Strange Google Earth Anomaly Spotted Near Sacred Palpa Lines

From 'street view' to 'historical imagery,' Google Earth is a remarkably powerful, wonderfully accessible technology, that has enriched our lives immensely.  As an archaeologist, I also can readily attest to its usefulness.  When compiling the required forms, reports, and presentations, before, during, and after any professional archaeological investigation, Google Earth is an essential tool in my arsenal.  The big bonus: It's also extremely fun to play with!!

One of my favorite ways to use Google Earth, is visiting world famous archaeological sites that I would like to 'see' in person. Virtual tours of the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, Baalbek, and Gobekli Tepe, etc., are endlessly fascinating.  Google Earth also provides a means to observe the horrible extent of the damage, which has been done to the archaeological record, in different areas of the world, by looters and their illicit activities.  Eventually, this normally turns into searching for possible, previously undiscovered, archaeological sites, another fun use of Google Earth.

Bearing all this in mind, a couple nights ago I was specifically looking at the ancient, enormous, zoomorphic, phytomorphic, and geometric drawings known collectively as the Palpa Lines.  Like their more famous (but less abundant) cousins the Nazca Lines, the Palpa Lines are located in  Peru, and many are approximately 3,000 years old.

The Palpa Lines display a greater profusion of human forms than the Nazca Lines, including the Familia Real de Paracas (Royal Family of Paracas, shown above), a group of eight figures on a hillside.  Created by the ancient Paracas people, it is estimated that there are 1,600 or more of these carvings.  According to an (less than scholarly) article I recently read, archaeologists have not yet mapped them all.  That information got me curious, and soon I was hovering over Peru with my mouse, finding all kinds of neat stuff (The Solar Clock, shown below).

The Paracas culture was an Andean society between approximately 800 BCE and 100 BCE, with an extensive knowledge of irrigation and water management and significant contributions in the textile arts. It was located in what today is the Ica Region of Peru. Most information about the lives of the Paracas people comes from excavations by the Peruvian archaeologist Julio Tello in the 1920s.  The ancient Paracas people have gained contemporary fame due in large part to the popular television show Ancient Aliens, which has often featured recovered Paracan elongated skulls, as "evidence of alien/human contact in the remote past."

**Author's Note:  Due in some part to this adoption of elongated skulls as an 'alien motif' by ufologists, pseudo-archaeologists, and other amateurs. actual scientists are reluctant to take up the study of the subject of prehistoric cranial deformation.  This is unfortunate, because its global occurrence among prehistoric populations remains a legitimate archaeological/scientific mystery. Remains displaying cranial deformation of various shapes and sizes have been found all over the world, from Peru and Mexico and the Pacific Northwest to ancient Egypt and China and beyond, even on remote islands, but they are not particularly common in museums around the world. At the local museums along the southern desert coast of Peru, particularly the anthropological museum in Ica, elongated skulls and even complete mummies of these people are displayed. Similarly, statues with elongated skulls of the Atonists can be seen at the Cairo Archaeological Museum. Other museums, in Malta, Turkey, Iraq, Korea, Bolivia, Mexico, and elsewhere, have skulls with some sort of cranial deformation on exhibit. Many of the existing specimens, however, are not on display, often due to obvious reasons, e.g. legal, cultural sensitivity.**

While using Google Earth to search the mountains near Palpa for possible undiscovered geometric drawings, I inadvertently came across a strange anomaly, in the form of an approximately 100 ft. x 50 ft., green, glowing, oval...something???  I'll walk you through it simply, and you can go see for yourselves.

First, start Google Earth.  When loaded, type "Palpa, Ica, Peru" into the search bar in the upper left corner of your screen.  Next, click the little magnifying glass at the end of the search bar to "Begin search," and Google Earth will zoom you to a point where your screen looks exactly like the photo above.  Next, you want to travel directly 'east' just a bit (multiple methods, user friendly), until your screen looks like the photo below.  The circled area is the interesting part.

If you double-click anywhere within the area I have circled, Google Earth will zoom in further, and the anomaly will appear.  You can also zoom in and out using the scrolling wheel on your mouse, or keep double clicking until it is the size you want to view.

So there it is, but what is it?  Is it a camera glitch, solid object, gaseous cloud, in the air, or on the ground?  Why is it green and glowing, appearing to diffuse at the edges?  I have no clue.  I leave it to you at this point.  Have fun!  I'm off looking for lost cities in Saudi Arabia 😃.

RM

White Supremacy And The Imaginary Other

As an anthropologist, my biggest takeaways from the study of other cultures are a deeper understanding of my own culture and traditions, of the world in general, and myself as a human being.  Archaeological and anthropological investigation reveal that all human societies, historical and modern, face similar problems and situations.  Looking through the lenses of other cultures, the anthropologist finds a storehouse of alternatives in the way these universal problems can be and have been approached. 

Given such understanding, it's virtually impossible not to acquire a nuanced appreciation for diversity.  Diversity is the well-spring of human creativity, and creative solutions are what define us and sustain us as a species.  For this reason, scientists like myself greatly value and are seriously interested in diversity.  Wondrous variety is our candy store, and we are indeed grateful to understand that in all populations there exists variation, and variation within that variation.

Regardless of how well we understand variation, we are all, scientist and layman alike, biased to one degree or another by the cultural lens through which we draw our own frames of reference.  This tendency toward bias is known as 'ethnocentrism', or 'judging another society by your own values and standards.'  Unlike anthropologists, a great swath of humanity does not get its exposure to other cultures via direct experience.  

Not everyone is anthropologically inclined, and few reside outside their borders beyond military service or infrequent vacations.  Rather, they choose more familiar, comfortable routes: entertainment in the form of movies, television shows (and commercials), the Internet and/or "fair and balanced news."  Unfortunately, this also facilitates the perpetuation of stereotypes, and often provides the audience with extremely inaccurate portrayals of other cultures; not to mention its potential for innumerable forms of propaganda.  

When observing or describing culture, one thing that all anthropologists do is look for cultural patterns.  I've noticed a particular disturbing pattern of ethnocentrism in the form of a familiar Hollywood trope.  Michael Dorris published an article in the New York Times, on February 24, 1991, about the popular Oscar winning film Dances With Wolves.  Excerpts from the article,  Indians in Aspic, illuminate this subject brilliantly: 

"The Sioux and Lieut. John Dunbar, the character enthusiastically played by Kevin Costner in "Dances With Wolves," meet auspiciously: He's naked, and that so disconcerts a group of mounted warriors that the naive young soldier lives to tell the tale, a sort of Boy Scout Order of the Arrow ritual carried to the nth power.  Dunbar, renamed Dances With Wolves, quickly earns merit badges in Pawnee-bashing and animal telepathy, and marries Stands With a Fist (Mary McDonnell), a passionate young widow who just happens to be a white captive cum Campfire Girl of impressive cross-cultural accomplishments.  Eventually the "With" family strikes out on their own -- the nucleus of a handsome new Anglo tribe -- sadder, wiser and certainly more sensitive as a result of their native American immersion."

 "Mr. Costner follows in a long tradition of literary and cinematic heroes who have discovered Indians. Robinson Crusoe did it off the coast of Brazil, Natty Bumppo did it in New York State and everyone from Debra Paget ("Broken Arrow," 1950) and Natalie Wood ("The Searchers," 1956) to Dustin Hoffman ("Little Big Man," 1970) and Richard Harris ("A Man Called Horse," 1970) has done it in Hollywood.  Usually these visits do not bode well for the aboriginal hosts -- just ask the Mohicans. Appreciative white folks always seem to show up shortly before the cavalry (who are often looking for them) or Manifest Destiny, and record the final days of peace before the tribe is annihilated. "

"Readers and viewers of such sagas are left with a predominant emotion of regret for a golden age now but a faint memory. In the imaginary mass media world of neat beginnings, middles and ends, American Indian society, whatever its virtues and fascinations as an arena for Euro-American consciousness-raising, is definitely past tense.  Thematically virtually all of these works share a subtle or not so subtle message: Indians may be poor, they may at first seem strange or forbidding or primitive, but by golly once you get to know them they have a thing or two to teach us about The Meaning of Life."

  

"The tradition goes back a long way. Europeans like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl May (the turn-of-this-century novelist whose books, a mixture of Louis L'Amour and the Hardy Boys, have been a rite of passage for generations of German youth) laid out a single range for Indians to inhabit: savage-savage to noble-savage. Indians embody the concept of "the other" -- a foreign, exotic, even cartoonish panorama against which "modern" (that is, white) men can measure and test themselves, and eventually, having proved their mettle in battle, be dubbed as natural leaders by their hosts...." 

 "...Dunbar is our national myth's 'every-man' -- handsome, sensitive, flexible, right-thinking. He passes the test of the frontier, out-Indians the Indians, achieves a pure soul by encountering and surmounting the wilderness. Yet, if "Dances With Wolves" had been about people who happen to be Indians, rather than about Indians (uniformly stoic, brave, nasty to their enemies, nice to their friends), it might have stood a better chance of acting as a bridge between societies that have for too long woodenly characterized each other.

Native Americans have been cast as the 'Imaginary Other' many times, for many years.  It's hardly necessary to list examples.  Most of us have vivid memories of dozens of movies, and television shows throughout our lives, that promote this very stereotype.  A pattern of this strain of ethnocentrism was also discussed, in the form of a familiar Hollywood trope:

Consider the popular film The Last Samurai.  In a nutshell, Tom Cruise (our national myth's 'every-man' -- handsome, sensitive, flexible, right-thinking) plays Nathan Algren, a disillusioned civil war veteran hired to kill the samurai.  Algren is instead captured by the Samurai after an auspicious meeting involving a 'mystical sign' in the form of an interpreted vision.

He soon falls in love with a Japanese woman, a passionate young widow of a man he recently killed, and becomes infatuated with their lifestyle.  Algren quickly earns merit badges in speaking Japanese, and ninja-zen samurai combat skills, and eventually switches sides.  He passes the test of honor, out samurais the samurai, and achieves a pure soul by encountering and surmounting the wilderness within himself.  

In the end, Algren returns to the village to be with the Japanese woman (who completely forgives him), having finally found peace in his life, leaving his former existence behind.  As you can see, the Imaginary Other doesn't need to be Native American at all.  They merely need to offer "--a foreign, exotic, even cartoonish panorama against which "modern" (that is, white) men can measure and test themselves, and eventually, having proved their mettle in battle, be dubbed as natural leaders by their hosts...." 

To illustrate this point, let's look at the film Avatar.  Sam Worthington (our national myth's 'every-man' -- handsome, sensitive, flexible, right-thinking...Director James Cameron described him as "being a guy you'd want to have a beer with") plays Jake Sully, a disillusioned, disabled former Marine who becomes part of the Avatar Program. in order to infiltrate the alien Na'vi, on the Planet Pandora, after his twin brother is killed.  Jake's avatar is attacked by a 'thanator' and flees into the forest, where he is rescued by Neytiri, a female Na'vi. Witnessing an auspicious mystical sign, she takes him to her clan, and Scully is initiated into their society.

He soon falls in love with Neytiri, and becomes enamored with the Na'vi lifestyle.  Scully quickly earns merit badges in Eco-terrorism, and Toruk taming (dragon-predators), and eventually switches sides.  He passes the test of the Na'vi Nature Gods, out aliens the aliens, and achieves a pure soul by disdaining the material world and overcoming the destroyer within himself.  

In the end, all humans are expelled from Pandora and sent back to Earth, after which Jake is transferred permanently into his avatar with the aid of the Tree of Souls, returning to Neytiri and leaving his former life behind.  Have you begun to think of other examples yet?  The Imaginary Other takes many forms, but all serve the same function.

**Note** It doesn't escape my notice that these are all examples of practical application of the Hegelian dialectical method.  This is often described as 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' or 'problem, reaction, solution' in the sense that relation between the three abstract terms of the triad, also known as the dialectical method, is summarized in the following way:  (1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition.  Additionally, these are also patent examples of the transformative 'Hero's Journey', an important archetypal mythological narrative. Although extremely relevant to the topic overall, these are discussions for another day, and not the particular angle I'm taking here. - RM

In the film Point Break, Keanu Reeves (our national myth's 'every-man' -- handsome, sensitive, flexible, right-thinking) plays former Ohio State Buckeyes quarterback and rookie FBI Agent Johnny Utah. Utah is assigned to investigate a string of bank robberies by the "Ex-Presidents", a gang of adrenaline-junkie surfers that rob banks while wearing face-masks depicting former US presidents to disguise their true identities. He uses a surfer girl to infiltrate the gang, and after a rocky start, the gang leader auspiciously recognizes Utah as a college football hero.

He soon falls in love with the surfer girl, and becomes intoxicated with the hedonistic thrill seeking lifestyle.  Utah quickly earns merit badges in night surfing, and high altitude, low opening parachute jumping, and eventually switches sides, letting the gang leader escape after a lengthy foot chase.  He passes the tests of the establishment, out extremes the extremists by jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and achieves a pure soul by facing and overcoming his temptations.

In the end, Utah is reunited with the surfer girl, arrests the gang leader, and walks away, throwing his FBI badge into the ocean, leaving his former life behind.  Okay....that's plenty of examples, you get the picture.  Let me get back to the point.

Within all populations there exists variation, and variation within that variation.  When it comes to ethnocentrism, the same holds true.  Ethnocentrism exists on a wide spectrum.  The examples listed above fall somewhere within that 'distribution'/along that line.  When it comes to the portrayal of the Imaginary Other as a means of propping up racial insecurities, the far end of the spectrum looks something like this and/or much much worse:

It shouldn't have escaped your notice that all the films discussed were/are hugely popular.  No doubt all are or will be considered 'classics.'  It's important to understand that one big reason that this type of negative reinforcement and dysfunctional cultural programming is the form our entertainment takes is because it pays!!   As for other reasons....another discussion for another day.

Look....I'm not telling you to stop watching movies.  I'm just making you aware of one small way that your world and reality are being shaped while you do.  Why do I do that?  Because, once you know, you can never go back.  That's important, because problems cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.

We've got all kinds of Imaginary Others out there right now.  They've been foisted onto 'the movie-watching audience' we call 'the right," "conservatives," "evangelicals," and other labels that never seem to catch-all correctly.  I refer also, once again, to the great swath of humanity that does not get its exposure to other cultures via long term direct experience.

You've heard the opening salvos, the rants, and the incrimination against the latest Imaginary Others.  Some are fairly new, others are uncomfortably familiar, like the illustrations above.  It's those "Mexicans, Muslims, and LGBTQ...liberals, the blacks, and don't forget Jews...refugees, women, and Chinese folks tooooooooo!!!"

Some people believe it so much...the myth of the bogeyman Imaginary Other....that they will turn to almost anyone to protect them.  They will embrace lifelong enemies, and compromise their stated principles.  When you encounter these fear mongers, remember the anthropologist's motto:  "Friends Don't Let Friends Be Ethnocentric."

RM

Arid Lands: "A Landscape of Irony and Controversy"

Arid Lands:  "A Landscape of Irony and Controversy"

Arid Lands, by Grant Aaker & Josh Wallaert, is a captivating and provocative film, which chronicles the cultural and geographical transformation of the people and land of eastern Washington’s Columbia Basin.  Excellently crafted, the film remarkably maintains objectivity and balance without voice-over narrative or reflexive intrusion.  Instead, testimonies from 27 interview participants intelligently and thoughtfully weave the story of a “landscape of irony and controversy.”

The documentary opens with a history lesson on America’s ‘progressive’ conquering of the Columbia River.  First the Rock Island Dam was constructed in 1933.  Ten years later, construction began on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation as part of the Manhattan Project, and home to the first plutonium production reactor in the world.  Plutonium enriched at Hanford was used in the very first nuclear bomb, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, which effectively ended World War 2.  Enrichment continued and expanded until the end of the Cold War.  

Today, the Hanford site represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume.  Poor containment and cleanup procedures have resulted in large-scale contamination of surrounding ecosystems.  Subsequently, Hanford is now the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.  In recent years, the federal government has spent about $2 billion annually on the Hanford project.

Population in the area has boomed.  Starting with the influx of the 50,000 workers at Hanford, and increasing as the cleanup funds continued to pour in.  Simultaneously, others migrating to the region around Hanford took advantage of the irrigation potential provided by the hydro-electric dams, and the desert scrub of southeastern Washington soon became an agricultural paradise; much to the chagrin of local small farmers, who suddenly found themselves in competition for water resources.  Most of the modern residents seem nonplussed concerning the dangers of radioactive contamination.  They are primarily concerned with the ultimate fate of the region when the cleanup cash stops coming in, and are attempting to turn the area into a tourist attraction.

Concerning the site itself, it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992, and its first reactor was designated a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service in 2008.  Due to the contamination, and its classification as an historic place, the acreage surrounding the site has been virtually free of further human development/alteration, and the landscape has reverted back to its pre-contact state.  This has rendered the area invaluable for the study of the geology, flora, and fauna by scientific interests.

Arid Lands spotlights a region embroiled in paradox.   While the Department of Energy continues its environmental cleanup efforts, agricultural and real estate development are forever altering the landscape.  Water rights continue to be disputed.  Migrating salmon are forced to re-route past giant hydroelectric dams, and everyone from Native confederations to modern fishermen is pressing for their rights.

From the perspective of visual anthropology, I am impressed by the filmmakers’ ability to present a variety of perspectives in an unbiased, balanced manner.  Rather than inject their personal ideology, take sides, or obviously attack or blame one interview subject over another, they manage to present all of the subjects as sensitive, intelligent, sincere individuals with stories that need to be heard.  Seen through the eyes of everyone from sport fisherman to displaced Native Americans, this approach makes the viewer realize that there are no simple answers to this situation.  The audience is left with a myriad of questions about the immediate situation in Hanford.  When will the cleanup money run out, and what will happen to the area when it does?  What are the long term effects of the contamination on the ecosystem?  Is tourism the answer for Hanford in the future?

In addition, I found myself contemplating larger cultural and anthropological issues after viewing this film.  How do we balance ecology and technology?  What are the true human costs of America’s focus on land development and large scale agriculture?  How much of a role did irrigation originally play in the development of civilization in general?  What are the rights of the original Native inhabitants of the area, now and in the future?


I won’t even pretend to be unbiased here. This film is amazing.  Frankly, I would recommend that it become part of the required public school curriculum at the high school level. Everyone older than that, in my opinion, should watch it as soon as possible.

RM

19th Century Identity Politics And The Collection Of Native American Remains

Last winter, as an elective in my Master's program, I took a course entitled, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Realities of Repatriation.  During the course, I had the fortunate opportunity to read the PhD dissertation of Dr. Abigail Clouse entitled, The Social History of a National Collection: Anthropology, Repatriation and the Politics of Identity.  Clouse utilizes a multi-spatial biographical analysis to effectively argue that collecting Native American human remains in America in the middle-late 19th century was a behavior, committed by individuals and supported by institutions, which primarily developed as an expression of identity by both the individuals involved and the nation as a whole. To weave this tale of the historical interplay of identity politics Clouse chooses to focus on the sub-narratives of several soldier/surgeons and scientists.  Their stories, set against the backdrop of the macro-cosmic national narrative, demonstrate clearly that culture, history, religion, and philosophy are important, describable if-often unquantifiable variables, which must be considered when interpreting any multi-cultural interaction between human beings.

 Prior to, during, and particularly following the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the United States of America was badly in need of and desperately searching for a new national identity.  The catalyst for this new identity came in the unlikely form of James Smithson’s half-million dollar posthumous gift in 1836, and the diligent efforts of the Smithsonian Institution’s first director Joseph Henry, from 1846 – 1878.  It was determined by the powers that be that scientific research and innovation were to constitute the foundation of the new national identity, and the capitol city Washington, D. C. would exemplify this dramatically through the establishment of multiple scientific institutions; all of which existed in a spirit of sharing and cooperation.

At the microcosmic level, following the civil war, the American aristocratic old guard was also facing an identity crisis.  The end of the war brought with it profiteering opportunities and resulted in the rise of a new moneyed class of Americans.  The newcomers were not shy about throwing their recent fortunes around, much to the chagrin of the old elite.  To distinguish themselves amongst their peers, it became popular "to be deeply interested in Science” (p. 42) as a means to demonstrate one’s social and cultural refinement.  These intellectual soldier/surgeons and scientists recovered huge amounts of Native American human remains and artifacts for the capitol city’s scientific institutions, which overlapped perfectly with the goal of those institutions; to adopt a scientific national identity.

These developments also took place during a time when the philosophy of Manifest Destiny was alive and well.  Anthropologists enter the equation and use the collection and study of Native American human remains as a justification for white colonialist expansionist land-use policies. Among other things they genuinely believed that the Native American cultures were going extinct and were attempting to preserve as much as they could; initially for reasons of personal and professional prestige, and later out of a sense of professional responsibility, admiration, and even sympathy.

The “science” of craniology was utilized as the means of classifying Native Americans as “primitive” or “sub-human.”  This resulted in a high scientific demand for Native American skulls, and propped up the view that the Natives were examples of primitive man or “living ancestors.”  The concept of cultural relativity had yet to gain prominence within anthropological circles.

However, the belief in linear progressive evolution was popular.  Anthropologists genuinely thought they were helping Native Americans move “forward” and “progress” toward the evolutionarily “superior” white culture. Also, researchers were extremely interested in “pure” specimens, pre-contact specimens if possible, as they believed there was less “race-mixing” then.  This encouraged collectors to dig up prehistoric burials at an unprecedented rate.

Intellectual elites of the old guard, eager to distinguish themselves as separate from the gaudy materialism of the new moneyed elite and to establish themselves in the eyes of their peers, competed to obtain human remains and artifacts for the museums and institutions.  In return, the agencies were often willing to reimburse expenses, buy specimens, credit the collector/contributor on museum display labels as well as within scientific publications, which they would then circulate and distribute back to the collector/contributors.  The remoteness of frontier military postings made for ideal opportunities for the collection of mass amounts of Native American human remains by soldier/surgeons in particular.

 They were men of science by training, intellectuals by nature, and their dedication to the collection of Native remains was nothing less than obsessive.  They were not even beyond digging up fresh specimens consisting of former patients or acquaintances.  Their persistence is illustrated by the many accounts of Native Americans guarding burials and/or placing burials in remote areas, which were difficult to access.  This is all quite telling with regard to the true scope of the existential crisis facing both the individuals and the nation at the time.

Clouse’s dissertation answered many questions for me.  Before reading it, I was unable to fathom how so many thousands of Native American human remains had been unearthed and stored in various institutions or how and why the collection of those remains (grave-robbing) gained such sweeping social acceptance.  It was behavior practiced by the cultural elites and thus invariably destined for acceptance, promotion, and even emulation.

Clouse’s argument also reminded me that I am an anthropologist who specializes in archaeology; not merely an archaeologist.  It caused me to step back holistically and once again reconsider heuristic categories of cultural development and synchronic snapshot views of cultural change and transformation.  It has reminded me that change is a constant, continuous process affecting everyone and everything, that every new beginning tolls an ending, and that we are all inextricably connected.

Paradoxically, it was somewhat startling to me to initially realize that Clouse’s analysis of 19th century American social identity politics bears an eerie similarity to the current socio-political situation in America in 2016.  The conservative Christian old guard is threatened by a new generation of Progressives and their ideals.  After fifteen years of war against faceless enemies such as “terrorism” and “drugs,” amidst ever-mounting income inequality, and after decades of debacle-filled foreign intervention, Americans as individuals and America as a nation are both desperately seeking to establish an identity in a world that is racing rapidly towards globalization.

 The current racist backlash we are experiencing in the form of right wing tirades against immigration, adherents of Islam, and foreign refugees is one mechanism being used by the old guard today (much as the collection of Native American human remains was to the soldier/scientists of the 19th century) to separate themselves from the growing progressive wave with its policies like marijuana legalization, universal healthcare, and marriage equality.  Simultaneously, the left wing liberals, me included, are using the right’s racist rhetoric as a chance to speak out loudly and proudly against them, possibly accomplishing nothing but securely establishing their own social identity.

RM

Thoughts On The Creation Of The State

*Author's Note:  This post (placed here for sharing and quick reference purposes) comes from a lot of places:  My childhood conversations with my father and other travelers long since passed, my anthropological pedigree, some educated speculation, because I love revealing esoteric wisdom in the form of "what-if" stories, a lifetime of the road less traveled, and a great majority is freely adapted, and/or stolen verbatim from the works of  Manly P. Hall, Hakim Bey, Plato, and others much wiser than I.  Is this how it all happened?  Is this how it really is?  Who knows?! It's just another story...*

The Rise of the State

A long, long time ago (no one remembers precisely who, where, or when) the science of mathematics was discovered by ancient women and men...  

This allowed them to count, organize, integrate, and classify natural phenomena.  They could quantify time, eliminate generalities, increase accuracy and precision, map and find locations, and formulate solutions to problems on multiple analytical and operational scales.  As the universe and its machinations were slowly revealed, it became understood that certain laws and rules normally applied, and that nothing happened through accident.  Effect followed cause as sure as night followed day.  

They soon began to track the movements of celestial bodies, as Astronomy (and Music) was impossible before Math.  Vigilant observation of the stars eventually produced predictable patterns.  In the time lost to history, this combination of applied mathematics and astronomy heralded the formation of what has been described as Astro-theology (astrotheology) and defined by some as "Religion based upon the supporting evidence of Nature."

Natural cycles like the four seasons were recognized and timed.  The zodiac and ecliptic became known.  The 25,920 year precessional cycle was tracked and contemplated.  The universe was recognized as a wonderfully complex network of apparent clockwork precision that was ruled by....what?  

Since humans possess only the ability to investigate the physical properties of reality, eventually it was determined that the physical universe itself is just...a symbol...created and ruled by processes, which are not directly observable,  So, through rigorous contemplation of forces, which were physically observable, it was decided that there must be unseen powers at work influencing the operation of the observable universe/reality.  Natural observations were therefore symbolic representations of invisible realities.  Consequently, morals and values were originally developed based on the symbolic representation of the results of natural examination.

As knowledge increased, those who possessed it quickly understood that power came along with it.  This power could be used for either good or evil purposes, depending upon the inclination of the powerful.  Historically speaking, the misplaced use of power has caused unknowable harm to humankind.  Power (knowledge) in the wrong (unethical) hands, and the temptations that accompany it are obviously potentially quite dangerous.  Like Pandora's box though, once the genie of knowledge is out of the bottle, it can't be put back in again.  To solve this dilemma, certain dedicated ancient scholars with advanced knowledge resolved to keep it, and any new knowledge they obtained, secret until an individual had proven themselves worthy, through trials, tests, and initiations, to receive it.  

These elect custodians of knowledge, these "philosopher-priests," unselfishly believed that knowledge existed only to serve humankind, not as a tool to control and enslave it.  They disdained material wealth and the temptations of the flesh which accompany it.  It was understood that a system must be created and utilized to disseminate knowledge to proven-worthy recipients in a carefully controlled environment, lest the knowledge be lost upon the death of the original custodians, or used in an unethical manner detrimental to humanity at large.  Today, we call this ancient instructional system "the mystery schools."

Neophytes were put through years of progressively rigorous discipline and ethical testing before knowledge would be imparted to them.  Thus it was ensured that knowledge deemed crucial to the advancement of humankind wouldn't be misused through greed, selfishness, or ambition.  To the philosopher-priests of the mysteries, ignorance was defined as the inability to accurately discern right from wrong.  Woe to any who 'dwell in darkness.'  The newly indoctrinated priesthood would then establish their own academies, in order to perpetuate the proper dissemination of the sacred wisdom.

The birth of the State is also shrouded in a certain mystery. Something went wrong somewhere.  The old myths (based on reciprocity & redistribution) collapsed before the power of a new "story" based on separation and accumulation.  However it occurred, eventually a portion of this knowledge became known by the people at large; entering the domain of the profane.  Ambitious, unethical men, lacking both complete knowledge and the wisdom to wield it, created their own systems of religious thought and groups of adherents.  Backed by armies and wealth, they toppled the old power structure.  The mystery schools and their acolytes were forced to relegate themselves to an underground existence, which arguably persists to this day.

The precise instant is lost, although the true State lurches into archaeological view sometime around the 4th millennium BCE in Sumer & Egypt. In both cases the realms of war and religion seem to have coalesced to produce figurative and literal pyramid structures, seemingly impossible to conceive without tribute and/or slavery. The centrifugality of the shamanic social is gradually supplanted by the centripetality of power and wealth until a crisis point is reached.  This results in the catastrophic emergence of a "priest-king" and a nascent bureaucracy, the infallible signs of the true State.

The Problem of Money $$$

Even the most primitive king can only be defined by the creation of scarcity and the accumulation of wealth.  This 'double process' can only be reproduced in symbolization. Generally this means that the king is somehow "sacred" and personally symbolizes the very motion of energy in or between surplus and scarcity. But this motion must be impeded if the energy-transfer can only take crude material form (actual cows or jars of wheat etc.). The essential exchange of protection-for-wealth that defines the true State must be symbolized in order to transcend what might be called the inherent egalitarianism of the material, its recalcitrance, its natural resistance to accumulation. "Protection" moreover has no overt material base, whereas wealth does.  Hence, the State will be at a disadvantage in the exchange unless it can present its power in symbolic (non-material) form, as nothing for something.

In the remote past we can discern money in the symbolic exchange and social construction of the sacrifice. When the tribe grows beyond the point where it can re-create itself in the sharing of a sacrificial animal, for instance, we might surmise that one's "due share" could be symbolized by some token. Once the "spiritual content" of these tokens is transferred to an economic sphere outside the sacrifice, the existence of the tokens would then facilitate the "creation of scarcity" by symbolizing the accumulation of wealth. When the symbolic counters themselves are then symbolized by writing, we can speak not only of money but of banking: the centralization of debt at the socio-religio-political focus of power, the Temple.  Thus money would precede the State in this scenario. To put it crudely, money exists for 4000 years before it mutates into a form that makes possible the emergence of the true State.

If we look to the future, we can see even more clearly that money exists beyond the State. In a situation where money is "free" to move across borders in defiance of all political economy, as in neoliberal free-market internationalism, the State can find itself abandoned by money, and re-defined as a zone of scarcity rather than wealth. The State remains by definition mired in production, while money attains the transcendence of pure symbolization.

The true sleight-of- hand however, lies in the fiat-money machinations of the central banks. When all thrones in the world were hopelessly in debt to their own self-created central banks, the focus of power shifted. When governments resign their ancient role of protection, money breaks free at last.  Governments can now provide only nothing for nothing.  Their power is shattered.

Money, the State, and Religion are all powers of oppression, but not the same power of oppression. In fact, when deployed against each other, they can act as powers of liberation. Money "buys freedom" for example; the populist State can suppress the banks, thus freeing its citizens from "money-power"; and religion has been known to deploy its "higher morality" against both economic and political injustice.

Moreover, the State does not appear all at once in its "absolute" form. If "primitive" societies possess institutions which successfully prevent the emergence of the State, the eventual emergence of the State cannot erase these institutions all at once. The "early" State must still co-exist with "customs and rights" that enable Society to resist its power.  The anthropology of "Society against the State" can be extended to a sociology of historical State systems, where some potent institutions and mythemes work against the total accumulation of power.

Money is also held in check in "pre-modern" cultures, not just in so-called "primitive" societies (where money simply fails to appear), but also in quite complex State systems. "Classical civilizations" such as Mesopotamia, Greece, Mesoamerica, Egypt and even Rome retained structures of redistribution of wealth to some extent, if only as bread and circuses; no one could have conceived of a "free" market in such circumstance, since its obvious inhumanity would have violated every surviving principle of reciprocity, not to mention religious law.

It was left to our glorious modern era to conceive of the State as absolute power, & money as "free" of all social restraint. The result might be called the Capital State: the power of money wedded to the power of war. The State appears to know that it was already secretly beaten long ago (all thrones hopelessly in debt...) and has capitulated without a whimper to the triumph of Mammon. With a few exceptions the nations are now falling all over themselves in their eagerness to "privatize" everything from health to prisons to air and water to consciousness itself. "Protection", the only real excuse for the State's existence, evaporates in every sphere of government's influence, from tariffs to "human rights". The State seems somehow to believe it can renounce not only its vestigial power over money but even its basic functions, and yet survive as an elected occupying army!  Even the US, which boasts of itself as the last and final "superpower", is little more than a mercenary force at the bidding of international Capital, capable only of serving the interests of oil cartels and banks. National borders must survive so that political hirelings can divert taxes to "corporate welfare"; and so that huge profits can be made on arbitrage and currency exchange; and so that labor can be disciplined by "migratory" capital. Otherwise the State retains no real function; everything else is empty ceremony, and the sheer terrorism of the "war on crime" (the State's post-Spectacular war on its own poor and different).

RM

UPDATE:  In his writings, Hakim Bey calls the State the quintessentialization of hierarchy & separation, which can, and must, replicate itself on every level of experience from the individual psyche to the laws of nations (achieved via symbolism/language via the medium of $$ in my example). Bey also describes a situation, WHICH I BELIEVE this anarchist has just experienced. Becoming institutionalized, like religion, the State has simply failed to "go away" In fact, in a bizarre extension of the thesis of "Society against the State", we can even re-imagine the State as in institutional type of "custom & right" which Society can wield (paradoxically) against an even more "final" shape of power, that of "pure Capitalism". 

I feel that this perfectly describes the general election process I just personally went through. Here I find/found myself defending "the State's existence" as the Protector of vulnerable populations...the existence of the State's Protection as 'rights.' Since the State is a force of oppression, the cognitive dissonance becomes obvious. This is where the argument blossoms among the anarchists; and it is also the argument between the ideological conservatives (moderates) and the civilizational conservatives. In the end, I'm forced to conclude that what this argument really boils down to is teleological vs. deontological...restated...whether or not one believes that life possesses intrinsic value. This qualifies my 'horror' of the Christians...supposed to appreciate it all...it's all "God's Creation," yet they have abandoned altruism in droves...teleological vs. deontological...seems to encapsulate the whole ballgame.