On 4/9/06, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If this is accurate, 50,000 years ago is way before the origin of > exploiting/ed and oppressing/ed classes. > > > CB > > ^^^^^^ > > > Archery > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery > > Beginnings > > > The earliest concrete evidence of archery is 50 tya
Confusing two thing (which is my fault). The earliest Mesolithic bows were useful only for small game. The earliest bows capabable of killing anything larger that a bird found are far are no older that 12,000 B.C. 12,00) B.C is about when warfare ( or perhaps we should call it battle since we are talking slaughter by the dozens, not the hundreds or thousands) >Beginning around 12,000 BC, combat was transformed by the development of bows, maces, and slings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare I don't think you can have war without a horrible imbalance of power between genders, and without some sort of national/cultural/racial oppression happening as well. Also since (at least until the development of capitalism) once warfare occurs, the warriors end up as an elite you have the development of class or at least caste society. Also on hunter-gather/forager. And there is an important paleoarcheological minority who does insist on forager for early humans, reserving hunter-gatherre for later one. I don't insist on it, but it makes an important point. Before the existence of distance killing, it is likely that most animal protein was not from hunting as we usually think of it; scavenging, insect eating, finding young in nests, perhaps some fish or shellfish. Forager avoids invoking the macho-romanticism of the humanity the conquerer. Jim Devine<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to PEN-L posted >isn't blamng the bow an example of technological determinism? No more than Engels point on agriculture was. The bow gives you a surplus, that enables the transition from gender roles to gender oppression. Prior to the bow, humans are cat food (and to a lesser extent bear and wolfe food - snacks for predators). Because in such a situation men are more replacable than women, men probably do most of the fighting off the predators, and most of the dying in that fight. This is not unfair to men. It is unlikely their death rate from predation exceeded women's mortality from childbirth. So while it may have been a matriarchy, it could as easily have been an egalitarian society where men and women had approximately equal if slightly differing gendered roles. However if men are concentrating on watching for animals and fighting them off if they attack, they are probably somewhat less efficient as gatherers/foragers than women. They may have made up for this by going after the luxury food - the animal protein. Even in true hunter-gather societies, animal protein accounts for about 25 percent of calories, vegetable matter about 75%. (Exceptions are areas like the artic where few vegtable sources exist). Now maybe they were doing conventional gathering - but looking for plant food sources, and watching for predators are different kinds of concentration. Also the food you do find is more likely to be animal sources, since animal sign is what your looking for. As to why it happens: Again the same specuation. Mass extinction of predators (which does occur at this time - one of the great extinctions and usually atrributed to humans) . The speculation I steal from Ehrenreich is that the primary aim of the immensely wasteful mass slaughter that occured once bows and slings were invented was not food - but the slaughter itself. Humans were slaughtering predators and their food sources to make life safer for humans. Certainly one can see the incentive. And it is only once the slaughter is complete that you have a structure in place that might produce warfare and the oppression of women. You have a bunch of men whose primary roles are no longer needed. They are no longer needed as guardians and sacrifices against predator attack. They are no longer needed as slaughterers of predators to prevent animal attacks. So you partially unemployed men, men with time on their hands. One choice would be to assume a role more like women's - to do join the women in foraging without having to be as watchful for predators as previously. (A watch is still needed, but world is no longer teeming with predators on humans. Predators that survive have learned to be a bit wary of humans. So watching is no longer as demanding. And if something attackts, bows make defense fairly easy; you don't have have all men involved in it.) This would produce more leisure for everyone. But some men see another choice - keep up the role they have learned as mass slaughterers of animals, and turn to the slaughter of other men. And the problem is it does not matter if most men don't want to go that route. As soon as one tribe turns to warfare, then other tribes nearby have to turn to it for defense. For subsequent tribes , warriors are not parasites but neccesity. I think that is why the "meme" meme proved so appealing in this case. While "meme" is not really applicable in most cases, for warfare it really does seem like a good metaphor. Once the idea exists, it is almost impossible to get rid of , because nobody can stop fighting until everybody stops fighting. (Pacificism is an attempt to get around that; in spite of occasional victories not a noticeably successful one.)
