War in human civilization by Azar Gat
SolomonW
book.
One point he makes is that the primitive man mortality rates in fighting
(war) before the coming of state authority is extremely high. Some examples
he quotes are an Aboriginal tribe of Murngin of Arnhem Land during a period
of 20 years lost 200 men out of a population of 3,000. The men (I presume
suitable for war) numbered 700. So 30% of the warriors died.
In another study of Tiwi (an Australia Island) the aboriginals lost 10% of
the men population in a decade.
Another study suggests aboriginals in a generation lost about 5 to 6.5%.
The US plain Indians, the Blackfoot tribe in 1805 showed a deficit of 50%
of the men and in 1858 were a 33% deficit in men. In a prehistoric Indian
site in Madisonville Ohio, 22% male skulls had wounds and 8% were
fractured. In a similar site in Illinois, 16% were buried there had met a
violent death.
Studies of Eskimos who lack a group warfare, show a murder rate of one in a
thousand about ten times the US peak rate in 1990.
In New Guinea, the tribe Yanomamo about 15% died as a result of inter- and
intra group violence: 24% males and 7% females. Another tribe there the
Dani lost 28.5% males and 2.4% females. The Enga lost 34.8% males, mainly
to the Meggitt in 34 wars in 50 years. etc etc etc
In the Amazon, a study of the Waorani showed more than 60% of adult deaths
over five generations were caused by feuding and warfare.
In comparison, only a few times in a situation have modern societies
suffered such losses. The second Punic War resulted in about 20% of the
adult male population, the thirty year war in parts of Germany and France
and Germany in WW1.
The author's thesis is that civilisation has actually reduced both the
murder and warfare rates.
Any comments?
Michele
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamMail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:FW8hn.70792$yV6....@newsfe27.ams2...
>
> In New Guinea, the tribe Yanomamo
>
> Any comments?
>
Yes, that they don't live in New Guinea. I hope it's your mistake, not the
author's.
David Friedman
SolomonW <Solo...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> The author's thesis is that civilisation has actually reduced both the
> murder and warfare rates.
>
> Any comments?
>
Keeley, _Warfare Before Civilization_, reaches the same conclusion wrt
mortality in warfare. I found it convincing.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Paul J Gans
>Any comments?
Yeah. Check on his primative man death rates. I have no doubt
that his figures are correct, but the implication is that such
figures were generated every year or so. That can't be true, as
the tribes would long ago have become extinct.
Intervillage warfare though, is known to have been very very deadly.
It is one of the reasons why villages banded together.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Dimensional Traveler
> murder and warfare rates.
>
> Any comments?
>
skeletons? Even in a hunter-gatherer society not everyone dies of a
broken leg. Is he attributing _all_ injuries and deaths to some form of
warfare? No accidents, hunting dangerous animals, etc.?
Also some of those examples are lumping what we would currently call
murder and domestic violence in with war. "died as a result of inter-
and intra- group violence", "caused by feuding and warfare". Yet you
are comparing them to later, warfare only, deaths.
In short, I question the author's methodology.
--
Murphy was an optimist.
David Friedman
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Yeah. Check on his primative man death rates. I have no doubt
> that his figures are correct, but the implication is that such
> figures were generated every year or so. That can't be true, as
> the tribes would long ago have become extinct.
It's worth remembering that deaths are heavily biased towards males,
whereas the potential reproduction rate depends on the number of
females. Of course, someone has to gather the food, and losing males
reduces the number of hunters--but also the number of mouths to feed.
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hm43ar$1a0$3...@reader2.panix.com...
Keegan in 'A History of Warfare' says primitive war isn't lethal that often
because people aren't wanting to kill each other, they want food and women
and reputation.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
SolomonW
> In article <hm43ar$1a0$3...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Check on his primative man death rates. I have no doubt
>> that his figures are correct, but the implication is that such
>> figures were generated every year or so. That can't be true, as
>> the tribes would long ago have become extinct.
>
> It's worth remembering that deaths are heavily biased towards males,
> whereas the potential reproduction rate depends on the number of
> females.
Plus in these societies often a man could have several wives.
> Of course, someone has to gather the food, and losing males
> reduces the number of hunters--but also the number of mouths to feed.
I remember reading that women collecting berries and other products
produced almost as much food as the male hunters.
SolomonW
Your points are valid and I am sure the writer is well aware of them.
If you can offer a better methodology, I would be interested in hearing it.
Dimensional Traveler
them into account. If your quotes and paraphrases are accurate then
he's almost deliberately _not_ taking them into account. We can tell if
a broken bone was healing or had healed before death, we can make pretty
shrewd deductions about what killed someone from just the skeleton, etc.
It just takes a lot of work and research. The fact that he's lumping
ALL possibly violent deaths in the past under "War Deaths" and then
comparing that to current, more accurate, records is a big red flag.
What percentage of modern deaths involve some form of person-on-person
violence and/or some major trauma to the body?
The "better methodology" I offer is to do the work right. Compare
apples to apples, not apples to apples+oranges+grapes.
Michele
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamMail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:FW8hn.70792$yV6....@newsfe27.ams2...
> In comparison, only a few times in a situation have modern societies
> suffered such losses. The second Punic War resulted in about 20% of the
> adult male population, the thirty year war in parts of Germany and France
> and Germany in WW1.
>
> The author's thesis is that civilisation has actually reduced both the
> murder and warfare rates.
>
> Any comments?
>
Apart from the other flaws, there is another apples-to-apples+oranges issue.
it seems the author is comparing death rates with death rates. Now, look at
the amount of scientific knowledge, technology and money thrown at casualty
management by top-notch civilizations today. They make damn huge efforts to
keep WIAs from becoming KIAs. While OTOH, at the primitive level _most_ of
the WIAs become KIAs.
So claiming that lower KIA rates equate with lower "warfare rates" is very
questionable. The "warfare rate" might be just as high, only that what would
have become KIAs once upon a time, today remain WIAs.
Tronscend
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamMail.com> skrev i melding
news:91qhn.73227$yV6....@newsfe27.ams2...
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:20:01 -0800, David Friedman wrote:
>
>> In article <hm43ar$1a0$3...@reader2.panix.com>,
>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
....
>
> I remember reading that women collecting berries and other products
> produced almost as much food as the male hunters.
Survival studies by the Swedish army proved a consistently higher return in
calories per hour invested from gathering than from hunting + fishing.
T
David Friedman
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Intervillage warfare though, is known to have been very very deadly.
> > It is one of the reasons why villages banded together.
>
> Keegan in 'A History of Warfare' says primitive war isn't lethal that often
> because people aren't wanting to kill each other, they want food and women
> and reputation.
For a different and more recent account, take a look at _Warfare before
Civilization_ by Keeley.
Paul J Gans
I don't think there is a contradiction there. Intervillage
warfare with two villages of about 200 persons each fighting
each other can leave one burned down with all of its farmland
and livestock destroyed.
With larger groups that gets to be harder and harder to do.
M Winther
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamMail.com> skrev i meddelandet news:FW8hn.70792$yV6....@newsfe27.ams2...
That's interesting. But when it comes to human suffering, the percentage
of causalties is less significant than the actual number.
The estimated death toll in World War II is between 62 to 78 million.
Genocide in China under Mao Ze-Dong: 49-78 million. Jozef Stalin:
23 million.
Mats Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
William Black
Of course if the men are fighting over women and food the birth rate doesn't
go down and the population will recover very quickly, but you'll have a
bigger social unit.
And destroying farmland is almost impossible...
SolomonW
I believe it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter%E2%80%93gatherer
Hunter-gatherers obtain most from gathering rather than hunting; up to 80%
of the food is obtained by gathering
SolomonW
> In article <hm5abr$iq7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Intervillage warfare though, is known to have been very very deadly.
>>> It is one of the reasons why villages banded together.
>>
>> Keegan in 'A History of Warfare' says primitive war isn't lethal that often
>> because people aren't wanting to kill each other, they want food and women
>> and reputation.
>
> For a different and more recent account, take a look at _Warfare before
> Civilization_ by Keeley.
According to War in human civilization by Azar Gat, the primitive battles
that kill are not the major campaigns but the small continuous hit and run
operations. A few people here and there killed and it quickly add up to
significant figures.
Please what does Keeley's say about it?
Dennis
> Apart from the other flaws, there is another apples-to-apples+oranges
> issue. it seems the author is comparing death rates with death rates.
> Now, look at the amount of scientific knowledge, technology and money
> thrown at casualty management by top-notch civilizations today. They
> make damn huge efforts to keep WIAs from becoming KIAs. While OTOH, at
> the primitive level _most_ of the WIAs become KIAs.
>
> So claiming that lower KIA rates equate with lower "warfare rates" is
> very questionable. The "warfare rate" might be just as high, only that
> what would have become KIAs once upon a time, today remain WIAs.
A very good point! It's glaringly obvious today with US forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan - so many guys who would have been dead from traumatic
head injuries and limb loss are back to duty in a few months, thanks to
dramatically improved medivac and rehab methods!
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman talks a lot about this. He points out that
the same thing has happened in civilian life. Paramedic, medivac, hospital
availability, and medical technology has improved so much that people who
would have been murder statistics a couple of decades ago are now violent
assault statistics. To compare violence rates across decades - not to
mention millenia! - you have to take this into account.
Dennis
SolomonW
Is it less significant that 22% are killed in minor tribal wars and crime
in a region disunited or in the same region like under China under Mao
Ze-Dong 10% of the population is killed?
SolomonW
> And destroying farmland is almost impossible...
Go in after harvest, steal the grain and domestic herds so the people have
no stores for winter and little to plant next year. Now what is going to
happen to the village soon?
This is partly why potatoes were popular for Europeans to grow as it was
difficult for an invading army to destroy.
Furthermore an area dependent on irrigation is relatively easy to destroy
and ruin.
SolomonW
One group of stone age hunter gathers that survived till modern times was
in Australia. Several white people lived among them and recorded their
lives with them. Azar Gat discussion of Australian aboriginals is based on
a few such people that lived with them.
I have read similar stories, from other historians too. I would say there
is little dispute among historians that Australian aboriginals suffered
from extensively from this.
William Black
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote in message
news:04Qhn.74171$_W6....@newsfe30.ams2...
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:22:20 +0530, William Black wrote:
>
>> And destroying farmland is almost impossible...
>
> Go in after harvest, steal the grain and domestic herds so the people have
> no stores for winter and little to plant next year. Now what is going to
> happen to the village soon?
They're going to die.
leaving houses and fields behind them for the next lot to move into.
The only time villages were abandoned I can think of was during the Black
Death, but the fields continued to be farmed...
David Friedman
SolomonW <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote:
That fits my memory of his account as well.
VtSkier
>
> "SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:04Qhn.74171$_W6....@newsfe30.ams2...
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:22:20 +0530, William Black wrote:
>>
>>> And destroying farmland is almost impossible...
>>
>> Go in after harvest, steal the grain and domestic herds so the people
>> have
>> no stores for winter and little to plant next year. Now what is going to
>> happen to the village soon?
>
> They're going to die.
>
> leaving houses and fields behind them for the next lot to move into.
>
> The only time villages were abandoned I can think of was during the
> Black Death, but the fields continued to be farmed...
>
the fields, those who didn't die were busy
farming what they always had, AND there were
fewer mouths to feed. Who farmed the abandoned
fields?
I understand perfectly well that population
rebounded fairly quickly after the black death,
and that the fields were quickly put back into
service. It's the word "continued" that I
object to.
Farms around here are continually being abandoned
and growing up to what is fondly known as
'puckerbrush' and then to trees much to our
sadness. I would assume that European fields in
the days of the black death never were unused
long enough to go back to trees.
M Winther
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> skrev i meddelandet news:nYPhn.74170$_W6....@newsfe30.ams2...
In terms of *human suffering*, yes. The suffering was obviously much
much greater than in all Stone Age wars combined. When discussing
human suffering, one must count the numbers of victims, not only discuss
around percentage. However, these interesting statistics are highly
significant from an overall anthropological perspective, in understanding
human nature.
Mats
David Friedman
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> > Is it less significant that 22% are killed in minor tribal wars and crime
> > in a region disunited or in the same region like under China under Mao
> > Ze-Dong 10% of the population is killed?
>
>
> In terms of *human suffering*, yes. The suffering was obviously much
> much greater than in all Stone Age wars combined.
It might be true, but its far from obvious. "Stone age" represents a
much smaller population but an enormously longer period of time. I'm not
sure what current estimates are of the total number of people who lived
prior to the bronze age.
Suppose, for instance, that the world population was a million--I don't
know if that's right, but it doesn't strike me as absurdly high; a
little googling produces an estimate for the australian aborigines at
the time of white settlement in the hundreds of thousands. Suppose a
life expectancy of twenty years. Let that whole situation exist for two
hundred thousand years.
You then have ten thousand generations, containing ten billion people.
William Black
"VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:12672084...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
> William Black wrote:
> I understand perfectly well that population
> rebounded fairly quickly after the black death,
> and that the fields were quickly put back into
> service. It's the word "continued" that I
> object to.
I've never seen any evidence that any fields were abandoned.
Farmland in England is a scarce resource.
SolomonW
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Now we move from history to philosophy, I wonder to a stone age
hunter-gather would the loss of his family be less intense than a Jew who
lost his family in the holocaust. Would the survivors in his community feel
the pain less when their world, including what they found sacred is lost?
VtSkier
>
> "VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:12672084...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
>> William Black wrote:
>
>> I understand perfectly well that population
>> rebounded fairly quickly after the black death,
>> and that the fields were quickly put back into
>> service. It's the word "continued" that I
>> object to.
>
> I've never seen any evidence that any fields were abandoned.
>
> Farmland in England is a scarce resource.
>
>
be too strong a word as it conjures up what I described
happening to farms in Vermont and elsewhere in New
England. First 'puckerbrush' then trees. I AM sure
that this never occurred during the black death.
However, a field standing fallow for longer than
intended could be the result of too few hands to
work it.
Farmland being scarce or abundant is in direct
proportion to the number of mouths to feed. Following
the black death I'm sure there were agricultural
surpluses. If this were so, the birth rate would
have gone up considerably.
Paul J Gans
>"VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:12672084...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
>> William Black wrote:
>> I understand perfectly well that population
>> rebounded fairly quickly after the black death,
>> and that the fields were quickly put back into
>> service. It's the word "continued" that I
>> object to.
>I've never seen any evidence that any fields were abandoned.
>Farmland in England is a scarce resource.
You are quite right, but the population pressure of the
early 1300s was such that all sorts of marginal land was
pressed into being farmland.
The Black Death resulted in a notable amount of that marginal
land being converted to grazing with an increase in the sheep
industry.
It also seems to have somewhat altered the diet of the typical
peasant toward consuming more mutton.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
willia...@hotmail.co.uk (William Black) wrote:
> I've never seen any evidence that any fields were abandoned.
There was apparently some retreat. English population peaked shortly
before the Black Death. This meant that arable farming of marginal land
made sense. After the BD most of this land reverted to rough grazing
which was much less labour intensive. We know there was a labour
shortage because of the various statutes limiting both movement and
poaching of serfs.
Ken Young
M Winther
"SolomonW" <Solo...@nospamLamp.com.au> skrev i meddelandet news:A86in.152115$Dy7....@newsfe26.ams2...
That's not what we have been discussing. If around 200 million people
were slaughtered in the late 20th century, then the stone agers would
have to go on for millenia to reach these figures.
* Civilization has this characteristic:
we have prolonged eras of peace, after which we arrange a massive
bloodbath. Then, again, we become civilized during a time.
*Primitive humanity has this characteristic:
evil and violence is let out continuously, leading to skirmishes where one
and another tribe member is killed.
In civilization we hold back our violent nature, like in a pressure-
coocker, until it finally explodes, with an unfathomable intensity.
Primitive man, however, lets his evil out continually.
So civilization is not better. We only flatter ourselves. We only like to
postpone our murderous orgies until we cannot control ourselves
anymore. Then we do it with much greater passion and efficiency.
Mats Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
Tim McDaniel
M Winther <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>If around 200 million people
>were slaughtered in the late 20th century, then the stone agers would
>have to go on for millenia to reach these figures.
Since the Stone Agers went on for THOUSANDS of millenia, your argument
is not really a telling one.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Matt Tompkins
> >> I understand perfectly well that population
> >> rebounded fairly quickly after the black death,
> >> and that the fields were quickly put back into
> >> service. It's the word "continued" that I
> >> object to.
> > William Black wrote:
> > I've never seen any evidence that any fields were abandoned.
> > Farmland in England is a scarce resource.
On Feb 27, 4:09 pm, VtSkier <vtsk...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Either one of us could be right. "Abandoned" may well
> be too strong a word as it conjures up what I described
> happening to farms in Vermont and elsewhere in New
> England. First 'puckerbrush' then trees. I AM sure
> that this never occurred during the black death.
> However, a field standing fallow for longer than
> intended could be the result of too few hands to
> work it.
It's probably right that no English farmland was abandoned and
regenerated as woodland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but
that may well have happened after the previous catastrophic fall in
population, the less well-known one which occured some time in the
early Anglo-Saxon period.
In Iron Age and Roman Britain the English landscape was as open,
densely populated and extensively cultivated as it was just before the
Black Death, possibly even more so, but after the early A-S population
loss the same retreat from the margins occurred as in the fourteenth
century. Some of the lost arable may have been turned over to
pastoral use, as in the fourteenth century, but not all - Roman period
villas, farms and hamlets have been found in several areas which were
wooded in the late Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods. Wychwood and
Rockingham Forest are examples.
Whether the woodland was the result of simple abandonment (it only
takes about 30-50 years for ungrazed land to become woodland) or was
deliberately set aside, I don't know.
Matt Tompkins
Weland
Hi Matt,
As I recall, some of this was already happening in the late third
century in Roman Britain that has suggested to some a gradual
depopulation of Roman Britain in the third and fourth centuries, before
the influx of Anglo-Saxons.
Matt Tompkins
> > It's probably right that no English farmland was abandoned and
> > regenerated as woodland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but
> > that may well have happened after the previous catastrophic fall in
> > population, the less well-known one which occured some time in the
> > early Anglo-Saxon period.
>
> > In Iron Age and Roman Britain the English landscape was as open,
> > densely populated and extensively cultivated as it was just before the
> > Black Death, possibly even more so, but after the early A-S population
> > loss the same retreat from the margins occurred as in the fourteenth
> > century. Some of the lost arable may have been turned over to
> > pastoral use, as in the fourteenth century, but not all - Roman period
> > villas, farms and hamlets have been found in several areas which were
> > wooded in the late Anglo-Saxon and medieval periods. Wychwood and
> > Rockingham Forest are examples.
>
> > Whether the woodland was the result of simple abandonment (it only
> > takes about 30-50 years for ungrazed land to become woodland) or was
> > deliberately set aside, I don't know.
> On Mar 1, 3:10 pm, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> As I recall, some of this was already happening in the late third
> century in Roman Britain that has suggested to some a gradual
> depopulation of Roman Britain in the third and fourth centuries, before
> the influx of Anglo-Saxons.
Yes, that's right, the population loss and partial conversion to from
arable to pastoral farming probably first began before the Anglo-Saxon
advent. The regeneration of woodland is usually reckoned to have been
a feature of a much later time, though, well into the Anglo-Saxon
period.
Matt
Weland
Thanks, do you happen to have a few references...you know, so that I can
pretend that I'm going to have time to read them...;)
M Winther
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet news:4b8a5157$0$27548$c83e...@anchorman-read.tele2.net...
>
>>
>
> That's not what we have been discussing. If around 200 million people
> were slaughtered in the late 20th century, then the stone agers would
> have to go on for millenia to reach these figures.
>
> * Civilization has this characteristic:
> we have prolonged eras of peace, after which we arrange a massive
> bloodbath. Then, again, we become civilized during a time.
>
> *Primitive humanity has this characteristic:
> evil and violence is let out continuously, leading to skirmishes where one
> and another tribe member is killed.
>
> In civilization we hold back our violent nature, like in a pressure-
> coocker, until it finally explodes, with an unfathomable intensity.
> Primitive man, however, lets his evil out continually.
>
> So civilization is not better. We only flatter ourselves. We only like to
> postpone our murderous orgies until we cannot control ourselves
> anymore. Then we do it with much greater passion and efficiency.
>
> Mats Winther
> http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
>
>
In fact, we can observe this phenomenon in black Africa, where the
tribe members are today armed with Kalashnikovs. Killings and mass
rapes go on continuously. Albino children are chopped up and sold as
talismans. In certain parts of the U.S: black gang members are always
engaged in low level wars. Petty crime, and domestic violence, is
commonplace. The white population, however, who think highly of their
level of civilization, solve the problem differently. They cork up
their own evil, until they can start a meaningless war in Iraq, where
a great many people are killed with advanced weapons. Comparatively,
at the outbreak of WWI, people rejoiced when they were sent to war. At
last, they got a chance to do their deed for the evil god. In civilization,
then, the war god is worshipped intermittently, while among primitives,
he is always present, at a lower intensity.
Mats
Matt Tompkins
> Thanks, do you happen to have a few references...you know, so that I can
> pretend that I'm going to have time to read them...;)
I'm afraid I don't really have time to work up a bibliography of
references to early medieval woodland regeneration, but I can suggest
looking at Richard Jones' and Mark Pages' recent book, Medieval
Villages in an English Landscape: Beginnings and Ends (Macclesfield,
2006), as I'm pretty sure it discusses the subject (though admittedly
with specific reference to just Whittlewood forest) and the footnotes
would no doubt lead on to other works.
Matt Tompkins
Weland
Thanks, much appreciated.
VtSkier
To a pretty high degree I think you may be right
when you subtract race and add in the notion of "turf".
Turf can be anything from a piece of land to a
socio-economic status.
Before we screwed things up and invented agriculture,
there was competition but nothing on the scale of
needing to protect a piece of ground because it was
growing our sustenance which we had so carefully
planted a season before.
M Winther
"VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> skrev i meddelandet news:12676416...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
I think it's predicated on our tendency of protecting our
*psychological* turf, while the tilled land can carry this projection.
In the below article, I argue that terrorism, and the even greater
problem of bullying and victimization of our peers, derive from an
archaic psychic economy of 'sin transference'. The weak ego is unable
to carry moral suffering, so it transfers it to others. Obviously,
modern man can sustain moral suffering longer, thanks to his stronger
ego consciousness. However, if the inner darkness is not heeded to, it
will accumulate and become more and more explosive.
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/terror.htm
Civilized Stone Age man, such as the Aztecs and Maya, had the
scapegoating principle institutionalized. The Aztec priest was a
living image of the evil god: "Every day [the Aztec priest] must make
sacrifices of his own blood to the gods, not only from his ears like
the common people, but also by piercing his tongue to offer blood. On
all the the greater ceremonial occasions he cut the calves of his legs
or pierced them with cactus spines, so as to have blood to offer to
the gods. His foreskin was pierced by cactus thorns, and torn until
his penis was surrounded by a fringe of strips of flesh from which
blood could easily be taken....The priest was normally painted with a
black, magical ointment from head to foot...His hair was never cut and
it was stained with splashes of blood from human sacrifices. Nor was
it ever washed, so these strange, black figures were crowned with
untidy masses of of coiling, clotted locks, which apparently smelt
horribly, and were infested with insects." (Burland, C., Forman, W.
(1980). The Aztecs, pp.105-6).
Mats Winther
VtSkier
And all of this manifested AFTER the invention/introduction
of agriculture and corn gods and so forth. You are
supporting my point. Thank you.