The Agriculturalist & the Metallurgist

[Cory Duchesne]

I'm having a bit of a henid here.

It started with this:

The Farmer(yin), The BlackSmith(yang)

& the Ruler.

I'm interested in imagining how 'the ruling class' as well as exploitation first came into existence.

In the beginning, as hunter gatherers (amongst the males at least) duties and work were distributed somewhat evenly. There may have been chiefs and leaders, but for the most part there was no exceptionally powerful talent or skill a particular individual had. If an individual could do something that others couldn't, it wasn't all that significant or powerful. The most important ingredient which emerged from the hunter/gather phase was the 'idea of the tribe'. In other words, 'to identify with something greater than yourself' (the tribe) was the foundation of stability, not only for hunter/gathers, but for civilization as well, given that such an idea/attitude was the seed of exploitation.

Along came the invention of tools, particularly the sharp edge and the plow. From the plow and sharp edge came the farmer.

The farmer was protected by weapons that he did not wield, and was a wielder of a plow he did not create. He grew food out of a patriotism and cowardice, and it was especially important to feed his men in times of war. The farmer was the boob, the breast from which men drank. Like a mother, he was there for men to see. The preparing and reaping of food was an uplifting, hopeful sight.

The Blacksmith was like a father - not often there for men to see. He came and went darkly, and what went on was opaque.

The ruler, the man gifted with language, cunning, and charisma - he owned the farmer like a slave. To the farmer he gave orders, incited patriotism and conjured threats.

To the blacksmith (the scientist), the ruler listened with respect.


-----
_________

[Philosophaster]

If I had to take a guess at it...

Probably some men banded together in mobs to carry off the food and women of other groups of men. At first they just killed the other men and took their food and women. Then they figured out that it was sometimes more profitable to keep the men alive and force them to work. Slavery came into being. Thence the leisure class, and thence civilization as we know it.

I could be wrong, of course.

[Jamesh]

If I was you I'd go back to our evolutionary primate existence, where the head honcho ruled the roost.

This is what the human god mentality developed from. Any form of submission to a higher power comes from this. It is the same reason women have been (and really still should be)more submissive - they are a lower level power.

Nonetheless, it is the nature of life through the will to power reality, to have hierarchies of order, just as it is for the nature of nature to have physical power hierarchies.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

In the beginning, as hunter gatherers (amongst the males at least) duties and work were distributed somewhat evenly.

It might be important to note the best hunter would have been rewarded with more responsibility, honor, pride and women. The leader of a group of male hunters usually had more skill and experience. A division of labor took root right from the beginning, and the tribe hunting leader would have received better treatment.

If an individual could do something that others couldn't, it wasn't all that significant or powerful.

His genes would get passed on more, he would get more females, and more pride would be rewarded to him come story time around the fire. He also would have been an idol for the other males, and they probably dreamed of outdoing him.

The farmer was protected by weapons that he did not wield, and was a wielder of a plow he did not create. He grew food out of a patriotism and cowardice, and it was especially important to feed his men in times of war.

It is important to note that some later English aristocracies treated the farmer with quite a bit of respect. They had a sort of paternal ideal, where noble gentlemen were educated to have a duty to oversee and manage everyone, and make sure things ran fairly. If an intelligent man owned an estate, usually the peasants were happy, but if he was hedonistic, and morally corrupt, then everyone would be quite miserable. The educated gentlemen in England were encouraged to read literature depicting the horror stories of bad hedonistic gentlemen who abused their power, and this would serve as a moral compass of what not to do.

The farmer was the boob, the breast from which men drank. Like a mother, he was there for men to see. The preparing and reaping of food was an uplifting, hopeful sight.

These types of projections would have been put on the farmer, but he was just a simple peasant worker like many others – other functions such as chimney sweeps, seimstresses, servants, cooks, cleaners, bartenders, merchants, cabinet makers, locksmiths, stable keepers, and countless others would have been seen as fairly low class and undesirable by the rulers and company.

To the blacksmith (the scientist), the ruler listened with respect.

Blacksmiths were still part of the lower class as well, as they were still part of the laboring class, so I doubt they would have received special treatment from rulers. Rulers would have had a circle of educated advisors, intellectuals, and architects that they would seek council from. Rulers would usually have very little contact with lower classes, regardless of function.

I’m not sure if the farmer/blacksmith duality pair up succeeds in your yin/yang analysis because they were so many other skill sets that were quite similar to a farmer, and were still considered low class by the rulers.

Also, in many civilizations, the true masculine figures would have been your army generals, your mathematicians, your philosophers, your architects, your poets/playwrights, your intellectuals, your priests, your political advisors, and of course the ruler. These individuals would have constructed a central core set of values that they felt were worth defending and living for.

The blacksmith would just humbly make swords for the soldiers to use, but the general would have commanded thousands of men to either defend, attack or conquer an area that the ruler deemed desirable.

From what I remember, a fairly large number of divisions of labor occurs from the very outset of the domestication of animals, and growing of crops.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

In the beginning, as hunter gatherers (amongst the males at least) duties and work were distributed somewhat evenly.

It might be important to note the best hunter would have been rewarded with more responsibility, honor, pride and women. The leader of a group of male hunters usually had more skill and experience. A division of labor took root right from the beginning, and the tribe hunting leader would have received better treatment.

True, but I don't think the division of labor was at all very sharp. The leader of a group of males cooperated with his mates in hunting. There was hardly a division of labor because, relatively speaking, there was hardly anything to do.

If an individual could do something that others couldn't, it wasn't all that significant or powerful.

His genes would get passed on more, he would get more females, and more pride would be rewarded to him come story time around the fire. He also would have been an idol for the other males, and they probably dreamed of outdoing him.

I don't think it necessarily worked quite that way in hunter gatherer tribes, maybe sometimes, but the way they functioned was often quite a bit different. For instance, if a tribe member was mentally ill, they often regarded him as having a special connection to the spiritual world and honored him. The religious/spiritual ceremonies often involved theatrical plays where they would act out battles between spiritual forces. The purpose of the ceremony was literally to influence the future to deal a fate that was favorable to the tribe. The alpha male in many hunter gatherer tribes, despite he may have been more virile and aggressive sexually, was quite a bit more subdued and his testosterone may very well have been subliminated into an unusual degree of altruism. This of course is according to many, including Ernest Becker. I think he provides a reasonable account that is backed up by a lot of evidence. (e.g., there is strong evidence of very little 'hoarding' in hunter/gatherer existences)

The farmer was protected by weapons that he did not wield, and was a wielder of a plow he did not create. He grew food out of a patriotism and cowardice, and it was especially important to feed his men in times of war.

It is important to note that some later English aristocracies treated the farmer with quite a bit of respect.

It was pragmatic to make the farmer feel what he was doing was important, but I believe he was treated significantly different from the man knowledgeable in the metals.

The farmer was the boob, the breast from which men drank. Like a mother, he was there for men to see. The preparing and reaping of food was an uplifting, hopeful sight.

These types of projections would have been put on the farmer, but he was just a simple peasant worker like many others – other functions such as chimney sweeps, seimstresses, servants, cooks, cleaners, bartenders, merchants, cabinet makers, locksmiths, stable keepers, and countless others would have been seen as fairly low class and undesirable by the rulers and company.

All of those professions were spawned from the two key occupations: agricultural and metallurgical.

To the blacksmith (the scientist), the ruler listened with respect.

Blacksmiths were still part of the lower class as well, as they were still part of the laboring class, so I doubt they would have received special treatment from rulers.

I think they did. Smelting Ore's required a very subtle knowledge, and a man who was proficient at such was given unusual honor and wealth, especially considering how metallurgy and alchemy were practically two sides of the same coin. The hope of turning regular metals into gold was so strong that the ruling class gave special treatment to any man who claimed he had the skill to do it. Also, the hope of making more powerful weapons from unprecedentedly strong metals was always lingering, and so rulers and royalty gave the metallurgist special treatment for that reason as well. The metallurgist, unlike the farmer, was on the edge of reality exploring undiscovered land - freedom was given to him to roam. He was very akin to the scientist.

Rulers would have had a circle of educated advisors, intellectuals, and architects that they would seek council from. Rulers would usually have very little contact with lower classes, regardless of function.

I believe that came a bit later. I think you'll find that the division between thought and action was a gradual separation. If we want to understand how the ruling class came into being, we need to examine the point where the division wasn't well established.

I’m not sure if the farmer/blacksmith duality pair up succeeds in your yin/yang analysis because they were so many other skill sets that were quite similar to a farmer, and were still considered low class by the rulers.

All of these skills sets were spawned by the birth of agriculture, whose birth and evolution was concomitant with metallurgy. These are the two key professions.

Also, in many civilizations, the true masculine figures would have been your army generals, your mathematicians, your philosophers, your architects, your poets/playwrights, your intellectuals, your priests, your political advisors, and of course the ruler.

These all came later - consider the source of all those things.

The blacksmith would just humbly make swords for the soldiers to use

Later on down the line yes, but I believe the pioneering metallurgists were creative.

From what I remember, a fairly large number of divisions of labor occurs from the very outset of the domestication of animals, and growing of crops.

The growing of crops began via the smith's plow, and the farmer was protected by the smiths weapons. Metal was the guardian of civilization from the very beginning, and from that beginning all the other professions were spawned.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

All of these skills sets were spawned by the birth of agriculture, whose birth and evolution was concomitant with metallurgy. These are the two key professions.

Yes, perhaps my analysis was framed in a later period, but it is interesting to note that metallurgy would have also given birth to the first geologists/miners. And Mining could be argued be to far worse a function than agriculture. It seems to me that the birth of a masculine function always creates feminine functions that are necessary to maintain its existence.

[integral]

Hi Cory: in regards to your question of how the ruling class first came into existence, from my current understanding it looks like that a very powerful oligarchy was created from the wealth and power derived through corrupt banking.

I became aware of this during a few months back from watching the documentary The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America. Have you seen it?
If not you can view it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0256183936

I thought it was fascinating insight into the corrupt money system. I highly recommend it.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

All of these skills sets were spawned by the birth of agriculture, whose birth and evolution was concomitant with metallurgy. These are the two key professions.

Yes, perhaps my analysis was framed in a later period, but it is interesting to note that metallurgy would have also given birth to the first geologists/miners.

Right, but agriculture would have also given birth to the menial peasants doing the most tedious tasks in farm labor, a lot of them of course women, milking cows, making butter, picking carrots, berries, etc.

And Mining could be argued be to far worse a function than agriculture.

I'm not sure what you mean by worse of a function - it certainly demanded a more masculine work force to endure the greater hardship involved in mining. But that greater hardship has begotten water systems, tools, laboratories, electronics, computer chips, slick transportation, etc.

It seems to me that the birth of a masculine function always creates feminine functions that are necessary to maintain its existence.

But that's inevitable with all occupations; hierarchies are always incidental to making unique demands upon nature.

It would be interesting to compare the sheer numbers of people required to sustain the world's Metallurgy and compare that with the numbers of people required to sustain Agriculture, and then compare the hierarchical structures.

I think you'll find mines will be more few and far between, it's activity more concentrated, and it will have a much steeper hierarchy. Farms will be more wide spread and will allow for less specialization. The degree to which agriculture specializes will be the degree to which it is fed by products of metallurgy.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

I think you'll find mines will be more few and far between, it's activity more concentrated, and it will have a much steeper hierarchy. Farms will be more wide spread and will allow for less specialization. The degree to which agriculture specializes will be the degree to which it is fed by products of metallurgy.

Well, I suppose your yin/yang analysis of farming/metallurgy works then, and that would explain why there is such a universal feeling of superiority over farmers in general. Humanity feels disdain over what is feminine.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

I think you'll find mines will be more few and far between, it's activity more concentrated, and it will have a much steeper hierarchy. Farms will be more wide spread and will allow for less specialization. The degree to which agriculture specializes will be the degree to which it is fed by products of metallurgy.

Well, I suppose your yin/yang analysis of farming/metallurgy works then, and that would explain why there is such a universal feeling of superiority over farmers in general. Humanity feels disdain over what is feminine.

True, however, I think farmers are romanticized just as often.

Consider what Emilia Hazelip, an admirer of Fukuoka and permaculture says about tilling the soil:

"We have inherited an agriculture which has always disturbed the soil in order to prepare the next crop. The ancient agricultures of the Inca, the Maya, and the Orient also prepared fields in such a way. Culturally, that gesture has been honored and sung by poets. Ecologically, it is a catastrophe."

Woman has likewise been honored and sung by the poets.

Congruently, metallurgy and mining, like men, have been accused of being the foundation of the world's evils.

[daybrown]

Anatolian frescos include men plowing with oxen 9000-10000 BP. At the end of the 7th mil, chronic drought drove lotsa farmers north, and we see the technology, pottery, livestock, and seed stock in SE Europe.

Transylvanian chalcocite mines date back into the 6th mil, and forged arsenic bronze artifacts emerge. But Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" says that organized warfare didnt begin until the late bronze age a few thousand years later.

Two reasons come to mind- all the easiest to farm land was already being plowed, and disputes arose as to who had the ownership. The other is the evolution of writing, which permitted much better control of inventory, and therefore the logistics needed to equip an army. Before the late bronze age, there are all manner of bronze artifacts- farming tools, woodworking tools, broaches, belt buckles, clasps, etc, but no bladed weapons.

The earliest I know of, the infamous 'penis sheath' grave at Varna shows us what looks like spears until you look close enough to see that the blades were too thin, and intended for just fish. 5000BP. At first the grave looks like it has a double axe as well, but that turns out to be made of thin gold and the axe handle is what you'd have on a wood spoon. It is, in fact, an icon of the butterfly, the symbol of rebirth because it emerges out of the apparently dead crysalis.

The metallurgy and agriculture existed for millenia without kings and the warrior class. And now, we are fixing to do without them again.

[Cory Duchesne]

Largely for aesthetic enjoyment, a bit for edification, I've been reading Studies in Ancient Technology: Metallurgy in Antiquity - Copper and Bronze, Tin, Arsenic, Antimony and Iron

An interesting passage:

"The surplus of agricultural products of the peasant civilization in the river valleys is bartered for the mineral products of the mountain dwellers."

Interesting contrast between the feminine(the peasant civilization) in relationship to the masculine(the mountain dwellers).

[daybrown]

An interesting passage:
"The surplus of agricultural products of the peasant civilization in the river valleys is bartered for the mineral products of the mountain dwellers."

Interesting contrast between the feminine(the peasant civilization) in relationship to the masculine(the mountain dwellers).

Oddly enuf, the earliest mining industry we know of, the Chalcocite mines of Transylvania, dating from the mid 6th mil, operated between the agrarian communities on the floodplains of the Danube and Dneipr, where there were, and still are, important mining operations as well as oil fields.

But I've not seen any evidence of cultural differences. Whether it was all run by women or not, it certainly was not run by the warrior class. There isnt any iconography related to weapons, war, or warriors, nor are there, except for a few places at the periphery of this mercantile empire, any evidence of warfare or defensive works.

I've read that the chalcocite mines had niches carved in the walls where goddess figures were found. Is that the kind of thing masculine mountain dwellers would do, or would they, instead, have some kind of male god? Most cultures were patriarchic, had male gods, but I've not read whether they bothered with shrines in mines. Anyone seen that?

[Carl G]

Oddly enuf, the earliest mining industry we know of, the Chalcocite mines of Transylvania, dating from the mid 6th mil, operated between the agrarian communities on the floodplains of the Danube and Dneipr, where there were, and still are, important mining operations as well as oil fields.

The Chocolate mines of Transylvania were owned by Count Chocula, a fearsome purveyor of breakfast cereal designed to rot the teeth and create addiction. The Wehrmacht learned this the hard way, as they fell back from the Dneipr to the Danube under intense Russian pressure in 1944. This despite the 88mm guns of their Tiger tank, developed at Krupp Werks by Tony the Tiger, who also invented Sugar Frosted Flakes -- obviously NOT the breakfast of champeens.

But I've not seen any evidence of cultural differences. Whether it was all run by women or not, it certainly was not run by the warrior class. There isnt any iconography related to weapons, war, or warriors, nor are there, except for a few places at the periphery of this mercantile empire, any evidence of warfare or defensive works.

I graduated in the warrior class of 1954 at the Ozark Backwoods Mountain Military Academy. I majored in Blogging, which is basically blithering on and on, the art of pompously relating one thing to another endlessly.

I've read that the chalcocite mines had niches carved in the walls where goddess figures were found. Is that the kind of thing masculine mountain dwellers would do, or would they, instead, have some kind of male god? Most cultures were patriarchic, had male gods, but I've not read whether they bothered with shrines in mines. Anyone seen that?

From the chocolate mines came Godiva chocolate, named for Lady Godiva the famous naked whores back writer. She came from Kucha, the famous whore town in China, from which we get Koochie-koochie-koo. Ironically the Ku Klux Klan, the famous male god organization was derived from this. See how it all ties together? I study at the Walmart National Library in Benton Arkansas, where the average summer temps are at least 9 degrees cooler than Little Rock. In my micro-neck o' the woods, they are a whopping 12 degrees cooler. We have the Largemouth Bass to thank for that.

[Cory Duchesne]

An interesting passage:
"The surplus of agricultural products of the peasant civilization in the river valleys is bartered for the mineral products of the mountain dwellers."

Interesting contrast between the feminine(the peasant civilization) in relationship to the masculine(the mountain dwellers).

Oddly enuf, the earliest mining industry we know of, the Chalcocite mines of Transylvania, dating from the mid 6th mil, operated between the agrarian communities on the floodplains of the Danube and Dneipr, where there were, and still are, important mining operations as well as oil fields.

But I've not seen any evidence of cultural differences. Whether it was all run by women or not, it certainly was not run by the warrior class. There isnt any iconography related to weapons, war, or warriors, nor are there, except for a few places at the periphery of this mercantile empire, any evidence of warfare or defensive works.

I've read that the chalcocite mines had niches carved in the walls where goddess figures were found. Is that the kind of thing masculine mountain dwellers would do, or would they, instead, have some kind of male god?

I'm only regarding them as 'relatively more' masculine than the peasant folk. To survive in the mountains as a miner would take a certain ruggedness, and if you're the one working the ore's into metals: smarts. As for carving goddess figures in walls, it might reflect the male longing for union with woman, and in this case, a longing born from deprivation. Not many beautiful women in the chalocite mines, so preoccupation with feminine beauty and the supernatural seems like a way of coping.

Most cultures were patriarchic, had male gods, but I've not read whether they bothered with shrines in mines. Anyone seen that?

I doubt that the men who carved female gods didn't also have male gods who were higher in rank.

[daybrown]

<I doubt that the men who carved female gods didn't also have male gods who were higher in rank.>
That is certainly the usual expectation, but in this particular case there's a peculiar absence of iconography related to male gods. In "The Language of the Goddess" Gimbutas argues that they worshiped the Great Earth Mother, aka Gaia, as a monotheistic divine figure.

There were no male gods. There have been numerous attempts to debunk her, but none of the debunkers did what she did, which was to go around to obscure and isolated European rural communities collecting snippets of myth. A lot like etymologists went around collecting the vocabulary of all the Indo-European languages in order to reconstruct the original Aryan.

There is for instance, a curious pattern in early hero myth where he inadvertantly offends some female deity or sacred space, and goes thru some quest in search of expiation. The Niebelung in Wagner being a more recent and well known example.

Then in late bronze age myth, when we see the rise of the warrior class, we have characters like Beowolf whose enemy is actually a divine *female* figure who is demonized. If there were not a powerful female power structure, he would not have had that for an enemy.

This is consistent with JP Malloy's observation that the mythic Aryans were not in fact, conquerers, but assimilators, and the military conquests dont appear until the late bronze age. Before that era, we dont find the graves of armed warriors.

i see the reason for this in Clauswitz, "On War", which has mostly to do- not with battle strategy, but with the problems of logistics. And that had to wait until the era when generals could give written orders and he had a staff to deal with the inventory problems of equipping the armies with food and weapons. that is, the late bronze age, and written records.

Since history itself does not begin until then, you get the idea that it had always been that way. But the archaeological digs just dont show us the wide spread use of military defensive works like forts or walls around cities.

And even then, when you date the Celtic forts, you find out they were built and occupied for a period of time, then they were all abandoned. then after a few hundred years, you see them being built again. And abandoned again.

It was only until the Roman era when defensive works were maintained for centuries. The reason? hygiene. Because the primitive armies didnt understand it (in contrast to the Romans), disease would break out (we still have the DNA markers for resistance to cholera & dysentery), and all the surviving men would flee.

If you recall, the Mongols beseiging Cheronese was having the Black Death spread among their ranks, and were catapulting the bodies of the dead into the city before they gave it up and left. And before that, disease killed Pericles and many Greeks holed up in Athens.

There were a lotta times in European history when the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, just didnt cut it. And- when that happened, men turned to health services- witches.

[Carl G]

That is certainly the usual expectation, but in this particular case there's a peculiar absence of iconography related to male gods. In "The Language of the Goddess" Gimbutas argues that they worshiped the Great Earth Mother, aka Gaia, as a monotheistic divine figure.

The great warship Gaia, had a great carved male figurehead when it sailed to Timbuktu. Gotsa lotta irony there, though this was before the iron age.

There were no male gods. There have been numerous attempts to debunk her, but none of the debunkers did what she did, which was to go around to obscure and isolated European rural communities collecting snippets of myth. A lot like etymologists went around collecting the vocabulary of all the Indo-European languages in order to reconstruct the original Aryan.

Archie DeBunker, from the television program All In The Indo-European Family, was actually the first Aryan. I've seen snippets on You Tube of this amazing anthropological find.

There is for instance, a curious pattern in early hero myth where he inadvertantly offends some female deity or sacred space, and goes thru some quest in search of expiation. The Niebelung in Wagner being a more recent and well known example.

It is a myth you can find a good hero sandwich in Nuremburg. And that the composer Wagner wrote his famous third symphony about the quest for one.

Then in late bronze age myth, when we see the rise of the warrior class, we have characters like Beowolf whose enemy is actually a divine *female* figure who is demonized. If there were not a powerful female power structure, he would not have had that for an enemy.

I'm loaded with historical facts, and I have an uncanny knack for putting them together into fascinating hypothesis, don't I. My great uncle, in fact, was the famous Von Schweinhund, who found the remains of long lost Troy. Yeah, my cousin Troy, who had wandered off, and been eaten by peccaries.

This is consistent with JP Malloy's observation that the mythic Aryans were not in fact, conquerers, but assimilators, and the military conquests dont appear until the late bronze age. Before that era, we dont find the graves of armed warriors.

We know so much about the mythos of the Aryans having discovered in the graves of the warrior class little plastic soldiers like I usta play with back on the farm when I was a boy. We plowed behind real horses, and harvested the oats -- never corn, the flatlander feed -- in actual bonafide sheaves.

i see the reason for this in Clauswitz, "On War", which has mostly to do- not with battle strategy, but with the problems of logistics. And that had to wait until the era when generals could give written orders and he had a staff to deal with the inventory problems of equipping the armies with food and weapons. that is, the late bronze age, and written records.

Clauswitz was indeed a genius. In fact, I don't know why he isn't posting here at Genius.

Since history itself does not begin until then, you get the idea that it had always been that way. But the archaeological digs just dont show us the wide spread use of military defensive works like forts or walls around cities.

The Battle of Gallipoli was a set piece of defensive genius. The British Expeditionary Force was simply not prepared for the first major use of Turkish Taffy delivered by cannon by the enemy, and were stuck on the beaches.

And even then, when you date the Celtic forts, you find out they were built and occupied for a period of time, then they were all abandoned. then after a few hundred years, you see them being built again. And abandoned again.

Don't get me started on Celts. For one thing, I once attended an orgy. The women turned into raging Celts. They became Druid. They bayed at the moon like Beowulf.

I

t was only until the Roman era when defensive works were maintained for centuries. The reason? hygiene. Because the primitive armies didnt understand it (in contrast to the Romans), disease would break out (we still have the DNA markers for resistance to cholera & dysentery), and all the surviving men would flee.

The Roman broadsword and it's method of use was the primary means for the Empire-building. That is why the sheaf of wheat -- not corn, mind you -- adorns the Empire State Building in New York.

If you recall, the Mongols beseiging Cheronese was having the Black Death spread among their ranks, and were catapulting the bodies of the dead into the city before they gave it up and left. And before that, disease killed Pericles and many Greeks holed up in Athens.

Little known fact, the Mongol herds made it all the way to North America and besieged the Cherokee. Did you know some Cherokee were black, since they interbred with runaway slaves? My dad was a real breeder. I have nine brothers and four sisters. They all ran away to Kucha and became virgin whores.

There were a lotta times in European history when the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, just didnt cut it. And- when that happened, men turned to health services- witches.

Wanna whole lotta love, mmmm, wanna whole lotta love.

[hsandman]

Carl:

The Language of the Goddess: Gimbutas
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Goddess- ... 0062512439

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

Anthropological

Expiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules

The Niebelung : wagner http://ffaire.com/wagner/ring.html

Beowolf http://www.cyberessays.com/English/100.htm

When Beowulf is fighting Grendel's
mother, who is seeking revenge on her son's death, he is able to slay
her by slashing the monster's neck with a Giant's sword that can
only be lifted by a person as strong as Beowulf. When he chops off her
head, he carries it from the ocean with ease, but it takes four men to
lift and carry it back to Herot mead-hall. This strength is a key
trait of Beowulf's heroism.

Celtic forts http://www.britainexpress.com/History/C ... ritain.htm

Roman hygiène
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 31303a.htm



Mongols beseiging Cheronese

Mongols

mongolian empire. 1206–1405

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... re_map.gif




Cheronese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chersonese

http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/gk_wrld.htm

http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/DeptTr ... tiles.html

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

Edit : Carl:

the sheaf of wheat -- not corn, mind you -- adorns the Empire State Building in New York.

http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_v ... N=84541914

<Where?>

[daybrown]

I'd bet on the Chrysler building, noted for its iconography, an art Deco masterpiece.

Just in general, alpha males in particular misunderstand the nature of matriarchy, which is not the female tyranny they have in mind. Instead, its an alliance between the females and the beta males, ie, the geeks. Its the artists that the females appreciate, and where the power of women is greater, and misogyny less, that's where we see artistic and technological innovation develop at a faster pace.

the Chrysler & Empire State buildings both arrive at a time when women first wear short skirts, and dare to go out at nite without male guards. Its the time as well where they learned to drive in large numbers, and that mobility was also expressed in Art Deco.

There was a similar kind of artistic sensibility change in Anatolia when agriculture resulted in such large cities that they no longer needed the protection of the warrior class. Within a thousand years, the Cucuteni pottery had the same colorization and smooth curved forms of Art Deco.

You cant hardly lead an army of betas to go rape, pillage, and burn. But you can have a well regulated militia to stay home to guard the women and kids. The fact that they are cowards dont matter then, cause there's no place to run to when a city is beseiged.

[Carl G]

I'd bet on the Chrysler building, noted for its iconography, an art Deco masterpiece.

Just mention anything and I go off on that tangent. I'm a veritable Hot Springs, Arkansas, of random factoids.

Just in general, alpha males in particular misunderstand the nature of matriarchy, which is not the female tyranny they have in mind. Instead, its an alliance between the females and the beta males, ie, the geeks. Its the artists that the females appreciate, and where the power of women is greater, and misogyny less, that's where we see artistic and technological innovation develop at a faster pace.

I appreciate Geek statuary, especially the nude Nerds made outta marble. I usta play marbles back in the Ozark foolhills when I wuz a boy.

the Chrysler & Empire State buildings both arrive at a time when women first wear short skirts, and dare to go out at nite without male guards. Its the time as well where they learned to drive in large numbers, and that mobility was also expressed in Art Deco.

Avid fishermen, we usta pick up girls at nite after a rain -- if they weren't chaperoned by Alphas -- and nitecrawlers.

There was a similar kind of artistic sensibility change in Anatolia when agriculture resulted in such large cities that they no longer needed the protection of the warrior class. Within a thousand years, the Cucuteni pottery had the same colorization and smooth curved forms of Art Deco.

This and the crockery of my own high-sounding aimless spewings.

You cant hardly lead an army of betas to go rape, pillage, and burn. But you can have a well regulated militia to stay home to guard the women and kids. The fact that they are cowards dont matter then, cause there's no place to run to when a city is beseiged.

Yep, you's can lead an army of betas to likker but yer cain't makum drunk. That's whut we alus say here in the green hills of home, my bonnie billy bong of Anatolia.

[daybrown]

Its a shame Carl, more archaeologists didnt grow up on farms now that they are digging into neolithic dirt before cities became all that important. They dont really know what they are looking at, and they dont notice what isnt there that should be.

They drew these maps of empires unaware that there have always been hill clans who didnt care who sat on the throne in some city. There have always been places you dont go less you got kin or guides you can trust. Just ask Roman General Varus. Or that Persian general, dont remember his name, who took 30,000 with him into the desert west of the Nile. And never came back.

The Chinese had the same problem with the Taklamakhan desert, which name meant "go in, do not come back out" in Chinese. For a long time, the Ozarks had the same kind of reputation. How many archaeologists have ever gone into the woods with a pack of dogs, and hung out waiting for the hounds to drive dinner back to camp?

If Varus had dogs with, he would've picked up on something going on, but had too much faith in the gladius. But sometimes, the sword just dont cut it. I've read that after the Romans became a problem, every village in Germany had a forge, where the smith and the farmers both knew they had a common interest in not becoming Roman slaves. There was no real industrial zone for a target, so while the legions could sweep thru, they could only make small hits on the diffuse power base the Germans were slowly building.

Since there was no city the Romans could hit, they could never shut down resistance.

[Carl G]

You are fucking kidding me.

[maestro]

Carl, Have you had a chat with internet bots. It seems to me that Daybrown is some kind of forum bot, his responses draw from some fixed database (Kucha, alpha beta), and does not seem to understand the nuances of discussion (he seems to have missed your parody completely).

[hsandman]

Carl, Have you had a chat with internet bots. It seems to me that Daybrown is some kind of forum bot, his responses draw from some fixed database (Kucha, alpha beta), and does not seem to understand the nuances of discussion (he seems to have missed your parody completely).

Excentric hermit or forum bot, his info is reliable. There is no need to mock him, It just makes people who do ridicule the validity of his wisdom look foolish IMO. That he ignores such attemts, just elavates his status in my eyes.

Edit: If any one thinks that his info and conclusions are in-valid and proposterous, try using "facts" and "logic" instead of trying to mock him with outlandish lies. Give a guy the enough benifit of the doubt and do your own research in to what he is writing.

Why do you people always need ad hominem- appeal to authority, to take someone seriously?

[daybrown]

I appreciate the kind words, but sometimes even the parody, to take that reductio absurdum to an even lower level.

Found this link tonite: http://www.archaeology.org/9701/abstrac ... tians.html
The sheer number of women buried with weapons proves that the occassional Amazon graves found in other places was no fluke.

I found it inadvertantly as I realized that the term "Sarmatians" was used for two quite different peoples. The Romans had a helluva time with the 'Sarmatians' that lived across the Danube. But there was another group by that same name that bordered the Persians in the southern Caucuses. Those in the west were patriarchic barbarian warriors; those in the East, matriarchic.

These same Amazons that Davis-Kimball refers to as Sarmatians were known to Herodotus as Scythians, and to later Greeks and Persians as Parthians. When Alexander got done kicking ass in Persia, he went up into "Parthia". They gave him Roxanne instead of the city, but it is doubtful he would've been able to take it anyway.

His hoplites were invincible infantry, but more mounted archers kept showing up. His phalanxes could not catch them, and could not stop them from shooting arrows into his camps. The closed ranks he needed in the phalanx only concentrated the targets for mounted archers, who galloped straight at the formation.

Had they rode around in American Indian style, The Greek Archers would've figured out the range, got a lead on the horse, and nailed them. But instead, by riding dead at the ranks, their archers could not tell the range, which kept changing. Then, at the last minute, the mounted archer wheeled the horse around, and sent out a "Parthian shot" over the horse's ass while riding away. The mounted archer didnt need the range; it'd hit somewhere in the phalanx.

Complicating the range problem for the Greek archers were that some of the horses were smaller, with smaller women archers, so they looked further away. Alexander did lot better in India, where they fought fair. Like men.