07-03-2019, 03:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2019, 03:22 PM by Eric the Green.)
Thanks for your good comments.
I think there was some matriarchy, and that the goddess was much more prominently worshipped than in the Bronze and early Iron Ages.
There is much dissent from the Keeley view.
(quote: )
One view, reinforced by studies of conflict in chimpanzees and scattered archaeological evidence of violent deaths in prehistoric humans, holds that group-on-group violence was common and constant, both reflecting and influencing human nature.
A few other researchers consider that view unjustifiably dark, a sort of scientific version of original sin. They say collective human violence was an aberration, not a basic feature of life. In this camp is Fry, who in 2007’s Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace argued that archaeological evidence of prehistoric warfare was often misinterpreted, and modern hunter-gatherer violence exaggerated.
'The vast majority of us assume that war is ancient, that it's part of human nature.' In most foraging societies, said Fry, lethal aggression was infrequent, and in the archaeological record violence didn’t take regular group-on-group character until relatively recently, when people settled down in ever-larger, more complex and hierarchical societies.
More here:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/to-war-is-...rhaps-not/
(07-02-2019, 06:31 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:(07-01-2019, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As you probably know, I inserted a Pink/Venus Age to represent the enormous change brought by the Age of Agriculture and Herding culture around 8000 BC.
Of course, the neolithic was different from the Palaeolithic. Pink and Venus usually symbolise women, do you think the neolithic cultures were matriarchal?
I think there was some matriarchy, and that the goddess was much more prominently worshipped than in the Bronze and early Iron Ages.
Quote:Quote:The red/Mars empires and tyrants and the metal ages really got going only with Sargon in circa 2100 BC., though there was minor warlike behavior before that which I call "Mars rising."
Primitive humans were very warlike, you may know a book called "War before civilisation" by Lawrence Keeley. The statistics show more people died in warfare among hunter-gatherers than during WW2. But primitive war was poorly organised, and noone had technological advantage since everybody fought only with spears and bows. So the psychological effects of tribal wars must have been less devastating than in the age of tyrants.
There is much dissent from the Keeley view.
(quote: )
One view, reinforced by studies of conflict in chimpanzees and scattered archaeological evidence of violent deaths in prehistoric humans, holds that group-on-group violence was common and constant, both reflecting and influencing human nature.
A few other researchers consider that view unjustifiably dark, a sort of scientific version of original sin. They say collective human violence was an aberration, not a basic feature of life. In this camp is Fry, who in 2007’s Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace argued that archaeological evidence of prehistoric warfare was often misinterpreted, and modern hunter-gatherer violence exaggerated.
'The vast majority of us assume that war is ancient, that it's part of human nature.' In most foraging societies, said Fry, lethal aggression was infrequent, and in the archaeological record violence didn’t take regular group-on-group character until relatively recently, when people settled down in ever-larger, more complex and hierarchical societies.
More here:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/to-war-is-...rhaps-not/