them with bounteous game. Where the game was plentiful and the populations small, the Hunters lived in a type of ecological balance. Where the game was sparse and the populations growing, the Hunters were forced to be nomadic. Because of over-hunting there was no guaranteed eco-balance here. However some of the more sophisticated Hunter Gatherer societies, for instance the plains Indians or the African tribes prior to the Europeans, were able to live in a relative eco-balance by conserving their natural resources, such as culling herds of buffalo rather than destroying them all as their ancestors had done. This combined with high mortality rate due to disease and warfare could have kept these hunting societies operating in an eco-balance relatively indefinitely. Our friends the wolves have been around some 40 million years using these techniques combined with aggressive population control techniques, which we will examine.
The agri-cultures however domesticated the earth as they did its animals. As they tamed the earth, they took away the woodlands of the forest cultures. Initially the agri-cultures stripped the soil of nutrients – no sense of a sustainable ecology, but with the introduction of crop rotation they became more ecologically balanced. The forest folk left things as they were and lived with nature in balance, while the agri-cultures transformed nature but were ecologically neutral, sometimes destructive sometimes not.
The main problem with the ecology of the agri-cultures was their tendency for expanding populations. As long as there was more land everything was just fine, but when they reached the limits of expansion, serious problems emerged, which had to be solved by technology. The question then and now was; what are the limits of technology.
The nomadic groups had another dynamic. As their herding animals finished off the grass from one area, they moved to another area. Their nomadism was based upon eco-destruction. When one area was used up they moved on to another. While the agri-cultures transformed nature to serve their needs, the nomadic transformed nature by using her up. This strategy was inherently unecological and was at the root of the need for the herding cultures to expand aggressively into the surrounding countryside, which was already inhabited by the agri-cultures.
WeÕve just seen some of the inherent culture based strategies that would inevitably throw these cultures into conflicts. Although we have already suggested certain reasons that the Herding societies were destined for domination, let us look a little closer at the underlying military dynamics of each culture.
Let us start with the military potentials and weaknesses of the agri-cultures.
The Farmers learned to build protective walls for defense and how to fight. However they had a few inherent disadvantages. Because they were dependent on their crops with its land, they had two fatal weaknesses. First Harvest Time demanded all the FarmerÕs energy or the Family would starve over the winter. Survive the Battle, but perish over the winter. Lose the battle and survive the winter. Because Harvest comes only once a year, the Farmer had to harvest his crops then. The nomadic warrior had no need of a harvest. If there was no food, the Herder moved his herds to where there was food. At Harvest times the Farmers were somewhat defenseless against these nomads, no matter how good they were as fighters.[2]
The second weakness of the Farmers was land dependency. Retreating behind the city walls saved their lives but their crops were destroyed. The nomadic cultures could easily turn farm land into grazing land, as weÕve seen, and often times did. Hence, again, even if the Farmers were able to save their lives by retreating behind city walls, they still lost their land to these Herders. Hence for these two fundamental weakness, land and crop dependency, the farmers were at a distinct disadvantage in battle, even if they were equals in hand to hand combat, which oftentimes they were.
Another military weakness of the Farmer is that his lifestyle is not inherently aggressive. He doesnÕt get any practice fighting. Each farmer has the same harvest time. They must each tend their soil. Hence farmers work their soil over most of the year to produce food. Because farming is so strenuous, the individual farmer does not have the time or energy to wage war most of the year. Most of his time is spent tending his crops, not training for battle.
As a sidelight, domesticated animals have a thinner and more refined bone structure, while wild animals have thicker bones, perhaps to survive in the wild. Again there is difference between penned and herded animals. As humans domesticated animals they domesticated themselves acquiring a thinner bone structure in the process. As a sidelight the wilder, i.e. less domesticated cultures, retained a thicker bone structure, ideal for surviving the impacts of battle. Hence evolutionarily the less domesticated cultures were more suited for warfare. Modern day ergonomics has found that resistance, i.e. weight training, strengthens the bones, by making them denser and hence less subject to breakage.
While the lifestyle of the Farmer did not lend itself to warfare, the lifestyle of the herder did. Basically the nomadic life style of the pastoral cultures invites combat. The shepherds are always using up the land. They are always returning to a place that is already inhabited. They always need fresh grazing land. Who gets the grazing land? The strongest of course. Hence the growing nomadic groups were always coming into conflict with other nomadic groups. They were in constant training for battle. The toughest herders got the best grazing land.
The Hunter-Gatherer dynamic was similar to the Herder dynamic. The nomadism of the tribes combined with environmental scarcities tended to lead the tribes into conflict. As the Hunter-Gatherer groups were smaller by necessity, the conflicts were not large. Additionally the hunting techniques were useful on animals as well as people. Plus the thrill of the Hunt is similar to the excitement of Battle. Thus Hunter cultures might even enjoy the intensity of battle.
WeÕve established some inherent cultural differences. WeÕve also established why the herding cultures tended to be the dominant military culture as well as why the agri-cultures were inherently unsuited for defense. Why were these nomadic military cultures attracted by the agri-cultures?
While all of the different Neolithic cultures had to deal with population pressures, it was primarily the Farmers who experienced a settled prosperity. Because of the enhanced possibilities for cultural transmission in this stable environment, the Farmers developed their crafts to the level of specialization, which encouraged trade. The trading centers developed into cities supported by agriculture. The prosperity of these settlements attracted the warrior cultures like honey does bees.
These rich trading centers based upon craft specialization enabled by agricultural surplus provided convenient targets for the hunter-herder-warriors. These cultures were already worshipping their war gods for providing them success in battle against their fellow warrior tribes. Now as a simple extension, they worship the same war gods for putting these rich agricultural settlements there for them to raid.
Remember that while the introduction of bronze weaponry, allowed domination on much greater levels, it was not the beginning of population based wars. The three land based cultures grew and inevitably came into conflict based upon growing populations and their land use strategies. The nomadic peoples especially, having fine tuned their fighting skills against each other, invaded the agri-cultures, becoming the military rulers at the top of the social structure.
[1]An example of a war between a nomadic hunter-gatherer culture and a ÔcivilizedÕ culture, were the wars between the Plains Indians and the US Government. The Plains Indians had no desire to live in the dirty crowded American cities. And couldnÕt understand why anyone would want to live there. Hence they consciously chose their culture and lifestyle. Their nomadic ways were in conflict with the American farmer. War was inevitable. The ÔcivilizedÕ American army was fought to a standstill by the ÔsavageÕ Plains Indians, until the Americans resorted to eco-destruction. Because the Plains Indians thrived with their world in an ecological balance, the Americans simply unbalanced their ecosystem by destroying all the buffalo herds. These herds were a necessary part of the Indian ecosystem. The Plains Indians culture, dependent on the buffalo for food, was immediately brought to its knees, starving to death. This was not a military victory, as much as an ecological victory. But this indicates the vulnerability of the cultures who are living in tune with nature. Destroy the balance and the culture is destroyed.
[2]As an example of a Farmer culture defending itself from the attack of a Bronze Age culture, we can look to the invasion of Britain by Rome. The ÔsavageÕ agricultural Britons fought CaesarÕs ÔcivilizedÕ Romans to a standstill until harvest time came. The farmers returned to their crops. It was then that the mighty Rome fighting machine conquered England, not in the field of battle with best against best but when all the best English had left the field of battle to protect their crops. Aurghh! The lies historians tell.