This is a question all cultures seem to have shared in the past. It covers both the problem of what was the point of origin of a particular group – how and when they arrived at their present location, and the perhaps more philosophical problem of how did the human race emerge or evolve. .It is the more long-term question of human origins we will look at.
In most traditions there is the common factor of a “creator god,, gods, spirit” responsible for the existence of the world and its inhabitants. There are common factors world-wide in these attempts to explain origins. For one thing we seem as humans to have fallen short of the creator’s expectations. Surprise surprise! In the Old Testament Eve and Cain stand out in this respect. In the Maya tradition the creator found the physical materials – such as mud – were not suitable for the job and a re-make had to take place. Even then all was not well and for one thing the humans made too much noise, and irritated the gods, leading to their own destruction by flood. This method of mass-destruction appears in the Old Testament as well as in many accounts world-wide, including Noah’s Flood and the Greek legend of Deucalion and Pyrrha. In fact flood stories abound world-wide and are borne out by such experts as archaeologists. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that post the last Ice Age episodes could have remained intact in human memory as part of traditional folk lore. In the case of Creation myths of course we are in different territory, and such traditions must be classified as attempts to find a logical explanation for our existence. However, flood myths and accounts of the arrival of the “first settlers” can have a strong factual foundation.
An interesting aspect of many myths is that they tended to be be rejected by scientists, historians, and related experts as yarns to keep the children (and their parents) entertained on long winter nights.. In more recent times, particularly since what one might call “the DNA Revolution”origins of races in many areas have been proved to be in line with traditional tales. Unfortunately our remote ancestors were often lacking in knowledge of correct time sequences, the need to be accurate about names of people and places, the need for accurate statistics – all those boring details which get in the way of a good yarn! So much work has to be done in reconciling accounts. It can be surprising how today’s scientific accounts can be corroborated in ancient tradition. For example in the Irish “Book of the Invasions” accounts are given of the coming of sheep-rearing, the drainage of marshes for agriculture, and other processes now classified by scholars sine the 19th. century.
The probable location of the Garden of Eden has been defined as in Mesopotamia (Iraq). In more recent years the Garden of Eden has acquired a rival in East Africa as the point of origin of Homo Sapiens. For the last few years it has been proposed that modern man emerged from East Africa to spread over the world, over a long period and in fits and starts. More recently the “Out of Africa” theory has been called into question. Personally I have found it hard to accept that the very different racial groups on the various continents could have had a common origin – my own preference would have been for separate development/evolution in each area of the world. But then I am a complete amateur in such matters. One curious thing is that a good deal of the proposed movement out of East Africa would appear to have taken place in the last Ice Age. One would have thought that people living in a warm region would have been inclined to”stay put” rather than moving North? Of course factors such as drought would have caused movement – but with such far-reaching consequences?
The French Impressionist painter Gauguin produced a work whose title has always impressed me more than the painting itself. – namely “D’ou venons-nous? Ou sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?” (“Where have we come from? Where are we? Where are we going?) Three very important questions apply to the human race – ideal questions as they fit into the category of “I’d rather not answer that one!” However our men and women of science have not been deterred from at least having a go.
In response to the first question of “Where have we come from ?” they tell us about our progress or evolution from a more primitive stat to what we are today. We are, I believe, classified not just as representatives of homo sapiens (wise man) but as homo sapiens sapiens – “even wiser man”. (Sorry ladies – don’t blame me for the bias -its the fault of the ancient Romans for not having a word to embrace you too . Perhaps a comment on their culture and civilisation) ? Good at least to know that we have attained the description “wise” in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. How we got there is a matter of interesting debate. Our mentors assure us that we were both preceded and accompanied by less-fortunate humans called Neanderthals, rather unfortunate beings when compared with the intellectual capacity of homo sapiens. (By our standards they didn’t look all that attractive either). Bur in very recent times a change in our superior outlook has taken place. It has been found that thes Neanderthals existed on a much higher level of “civilisation” than previously imagined. More recently it has been discovered through dna and related research that the neanderthals often intermarried with homo sapiens . So thereby ends yet another neat theory. To me that is the great appeal of archaeology and related studies – that you never know from day to day what new discovery or interpretation may sweep the ground from under your feet.
In the nineteenth century the desire to put everything into neatly-classified boxes was applied to our remote ancestors. It was felt that human achievement and progress shoud measured by the increasing sophistication of material objects, such as tools and weapons. (Was this an indication of Victorian – and modern – materialism?) So the terms palaeolithic, mesolithic, neolithic evolved to distinguish between stages of human progress. Likewise the use of metal produced the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages. The weakness of these classifications was that there were often great differences between geographical regions as moved into a new phase. Middle Eastern areas, notably Turkey, could be in the Bronze Age when Northern Europe was still in the Neolithic. People travelled, ideas travelled, but “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” was a powerful argument.
The tendency is to start the study of mankind as we know it today at the time when the Ice Age was substantially coming to an end, 10000-8000 BC. The vast areas of Northern Asia, Europe, and America which had been uninhabitable for so long were becoming capable of bearing trees and plants with accompanying animal population. Humans , for example in Europe , had been concentrated South of the Mediterranean and in pockets further North which had better conditions locally, notably Iberia. The warmer Middle Eastern/West Asian regions were beginning to abandon a hunter-gatherer life-style and to grow crops and herd animals – farming in other words. The first immigrants into Northern Europe followed the hunter-gatherer life-style. Naturally this global warming had beneficial effects world-wide as the Northward movement of plants and animals led to a movement of people from what were probably over-crowded conditions. From around 5000 BC Middle Eastern/Eurasian farmers seem to these Northern areas via Danube and by sea into the British Isles and Western Europe. This may have been occasioned by a change in rain-patterns leading to a shift onto the banks of the rivers Tigris, Euphrates,Indus, and Nile. Those unable to do so had the alternative of moving to cooler moister climates.These early farmers joined the earlier hunter-gatherer population.These newcomers brought with them not only plants,”portable”animals, and farming techniques but also a whole new culture which had a great impact on North-Western Europe – but that, as they say, is another story.
When we read about historical events in a particular place or time, we can miss out on the fact that they may be linked up with events evn thousands of kilometres away during roughly the same period. If we do spot something like this we may be inclined to dismiss it at coincidence, rather than cause and effect, perhaps arising from happenings in another area of the world over roughly the same period.
When there is a large time-gap between events, we may think of “coincidence” or other factors. When they occur reasonably close together in Time, even though widely separated in Space, it may well pay to look for links – perhaps via events in yet another place. In the 19th. century Napoleon invaded Russia with disastrous consequences. In the 20th. century Hitler invaded Russia with similar results. We can dismiss “cause and effect” in favour of other factors such…
View original post 879 more words
In the last two posts we have looked at such questions as rulers changing religious (not to mention political and philosophical) beliefs of their people, and the question of national sovereignty as opposed to perceived national interests. We have used two examples over 3000 years apart – Akhenaten of Egypt and Henry VIII of England. We have looked at the beginnings of an international organization to maintain peace and hopefully enable nations to settle differences as represented by the Western Christian Church, based on Rome, from mediaeval times onwards.
This early organization had its weaknesses. For example it could encourage member states to combine together to make war on a defaulting member or an outsider – not the best if we regard world peace as a Christian ideal. (Crusades). Again, it represented only a proportion of the nations which were within the orbit of the Western European community. Middle Eastern countries and the Byzantine Empire could never be part of the set-up.
However it was a great step forward compared with early history when a powerful nation could create an empire and keep a number of nations in subjection – no question of consultation around the table! Ancient Egypt and later Persia created their areas of influence without the need to refer to an international body, so the Western Christian Church was a big step forward in international affairs. After Spain and Portugal had made their voyages to Central and South America each felt that the world was literally “its oyster”. There was huge potential for conflict between the two, which would have involved other nations as well. Papal intervention ensured that a line could be drawn dividing the huge new tracts of the world now in dispute peacefully between the disputing parties.
Philosophers/Idealists did explore the concept of “world” cooperation and world government from early times. In practical terms it was always regarded as requiring the sacrifice of too much national sovereignty. Every nation could envisage a situation where it might have to sacrifice too much of its independence in the general interest. However there were occasions where cooperation in matters of international trade made it possible to avoid a common cause of war. Even disputes over territory could be settled from time to time by nations meeting together.
The period from the 16th. to the 20th. century had seen the encroachment of Western Europe into all the Continents. Wars of conquest, and wars between would-be conquerors, were frequent and costly. The culmination of all this was the bloodbath of 1914-1918, the First World War – dubbed by some as “The War to End All Wars”. (Interestingly it was also described as “The Great War For Civilization” – did they really believe that?) As a consequence the League of Nations was set up. Sadly The League has been condemned as a failure – but it was a colossal advance in world thinking. It did not stop war. It was condemned for” having no teeth” which sounds an unfair comment on a peaceful body. But a key issue relevant to our discussion was that it must infringe too much on some members’ policies, notably those of the “great dictators”, who found resignation the appropriate answer.
The next attempt at following on from the two earlier international bodies was the United Nations after the Second World War. Again similar problems emerged in countries being frustrated when their policies were called into question. Again, a problem was its location in the USA, the most powerful participant in the War. A location in somewhere neutral and small – as had happened with the League – might have been more easy to accept. As so often sovereignty rears its head, and nations see resignation from the general body as the only solution.
We mentioned earlier the occasional coming-together of nations involved in mutual trade and commerce voluntarily agreeing in policy for their mutual advantage. Three tiny nations, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxemburg formed the Benelux group after the War. The European Coal and Steel Community was formed around the same period for the general good.
Out of all this emerged the Common Market concept, and the European Community. The Vatican , Geneva, New York were succeeded by Brussels (perhaps as a tribute to Benelux origins?) Regulations governing trade, manufacture etc., etc., became perhaps bureaucracy for its own sake in the eyes of many. The concept of breeding a “straight banana”, creation of “lakes” of unwanted milk and butter mountains etc. in a starving world did not appeal to all. Paying farmers not to grow food or to destroy their crops seemed strange to many. No doubt much good was done , but it is always the crazy stuff which makes an impact on “the man in the street”. And it is he who in a democracy has the vote.
One very interesting and hopeful aspect of the European Community was the European Parliament. The concept of moving from cooperation in trade, commerce, manufacture into the political scene was a great step forward. But how did England feel about it all? One indication all along was that England retained the Pound Sterling and did not adopt the Euro. Henry VIII must have been cheering on the sidelines. That was a warning sign that perhaps was ignored – it indicated only conditional support of the project. Again we are faced with an island’s sovereignty, and with a stubborn independence. Western Europe under the unifying influence of the Church, under Napoleon, Hitler, and the European Community is used to a “group concept” – England is not. Confused? Join the club! A Happy Hallowe’en to all.
The time has come to jump just over 3000 years to a more modern European monarch, Henry VIII of England. In yesterday’s post (under same title) we saw how the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten became embroiled in matters of “religion”, an experience shared by his remote successor. The situation in each country was in some respects different. In Egypt the gods were worshipped on a local/national basis. There were differences of opinion between monarchs and high priests, but other nations and foreign policy would not necessarily come into the picture. In Western Christian Europe at the end of the Middle Ages the situation was very different.
When the Roman Empire dissolved and disintegrated during the Dark Ages a unifying force remained – Christianity as embodied in the Western Catholic Church, under a Pope normally based in Rome. This was a civilizing influence under which the evolving states of Western Europe had their being. In theory such an arrangement could keep states on peaceful terms with one another and provide a means of settling differences under Christian principles. Unfortunately theory and practice do not always coincide. The Church became involved in a more militant role in international politics. The Crusades were an example of how war could become an acceptable policy. The Norman invasion of England had the sanction of the Christian Church, as had the later Norman-English incursion into Ireland. As time went on Popes and monarchs were often related to each other and family ties were important in international policy.
England, being an island, naturally had a strong “go it alone” preference. A feature of th 16th. century was the growing wealth and power of emerging nations. France and Spain were major players. But physically small states like England, the Netherlands, and North German states were taking advantage of new opportunities created by the discovery of America to expand their wealth and power. Manufacture and trade were not an invention of modern times! Henry’s father, Henry VII had in the interests of peace and goodwill with Spain arranged a marriage between his son Arthur and a Spanish Princess, Catherine of Aragon. When Arthur died prematurely his younger brother Henry was expected to inherit his wife as well. (Such were royal marriages – more reminiscent of the cattle market than “Mills and Boone”).
Alongside this international and commercial scene were aspects of the Church. Henry VIII was a devout follower of religious practices. The Pope had awarded him the title of “Defender of the Faith”, which he retained to the end of his life – he was in no way a “Protestant”. But there was one aspect of the Church with which Henry did not agree. This was not theological but more administrative – namely the function of the Church as an international body with influence over international relations. England, like other emerging powers was developing an independent outlook. Matters came to a head when Henry responded to pressure from his advisors to remarry and hopefully produce a male heir, which was felt to be vital for England’s continued existence and safety. Since this would break the marriage-based alliance with Spain this was not acceptable to Church policy – or international policy.
Another aspect of the religious set-up was the monastic system. The enormous benefits brought to Europe by the civilizing influence of the monasteries were beginning to be looked at differently as the system was in a process of decline, no longer so necessary and not performing well. But another factor was that monastic administration rested in the hands of authorities in Rome. This went against the growing independent outlook prevalent in England. A third factor, which we have already mentioned in the case of Akhenaten was that the monastic establishments were wealthy and were endowed with large areas of land, which the monarch could use to buy loyalty from his supporters. This entailed a break with the Pope, as representing the international aspects of the Church.
Here a comparison with Akhenaten is timely. Henry had no major quarrel with the Church’s theology. Akhenaten on the other hand created a new theology, the worship of the Sun – Aten. Henry brought the system of churches, clergy, bishops, under his control, making the religious system in England subject to the Crown.. Akhenaten’s changes were of similar nature except that he abolished the traditional deities and replaced them with one God. The system worked in England – the main clash between Church and State in England which springs to mind is the fall of Archbishop Laud in Charles I’s day to parliamentary pressure. It worked because for years afterwards religious practices remained stable . Eventually in England Protestantism gained ground, and in the 1640’s Puritanism emerged for a time as a religious force. In Egypt a conservative people, while accepting apparently the Pharaoh’s system, returned to traditional practices as soon as the monarchy changed. So “hasten slowly” would appear to be the motto where religious changes were contemplated.
An interesting example of an attempt to introduce a new religion occurred in the course of the French Revolution when the government introduced for a time worship of “The Supreme Being”. The traditional Church had already “fallen from grace” so to speak, and this was a palliative, which was short-lived.
Akhenaten’s revolutionary reforms may be a reason why during his reign Egypt was under aggressive pressure from neighbouring states, perhaps not because their religious concepts were being threatened but taking advantage of internal unrest which was bound to exist in Egypt. In the case of England the links between Henry’s break with the Church’s international influence and opposition from the other European states can be easily assumed. Yet too much can be made of “religion” here. Spain’s opposition to England in the years to come, culminating in the Spanish Armada episode in 1588 would have been more due to the clash between England and Spain in the American trade than religious doctrine. Religion is so often a convenient scapegoat for other more mundane issues like trade and commerce.
People tend to be sensitive – and conservative- when it comes to changes in belief and practice being imposed from above – and it does not only apply to religion. Henry and his daughter Elizabeth “kept the brakes on” in matters of religious change. Henry’s son Edward VI, (Tutankhamun’s opposite number), Henry’s daughter Maty Tudor, and later James II forced the pace of change and created serious unrest, as happened in the case of Akenhaten.
Another issue involved could perhaps be best described as sovereignty. We will be looking at that in the third part of this post. This is where international combinations for diplomacy or commerce fit in.