Does anyone have information on how pastoralism can be conducted in an ecological fashion? There seems to be a very simplistic line of thinking in "matriarchal" myths that pastoral nomads (= the "Kurgans") were all patriarchal bastards who were the cause of all evil, and this becomes a very simplistic attempt at solving the Problem of Evil. Needless to say, it simply passes the buck, because we gain no understanding of how these evil people became evil in the first place ... The literature is filled with condemnations of pastoralism, how it dessicates the land ... but this is perhaps a testimony to overgrazing which may take place more amongst imperial peoples with commercial pressures ... Perhaps the key conflict is not between "matriarchal" and "patriarchal" peoples, but in fact between agricultural peoples and pastoral peoples, Cain and Abel. And is there any indication that agricultural peoples are less warlike than pastoral peoples? Clearly the pastoral economy fluctuates as a direct result of rainfall, which is sporadic and subject to turbulence, which means there can possibly be sudden times of famine as well as sudden decades of population boom which then could cause swellings out from territories ... A people who had become used to sudden famines might take to making trade agreements with surrounding agriculturalists to provide stock in times of trouble, or perhaps even take to making raids ... These raids over periods of centuries as people were taken out of the circle by various means, could develop into fullscale wars. But in terms of European evidence of prehistoric wars, isn't the archeological evidence somewhat ambiguous? What is an invasion of peoples, and what is a conflict based on cultural misunderstanding? I really think this pastoral versus agricultural dynamic of Eurasia needs to be explored with a bit more sophistication and critical eye. Blaming outsiders for patriarchy seems to me like an avoidance of responsibility. If we speak of the "invasive wars" of the patriarchal nomads, why don't we also speak of the vast Cultural Contacts between two different peoples, and possible Renaissance? Analysis of kurgans (burial mounds) has led to a thesis that prehistoric Europe was hierarchical and based on a class or caste system. Now no one will deny this for Greece or Rome, which constituted Empires. But how do we conclude this from burial mounds? Simply because some "chieftains" are buried with more "wealth" and more "weapons"? Well, this is a modern interpretation. I submit a new interpretation. These "mounds" were in fact very similar to the holy wells and saint shrines we find in Ireland ; except instead of saints, they were clan ancestors ; and just as some saints end up with a bigger following than others, so some of these clan mounds got a bigger following, and THEREFORE had more OFFERINGS of swords, wealth, etc. made. Many of these mounds were probably walk-in caves. I don't know if we can assume hierarchy from this. As far as the famous "caste system" of chiefs (kings), warriors, shaman-priests, and farmers goes, I see no reason to see these as "castes" ... They may have been voluntary organizations with specific ritual initiation rites, etc. Also, we have a tendency in the West to denigrate so-called caste systems ; but there are some good analyses of caste systems in India that indicate these may have been attempts at polyethnic states in which different tribes gravitated towards different specializations, perhaps initially due to bioregional differences ... It is possible that these tribal specializations may have arranged themselves into hierarchical arrangements through rivalry initiated by commercial interaction with empires such as Greece and Rome. We also need to remember that early on, the "patriarchal pastoral nomads" were pressured by the Chinese Empire ... When I read some elements of the Old Testament, I see differing themes : I do see an anti-matriarchal element which denigrates "earth spirituality" and the idols, etc. But I also see people who are perhaps disgusted with civilization as a decadence and scourge upon the earth. Isn't it possible that the rudiments of civilization being developed could have been edifices of alienation that to more tribal peoples seemed like an abomination that needed to be wiped out? Of course, it's hard to determine whether between 4000 and 2000 B.C. (The Megalithic Age) whether we had a full scale civilization in Europe, made doubly difficult by our terminology. It does seem possible to have nonimperial medium-scale coordinations between tribes over periods of time to create monuments ; so Stonehenge, etc could have been a tribal project, but then again, it could have been what was left of a vast civilization. There's also the difficulty rendered in history that there may have been a number of "earth catastrophes" as Velikovsky indicates which could definitely explain why there were large migrations of people across lands. Situations with refugee populations often lead to conflicts, skirmishes, and even wars. Refugee movements can certainly be explained by ecocatastrophes. Also, are all pastoralists patriarchal? Perhaps the Dine are not a good example as they became pastoral only after the Spanish Invasion of the Southwest and especially after United States entry, but to my knowledge, they have matriarchal emphases ... Also, speaking in terms of black and white, of pure pastoralists versus pure hunter-gatherers versus pure agriculturalists may confuse issues. It seems likely that as new technologies and subsistence strategies emerged in the Mesolithic, differing tribes all over the place negotiated which of the technologies they would use, and how. There were probably all sorts of mixed technologies and economies. Anyone care to tackle such questions? (un)leash
