Many societies have had the idea that the universe or reality was hatched from some sort of ‘cosmic egg’. In a beautiful version of this story from Finland, the egg breaks in half, with the the top becoming the sky, the bottom the land, the yolk the sun and the white the moon. The ancient Greeks had the ‘Orphic Egg’ from which the god Phanes hatched, a deity of procreation and new life, a bringer of light to the cosmos, and a possible ancestor of Lucifer.
Our own society was hatched from those old Greek eggs, as well, although we often underestimate these days just how much of our understanding and view of the world is still essentially a Greco-Roman one. When Europe burst onto the world stage as a major player and not just a provincial backwater, in the centuries after the conquests of the Americas, elites looked back to the powerful civilisations of Europe that had gone before upon which to build and justify their claim to world domination. It was important to legitimise their lust for wealth and destruction of other peoples and cultures by insisting that European philosophy, art, technology and religion were the epitome of human products. In that way, we could pretend that we were ‘doing them a favour’ in annihilating these people and their societies.
But how much of this was anywhere near the truth? There is no doubt that Greco-Roman culture produced immensely beautiful and unique art and architecture, and also significant philosophy and ‘science’ (although that is a modern term). None of it appeared from out of a vacuum, though, and most was built upon firm foundations laid by ancient Asian and North African civilisations. But the Greeks in their writings of all kinds were trying to establish themselves in opposition to these great cultures to the east and the south, especially the Persians.
The Romans built upon this legacy, admiring the Greeks and picking up much of their aesthetic and philosophical sense from them. In Republican Rome, the principal enemy was the huge maritime power of Carthage (based in modern-day Tunisia), and when Rome finally crushed and destroyed that civilisation, it demonised the Carthaginians as monstrous barbarians, while eradicating entirely any histories that the Carthaginians might have left themselves. Both Greek and Roman traditions insisted upon the corruption, ‘effeminacy’ and sycophancy of eastern and southern peoples, who were characterised as glutted and spoiled with wealth and who prostrated themselves before great kings. When European empire-builders came to write histories in the 19th century, they not only picked up these Greek and Roman biases, but in fact made the dividing lines between the ‘Classical World’ and the rest of the ancient civilisations even more definite.
As early as the Crusades, travellers to the eastern Mediterranean region encountered the written works of the ancients, preserved by Arabic-speaking scholars who had continued to pursue the philosophy, science and mathematics they found in them. In the Renaissance (14th-17th centuries in Europe), great works of sculpture from the Greek and Roman periods were unearthed as cities were expanded and rebuilt. Dazzlingly lifelike compared to Medieval artforms, these and the texts might indeed appear to be the work of superior beings. Moreover, they were European in origin. Although made by pagan hands, which horrified some Christians, the art, architecture, drama and thought of the Classical world became the basis of Western culture.
And so it makes perfect sense that the empires that we created would share the Classical values of slave ownership, misogyny and prejudice. If, indeed, our Classical forebears were so wise, talented, even perfect (except for their paganism), then it would be heretical not to build a civilisation on slavery and inequality, and to insist, just as the Romans had (about our Northern European ancestors, no less!), that theirs was a civilising mission, and one that could now also bring the light of Christianity as well as that of Phanes. We are killing them in their millions, but we are saving them for God! I’m sure all those Africans, Americans and Indians were grateful for that.
Right into the 20th century, if you wanted to make a building have gravitas and authority, you based its design on Classical forms of architecture, and probably placed a Latin inscription upon it. So many of our great public buildings in Classical style were also built with money derived from slavery. Philosophy and medicine were based on works by Aristotle and Hippocrates. Early on, modern medicine had to struggle hard against the theory of the humours. The value of works of art was judged by their resemblance to real-life objects and forms. It was not until the works of colonised peoples and distant cultures, like Benin or Japan, flooded into Europe, that modern art began to dismantle these judgments and strive for another kind of representation and another kind of reality.
These attitudes run so deep, and the version of history where the Greeks invented everything good and the Romans promoted it and stamped it out all over the ‘known world’ (a lie in itself, Rome knew perfectly well that India and China existed), is so exclusively presented as the truth, that it can be hard to even find out about the wonderful, colourful, wise, violent and dynamic cultures that have always existed as well. We are still using this myth to justify our quest for world domination long after the pink bits of the map have been painted other colours. We are still insisting that this model is morally superior and that therefore, so are ‘we’.
I liked David Olusaga’s episode of Civilisations: ‘First Contact’ for a taste of the multi-coloured world that has always existed, and this link is interesting and can lead you on to more information on this subject:
I’m inspired to write today by some new work by my fave thinker of the moment, David Graeber and his colleague David Wengrow (‘How to Change the Course of Human History’, Eurozine). Do read the article if you have time and inclination, you can find it here. It’s a fascinating re-examination of human ‘history’ (scare quotes since most of our past is ‘prehistory’, and the authors call for more archaeological evidence and less theory to be brought into the narrative of the human past), much richer and more complex than the simplified narrative of the past that I was taught at Oxford. Of course, the constant expansion of our knowledge about the past is a factor – when I was studying in the 2000s, no-one had yet discovered that we interbred with Neanderthals or Denisovans, for example. Scientific advances and the expansion of archaeological investigations into previously unexplored regions mean that our story of the past is always changing. That’s one of the reasons it’s an exciting topic, but also a cautionary lesson in how to present knowledge in any subject. Every single documentary about anything should be constantly repeating ‘as far as we know right now’ after every assertion, until we are driven crazy by it.
It’s much easier to break down the information we gain from looking at the universe into discrete chunks, and this may in fact be the way our minds work. It may be useless and even fatal in survival situations to see a big, rich, complex picture. Imposing simpler structures and discontinuous thinking onto the astoundingly complex ‘real world’ is perhaps the only way to begin to exercise some control over it. In the story of our past, this translates into the ‘evolution of culture’.
That story goes: from the time before our species, Homo sapiens, evolved (about 200,000 years ago), people lived in small mobile bands composed of extended family groups, and hunted and gathered. Although our species and previous species (Homo erectus and Neanderthals) had spread over much of the face of the Earth, often crossing open ocean to do so, it is often proposed that these people did not have fully evolved minds or language (but see here). This has generally been assumed to be the case because of an ‘explosion of culture’ observable in the archaeological record of Europe in particular, around 40,000 years ago. Cave paintings, statuettes, a huge variety of new and specialised tools appear, including needles, which allow people to make tailored clothing and expand into colder regions.
Life goes on for another 30,000 years or so until the climate settles down and the pattern of seasons that we are familiar with today makes the invention of farming possible. Farming makes people stop moving around, in order to guard their farms, crops and the surpluses of food which are the whole point of farming. Property and the assertion of ownership become important, and for the first time inherited status and wealth appear. This paves the way from 6000 years or so ago for the invention of ‘states’ – societies which build cities and have extreme variations of wealth and status and clear division of labour. The surpluses generated by states allow them to sponsor full-time craftspeople, architects, priests and administrators. The latter invent writing systems in order to keep track of trade and payments, and then realise that writing can also be used for other purposes – art, religion, history.
Then history starts and according to received Western wisdom, we get various civilisations in Central and Western Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean for a while until – phew! the Greeks come along and everything really gets going. From there, aside from a little dent in progress for a thousand years or so after the Romans, we have a clear line of development to the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. We know that there was something going on in China, something going on in the Americas – but these people were not the ‘winners’ in global history at this time and so they don’t deserve much space in the narrative.
It’s a nice simple story and it’s reassuring – we are making progress! Yay, go us! It conveniently bypasses all the complexity and inter-connectedness that make up real human life and real human ‘history’. It completely ignores the very real consequences of this ‘progress’ to people crushed and eradicated by it, to the environment and to the physical and mental health of even the ‘winners’ of history – those of us who live inside the modern states which lie at the end of the story. Graeber and Wengrow seek to put the complexity back in. Theirs is a political argument as much as an archaeological/anthropological one and in dissolving the categories in the ‘evolutionary’ version of our past they bring up some interesting examples such as some very rich burials from the Ice Age (Sunghir, for example) which speak of heirarchies of some kind long before farming proper, as well as the remarkable site of Göbekli Tepe, now becoming very well known.
Farming itself is not a sudden invention, and the authors assert that it often takes up to 3000 years to take firm hold in the regions into which it disseminates. Techniques of farming and settled life were not a new ‘invention’ – people did and still do come together and settle down for a season to exploit salmon runs, herd migrations or vegetable bounties such as acorns or grasses before separating again into more mobile bands for the rest of the year. As they travel, many mobile peoples modify their landscapes, opening up space for their preferred food plants to grow, spreading seeds along their paths, making clearings to attract game animals.
And those people who preferred not to become farmers, herders, city dwellers? They are not ‘primitive’ peoples, they have had just as much cultural evolution as the most ‘sophisticated’ tech-savvy, supermarket-dependent wage-slave in any city in the world. At the end of this programme on Radio 4 recently, it’s suggested that these peoples are the ones with the more robust ways of life, perhaps the peoples with the right idea about the good life – anthropologist Marshall Sahlins once called hunter-gatherers ‘the original affluent society’. But calling such people and their life ways ‘primitive’ allows us to exploit and destroy them and not feel too bad about it. Just like during that wonderful ‘civilising’ project, the British Empire, we are really doing them all a favour.
If we lose the richness and complexity of human life, we risk the dangers of any form of ‘monoculture’. We may all be swept away by the same disease, by the same financial crash, by the same war. We become weaker and paler, more domesticated and docile. We are no longer challenged by difference and we can self-justify whatever we want because no other evidence exists any longer. That, of course, is not the main reason why we should respect other people’s cultures and choices. No, we should do that because it the real hallmark of civility and progress away from barbarity.