tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post8939315328416644367..comments2023-10-30T02:24:01.705-06:00Comments on Historical Baggage: Feminists are Pro-Choice, unless You choose not to label yourself a Feminist.Historical Baggagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05938776633061473394noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-21089236373077145802012-08-22T23:01:18.671-06:002012-08-22T23:01:18.671-06:00I am glad that you enjoyed it. Sorry it took a bit...I am glad that you enjoyed it. Sorry it took a bit to find. I had been working the Gallatin Wildlife Association booths for 3 days (conservation education) and then I had to mentally back track what I had been reading for the last few weeks. <br /><br />As to the Anasazi (ancient enemy in Navajo), I prefer to refer to them as Hisatsinom, the ancient people. Now it is interesting that you bring them up, cause I have some hypothesis about them coming from the Aegean Sea territories around 1200 BCE. So who are these people working on the prehistory of them?<br /><br />I will check out the Our Kind book. I am not daunted by large reference books. Many of the books I read are quite large and often dictionary or encyclopedic in nature.Historical Baggagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938776633061473394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-34828858843639636142012-08-22T21:25:03.984-06:002012-08-22T21:25:03.984-06:00This article takes me back to my college days. I ...This article takes me back to my college days. I love all the debates and speculation about the different pieces of evidence. I started as an anthropology/sociology major before I got sucked into the art department. I've mostly been doing pottery full time for the last 36 years so have missed being immersed in the anthropology and pre-history stuff that I find so interesting.<br /><br />Two things you might find interesting. One is the prehistory that people are trying to put together about the Anasazi and other people of the SW. Many things remind me about the issues of the peoples in S Europe 4,000 - 5,000 BC. Here the time period was more like AD 1200 (+or-) -- 1,500. A lot can happen in a few hundred years, or less. A lot can happen in a decade.<br /><br />The other thing you might find interesting is Marvin Harris's Book, 'OUR KIND'. I love that book! For a thick and comprehensive synopsis by a respected anthropologist, it is really put together in a format that is easy to pick up and put down. It is 500+ pages but put together under little titled 'essays' that are usually no more than 2-4 pages long.<br /><br />potterymusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10599972972675300438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-85874932428055071702012-08-22T12:21:54.099-06:002012-08-22T12:21:54.099-06:00Found the article - Warfare in the European Neolit...Found the article - Warfare in the European Neolithic: Truth or Fiction?<br />Joan Marler - http://www.belili.org/marija/marler_article_03.pdfHistorical Baggagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938776633061473394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-81404365522755340892012-08-18T05:30:08.930-06:002012-08-18T05:30:08.930-06:00I would not want to add the stress of finding stuf...I would not want to add the stress of finding stuff to someone in the middle of moving. This is an interesting conversation topic to me, and with any luck I will still be around after you are moved and settled.<br /><br />My observations have congealed around the similarities of peoples under competitive stress juxtaposed with similarities of peoples ideals.<br /><br />The most basic distillation I can think of is the whole notion of specialization and our begrudging acceptance of it as it relates to any kind of survival/competitiveness, (modern or primitive). Our ideals, our hearts desire, pushes us away from specialization too more and more unity. This while competitive realities push us too greater specialization and some inevitable alienation.<br /><br />Melding the ideal with the possible is a work in progress that is rarely worthy of our satisfaction. I see a trajectory or continuity in early evolved warrior class specialization, men as bread winners, and vast numbers in debt from student loans. It is all about survivability with as much of our dignity and ideals intact.<br /><br />Forbidding women to fight can be seen in the context of holding on to our ideals/creating a refuge from our harshest realities. <br /><br />Our tribally adapted species is a victim of our own success. We eventually used up all the habitable real estate. Competition became unavoidable in more and more parts of the planet. Survival advantage went to those groups who would merge and specialize, often in brutal ways.<br /><br />Here in NE Oregon the Native Americans have an interpretive center near Pendleton where some of there oral traditions are preserved. Of special note to me was there story of how they got along well with their neighbors to the south until the horse was reintroduced to the Americas by the Spanish. Suddenly their hunters could go farther and bring home more game, but they also started crowding their neighbors and warring ensued.<br /><br />I am sure there are arguments to be made that, like any other species, a territorial boundary will eventually be formed and there will be a period of stability. But with people the survival units are so unnaturally large at this point that when the least little thing goes wrong with internal cohesion the easiest tool or remedy for flagging internal unity is to make an enemy out of those outside your boarders. <br /><br />It is a dangerous game, among many, that survival units play in the post neolithic competition.potterymusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10599972972675300438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-32090901600686066132012-08-17T20:30:43.208-06:002012-08-17T20:30:43.208-06:00While I have been researching, following the trail...While I have been researching, following the trail of the patriarchal Indo-Europeans through primarily linguistics and archaeology, I see a distinct group of men that behaved radically different than the egalitarian neighbors they conquered. Their own later writings speak of these conquests and empire building. Their patriarchal ancestor cult is easily identified in archaeology. Now, after generations of this, I can see some cultures trying to defend against these "giants" and having to utilize their men to fight fire with fire so to speak, propagating the warrior hero culture. But there are accounts of the women, who were still warriors and defenders of their people, still fighting against the patriarchy, not just the men. Which is why so many of the patriarchal cultures passed laws forbidding the women to fight.<br /><br />Even in the Tanak/Old Testament there are laws against the women fighting. The first, HaDebariym [Deuteronomy] 22:5, usually translated in most English texts as something like this, "a woman will not wear the garments of a man, nor a man women’s clothing". But the Hebrew actually reads, "there will not be the thing of a geber [warrior/hero] on a woman, nor will a geber [warrior/hero] put on a woman's mantle/cloak. for whoever does these things is an abomination to YHWH your elohey.” This word geber - warrior/hero, has the Hebrew root word of gabar, which means to be strong, overpower. This is not your typical, general word for man, such as iysh, adam, or enosh. Obviously, we need to understand the context, to better understand what this verse is about. <br /><br />A woman is not to have a thing, which does not specify a garment, but any thing of a warrior on her, which can include armor and weaponry. And likewise, a warrior is not to have a mantle, cloak of a woman. That part is not as specific, but can possibly be figured out, based on cultic context. If we understand the first part of women not dressing and acting as a warrior, such as Ugaritic Anath, then looking to the opposite role for men, it might be applied that warriors or men in general, were not to dress as women, as the male shrine prostitutes were said to have done. Women who battled were a great source of trouble to patriarchal societies, such as the factual Amazon women warriors to the Greeks. I am simply relaying what patriarchal, deuteronomistic authors have written on the subject and then ascribed to YHWH for authority. This forbidding women to fight is common in each of the patriarchal Indo-European cultures.<br /><br />I came across a paper the other day that spoke about the lack of evidence for intertribal warring in Old South Europe, prior to the patriarchal Indo-European invasions. I am in the middle of packing my house for a move, so hopefully I can find it easy enough and get the source and quote to you if you are interested. It is not the first I have come across, but it is the more recent so it might be the easiest to get my hands on.Historical Baggagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05938776633061473394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6610557101712205283.post-41057337355675229272012-08-17T19:38:38.283-06:002012-08-17T19:38:38.283-06:00I enjoyed reading your comments about the gender b...I enjoyed reading your comments about the gender blaming. I agree that it makes no sense. But I think I have a somewhat different take on the origins of patriarchy.<br /><br />My view is that cultures/tribes/survival units, under severe competition from other such groups, specialize in ways that maximize their chances of surviving an armed conflict. Those who end up giving the orders in a pinch tend to be the the bad ass strong men. When your village is under attack, men and women alike embrace this. Over time this can influence how gender roles become traditionally hierarchical and patriarchal.<br /><br />I agree that egalitarian is better. I also think we have as good a shot at egalitarianism as any time in history since the neolithic revolution.potterymusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10599972972675300438noreply@blogger.com