3.1.2. Force stabilized village life
The period between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago was generally
characterized by trial and errors to stabilize and reproduce the
institutions of power which was accompanied by the parallel trials
at sharing the narrative of new worldviews.
Back in “2.2.3. Early power societies were unstable” I indicated that agriculture developed in 2 stages :
“Starting some 10,000 years ago the alluvial plains in the Tri-Continental-Area were completely occupied and the excess population was forced to regroup in sedentary villages and to survive it started to domesticate plants and animals.
Archaeological studies document the absence of violence during the first 2000 years of agriculture but observe that violence rose sharply starting some 8,000 years ago”
The first 2,000 years started by agglomerations of a few mud houses regrouping a few families but as the Çatalhöyük community shows its population was growing and by 8,000 years ago it was “… reaching a peak population size of ∼3,500 to 8,000 individuals”. (1)
Ian Hodder (2) conclusively shows that along its first 2,000 years village life remained communal and peaceful. The system of governance was centered around the (wo)man of knowledge and the belief system remained animist. Hodder furthermore informs us that there is “much evidence for feasting involving groups larger than the individual house”.
Sometime between 10,500 and 10,000 years ago the growth of village population called for territorial expansion in tribal territory which fostered violence and aroused all the aggressive traits that men had acquired over hundreds of thousands, or perhaps better over millions of years, of hunting.
The population at Çatalhöyük peaked some 8,500 years ago and force, even without institutions of power, snow-balled in an expanded male competition. At a certain threshold of population size men started to
fight for the control of villages and started to encroach on tribal
territory. This is when chieftains emerged. But they did not last long.
They were always overthrown by others and so for the next 3,000 years
institutions of power failed to reproduce over the long haul.
Violence, in association with climatic factors, is observed to have led to a fragmentation and dispersal of the population and as noted by Hodder :
“The mid seventh millennium BC (8,500 Years ago) is also the time at which Neolithic farming extends into northwestern Anatolia and into the Balkans (Özdoğan 2010). Increasingly, diverse forms of evidence locate the source of that spread in central Anatolia. For example, recent research on the spread of Indo-European languages argues for an origin in central Turkey. Equally, the study of population genetics often identifies a core for the spread of many gene variants in central Anatolia (King at al. 2008; Haak et al. 2010). The archaeological evidence has long suggested connections across central and northwestern Anatolia and the Balkans in the seventh millennium BC”
But the violence to establish political control was also accompanied by a stress between communal forms of production-sharing and family or individually controlled schemes that were perhaps at the root of the fragmentation and dispersal of the population noted by Hodder. But this idea is so reminiscent of contemporary debates that it is highly probable that it is more like a projection of contemporary ideological preconceptions on a prehistorical scene.
The peaking of population could also have had an impact on the availability of resources that was perhaps aggravated by climatic factors and, as cited in “Bioarchaeology of Neolithic Çatalhöyük” all this resulted in :
“... considerable population reduction and dispersal, and culminating in abandonment and dispersal of Neolithic Çatalhöyük by the remaining members of the community and the establishment of a new settlement nearby.”
The period between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago was more generally characterized by trial and errors to stabilize and reproduce the institutions of power which was accompanied by the same parallel trials at sharing the narrative of new worldviews which Hodder described as follows :
“There may too have been an overall shift in modes of religiosity at Çatalhöyük. It has been argued (Hodder 2010; 2014c; Whitehouse, Hodder 2010) that, in the lower levels of the site, rituals, such as those involving treatment of the dead, killing wild animals and placing their body parts in houses, and feasts involving large wild bulls would have been relatively infrequent, but would have involved high arousal, enhancing the strength of the cross-cutting communities involved in them. But after South P, it has been argued, this ‘imagistic’ mode of religiosity moved in the direction of a more ‘doctrinal’ mode in which ritual events were more frequent and everyday and incited lower levels of arousal. These latter forms were associated with the expansion of animal symbols into a broader array of media such as pottery and stamp seals and with the wider use of domestic cattle and sheep in feasting events. As noted above, the distinction between sacred and secular became more blurred.”
This trial and errors process eventually concluded with the stabilization of the institutions of Early-kingdoms which evolved in two phases :
- Chieftains started to assemble neighboring villages under their authority by associating with religious men of knowledge who glued the minds of the citizens around a commonly shared worldview. The sharing of a common vision of reality increased the cohesion of the group and this helped to reproduce his institutions of power over the span of generations.
- The later grouping, of multiple assemblies of neighboring villages, gave way to early-kingdoms under the authority of a king.
The same process ultimately assembled Early-kingdoms into empires. But more on that later.
Many chiefs, kings, and emperors arose but very few succeeded to stabilize their power and to extend it over time. They were indeed faced with the vexing reality that their power was always slipping through their fingers.
People had lived free and as equals in tribes for tens of thousands of years. So it is no mystery that they would not have given up freedom and equality so easily. The power arrogated by brute force was bound to be resisted and so it was. The resistance was faced with the exercise of force. In other words the men of power hired or forced some to specialize in the use of weapons to suppress any uprising. This was the first specialized function imposed by power and thus arose the first armies.
But moving on foot (human or horse) takes a lot of time to reach a destination. The larger the territory of the newly assembled domain the more time was needed for its armies to reach spots of instability to quell and so the risk of territorial separation and overthrow were very high indeed. Many early kingdoms emerged but very few lasted.
With the benefit of hindsight we observe that the successful holders of power were those who had devised strategies based on gluing the minds of their citizens in a shared worldview that complemented the force of their armies by maintaining high levels of societal cohesion. But this mechanism of affirming their power only took root after Millennia of trials and errors. And it is only after the discovery of how to insert the men of power into the narrative of the men of knowledge that the men of power finally consented to share their privileges with the men of knowledge.
This is also when tribal female 'non-action' governance was displaced by the action of brute force to impose the authority of the physically strongest over villages and early kingdoms. But the function traditionally exercised by the tribal men of knowledge persisted. In other words the people, citizens of Early Kingdoms and empires, continued to solicit the men of knowledge for their advice and help. That also means that animism endured as a worldview, albeit on the margins, and this explains the relentless resistance toward power that marked this phase of history from Early Kingdoms to Empires.
But the presence of two roosters on the same mound was a very fragile societal set-up. The men of power tolerated the men of knowledge far as long as they did not interfere with the exercise of power. Suspicion was nevertheless always rife.
In the meantime, instead of being the (wo)men of knowledge for one closed group as was the case in tribes, the men of knowledge were now exercising their charge over bigger units (villages, cities) within the kingdom or empire. They also had lost the supply of goods to satisfy their daily needs and henceforth they needed to ask for some remuneration for their services.
While presiding over such an arrangement the men of power themselves also re-coursed to the service of those men of knowledge who had the best reputation among the population and this further increased their fame. The ones who succeeded to gain the trust of the chief, king, or emperor got to stay at his service and their needs got covered. We start thus to understand how and why those men of knowledge eventually came to position the men of power they worked for inside the picture of their narratives. These men of power were eventually presented as the earthly representatives of the spirits and their institutions of power stabilized over the longer haul. This is also how the transmission of power to the next kin in line took root. But we should always remember that this whole process spread over Millennia before to stabilize.
The substance of the services given by the (wo)men of knowledge was similar to what they had been supplying to their fellow tribesmen. They continued to transfer their knowledge down the generations through apprenticeship while through their practice in the arts they continued to transfer their knowledge into peoples minds through visual signs and trances while being accompanied by music. But what must have been different this time around was the capacity to organize feasts by using older reserves.
Power and slavery changed not only the relations between individuals they also imposed a strict control over the peoples’ resources that now had to be contributed at least in part for the personal use of the authorities, their families, and their 'coterie'. That new socioeconomic model imposed working all day long instead of a few hours as had been the custom for free hunter-gatherers. There is no way that such radical changes, as longer toiling hours with less personal return, could have taken place without resistance. So rule making and rule implementation have played an ever growing role while work schedules and quotas were imposed on the farmers by force. Any failure to satisfactorily implement those schedules and quotas were met with punishments.
Many chiefs, kings, and emperors arose but very few succeeded to stabilize their power and to extend it over time. They were indeed faced with the vexing reality that their power was always slipping through their fingers.
People had lived free and as equals in tribes for tens of thousands of years. So it is no mystery that they would not have given up freedom and equality so easily. The power arrogated by brute force was bound to be resisted and so it was. The resistance was faced with the exercise of force. In other words the men of power hired or forced some to specialize in the use of weapons to suppress any uprising. This was the first specialized function imposed by power and thus arose the first armies.
But moving on foot (human or horse) takes a lot of time to reach a destination. The larger the territory of the newly assembled domain the more time was needed for its armies to reach spots of instability to quell and so the risk of territorial separation and overthrow were very high indeed. Many early kingdoms emerged but very few lasted.
With the benefit of hindsight we observe that the successful holders of power were those who had devised strategies based on gluing the minds of their citizens in a shared worldview that complemented the force of their armies by maintaining high levels of societal cohesion. But this mechanism of affirming their power only took root after Millennia of trials and errors. And it is only after the discovery of how to insert the men of power into the narrative of the men of knowledge that the men of power finally consented to share their privileges with the men of knowledge.
This is also when tribal female 'non-action' governance was displaced by the action of brute force to impose the authority of the physically strongest over villages and early kingdoms. But the function traditionally exercised by the tribal men of knowledge persisted. In other words the people, citizens of Early Kingdoms and empires, continued to solicit the men of knowledge for their advice and help. That also means that animism endured as a worldview, albeit on the margins, and this explains the relentless resistance toward power that marked this phase of history from Early Kingdoms to Empires.
But the presence of two roosters on the same mound was a very fragile societal set-up. The men of power tolerated the men of knowledge far as long as they did not interfere with the exercise of power. Suspicion was nevertheless always rife.
In the meantime, instead of being the (wo)men of knowledge for one closed group as was the case in tribes, the men of knowledge were now exercising their charge over bigger units (villages, cities) within the kingdom or empire. They also had lost the supply of goods to satisfy their daily needs and henceforth they needed to ask for some remuneration for their services.
While presiding over such an arrangement the men of power themselves also re-coursed to the service of those men of knowledge who had the best reputation among the population and this further increased their fame. The ones who succeeded to gain the trust of the chief, king, or emperor got to stay at his service and their needs got covered. We start thus to understand how and why those men of knowledge eventually came to position the men of power they worked for inside the picture of their narratives. These men of power were eventually presented as the earthly representatives of the spirits and their institutions of power stabilized over the longer haul. This is also how the transmission of power to the next kin in line took root. But we should always remember that this whole process spread over Millennia before to stabilize.
The substance of the services given by the (wo)men of knowledge was similar to what they had been supplying to their fellow tribesmen. They continued to transfer their knowledge down the generations through apprenticeship while through their practice in the arts they continued to transfer their knowledge into peoples minds through visual signs and trances while being accompanied by music. But what must have been different this time around was the capacity to organize feasts by using older reserves.
Power and slavery changed not only the relations between individuals they also imposed a strict control over the peoples’ resources that now had to be contributed at least in part for the personal use of the authorities, their families, and their 'coterie'. That new socioeconomic model imposed working all day long instead of a few hours as had been the custom for free hunter-gatherers. There is no way that such radical changes, as longer toiling hours with less personal return, could have taken place without resistance. So rule making and rule implementation have played an ever growing role while work schedules and quotas were imposed on the farmers by force. Any failure to satisfactorily implement those schedules and quotas were met with punishments.
___________
Notes
1. “Bioarchaeology of Neolithic Çatalhöyük reveals fundamental transitions in health, mobility,and lifestyle in early farmers” in PNAS by Clark Spencer Larsena,1, Christopher J. Knüselb, Scott D. Haddowc, Marin A. Pilloudd, Marco Milellae,f,Joshua W. Sadvarig, Jessica Pearsonh, Christopher B. Ruffi, Evan M. Garofaloj, Emmy Bocaegek, Barbara J. Betza,Irene Dorib,l, and Bonnie Glencrossm
2. The best expose about this whole problematic, that I know of, is given by Ian Hodder. See “Çatalhöyük: the leopard changes its spots. A summary of recent work” by Ian Hodder. Stanford University. Here is how Hodder depicts village life :
2. The best expose about this whole problematic, that I know of, is given by Ian Hodder. See “Çatalhöyük: the leopard changes its spots. A summary of recent work” by Ian Hodder. Stanford University. Here is how Hodder depicts village life :
“ This paper argues that detailed hypotheses about Çatalhöyük’s history can only be generated by combining diverse sets of data that initially might appear to have little to do with one another. Such assembling produces very broad conclusions about the nature of social organisation at Çatalhöyük, with an important emphasis on change before and after 6500 BC. Around this date it is argued that Çatalhöyük shifted from a population-needy system in which people were crowded into collective social and ritual structures, to a fragmentation and dispersal of population. In the early levels, ritual ties and solidarities allowed low levels of production by individual houses and a strong focus on sharing and pooling resources; but there were tensions within this system that became intolerable by 6500 BC.”
No comments:
Post a Comment