Science, Animals and Nature
People often think it ridiculous that animals can have feelings or that they might possess the ability to reason. We are taught not to anthropomorphize animals, and chided for ascribing emotional motives to an animal's behavior. Animals are not to be seen as blindly acting out of instinct in all situations. Most animal lovers know this to be inaccurate. Yet even the most confirmed among that group usually has some degree of conditioned bias against other forms of life. Why is it that, unlike indigenous people, modern humans view animals and other life forms as inferior ? Some who has researched this question point to the development of alphabets and written language and the concurrent demise of oral traditions as the essential point of departure between ancient and modern culture. They argue that the development of written language inserted a wedge between humans and the rest of nature, leading to our current state of alienation.
I find the explanation of archeologist Marija Gimbutas more convincing9. Gimbutas documents the rise and eventual dominance of a marauding culture, though to be Kurdish in origin, that invaded Old Europe from the northern desert starting about 7, 000 years ago. She identifies the impetus for this invasion as a severe drought in the north (documented in the archeological records) that led to a migration and conquest on the part of the drought survivors. This marauding culture superseded almost every aspect of the peaceful, egalitarian, nature-worshipping cultures that prevailed in Old Europe during prehistory. It eventually spread to other continents, shifting worldwide values and beliefs toward exploitation of animals and the rest of nature.
In her book, Kohanov dismisses the idea of this invasion of Kurdish horsemen based on her assessment of the Kurdish culture. She feel it is unlikely that the Kurds would have done such a thing and ascribes the shift from the goddess religions to patriarchy as being the result of the rise of settled agriculture. Kohanov is concerned that nomadic horse cultures not be stereotyped as destructive and patriarchal, and that is a good point. She is also concerned that the horse not be blamed for the fall of the goddess societies, the idea being that without horses the invaders might not have been so successful.
I share her concern about that; I love horses and don't want them to be the bad guys of prehistory. However, if one studies the body of Gimbutas's work and the excellent archeological data contained in Marler's work, From the Realm of the Ancestors: An Anthology in Honor of Marija Gimbutas, the data are pretty conclusive. Through the analysis of artifacts, architecture, radiocarbon dating, and DNA testing, it is evident that there was an invading culture from the north that superseded the prevailing cultures of Old Europe. Settled agriculture persisted for thousands of years within the goddess cultures of Old Europe. These cultures were only destroyed when exposed to the marauding or patriarchal culture that came from the north. I don't think one needs to paint all of the nomadic horse cultures with the same brush, but it seems undeniable based on the archeological evidence that at least some faction of this culture went amok sometimes about 7, 000 years ago.
It has been written, in another room of the forum that Kurds are oppressed since 6000 years… But if we follow that thesis of Kurdish Horsemen invading Old Europe, so all the Western World can complain being oppressed by 'Kurdish Warriors' Culture' since 7, 000 years. Is that not funny ?
BTW, if that is true, Kurds should ask royalties to James Cameron who stole their own history for writing Avatar…
