Paying For Megalithia (British History)

[Mick Harper]

Let's apply the principle of "What is is what was" properly. In the first place everybody now puts money (not flat stones) into wishing wells and nobody has (in the entire annals of recorded crime) ever jumped in to get the money out. So in principle, as a safe and efficient method of payment, the wishing well has ...er... stood the test of time.

Secondly...."unless there is evidence that it wasn't". The big difference between then and now is that we can afford systems of law and order and pre-literate societies couldn't. Hence, for example, with (US and Continental) motorways, the toll is thrown into a contraption that can easily be bamboozled by the 'flat stone' principle. Hardly anyone takes advantage of this because there is a small but significant chance of being caught.... and that stops everyone doing it. In Megalithic times the whole of society had to be regulated, if it was to survive at all, by people doing what's right on general grounds of morality ie obeying the injunctions of the gods, rather than fear of punishment by man.

However, since you raised the point, the Megalithics placed a corvid at every wishing well which crowed loudly whenever somebody tried to evade payment. And remember tests have shown that corvids can remember individual human beings for up to seven years.

[Hatty]

Hence a 'murder' of crows, as opposed to a parliament, assembly, etc.?

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia

It has often been noted that water sources generally are sacred in pre-Christian religions and 'water sources' impact drovers in two respects. The animals needed constant watering which, especially in the chalk downland of classic Megalithic country, is not always guaranteed; and animals need to be able to cross water. It follows from this that particular places, whether water sources in chalkland or fords across major rivers, became Megalithic centres.

Indeed it seems that these 'centres' go some way to explaining how Megalithia is paid for at the macro level, that is how large-scale projects are paid for, something that is necessary alongside the smaller-scale day-to-day maintenance of the system paid for via tolls. If we take a simple ford and examine how infrastructure grows from there over time we can re-create how a Megalithic complex can arise quite naturally.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia

First of all there is no such thing as a 'simple ford'. Rivers are forever altering their course, through the year as well as over the longer term, so there is always a requirement for some form of human intervention to keep a given ford operating. This is quite apart from the need for toll collection. Plus, the concentration of traffic at a single point means that economic activity in the vicinity is highly likely.

With specialists settled permanently in one place for particular purposes there are the ingredients for considerable technical developments by the application of what is readily to hand, starting with hydraulics since the control of the rate of flow is critical. But there is a complication: the Megalithic system, that is the straight line system, means that fords are required in places that nature might not necessarily agree with so the construction of fords, and the maintenance of 'unnaturally' sited ones, is likely to involve some basic terraforming techniques.

We tend to associate large civil engineering projects with advanced science-and-technology even though we know from their monuments that the Ancients went in for some pretty 'big stuff' too. But if we accept that for thousands of years the Ancients had a practical need for substantial hydraulic and terraforming schemes it may help us to adjust our appreciation of what the Megalithics really were capable of.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

All chalk and limestone landscapes should be looked at afresh in the light of Megalithic activity, as should the course of rivers. Many 'natural' riverine features may not be what they seem--for instance, an eyot may well be a Megalithic construction since British rivers are not normally of the type that have islands in them. Thus it can be inferred that eyots are for the purpose of river control or to make crossing easier.

Any mention of a ferry on maps should lead to an investigation of their history and, while this will hardly ever go back beyond Domesday, various names of Megalithic significance will be thrown up along the way: particular saints, monastic orders, prominent families, pub signs and so forth.

Fords and artificial islands are ways of controlling the flow of the river which in turn allows the building of mills. This is not in itself Megalithic--one mill suggests the presence of a miller, two mills suggests an industrial complex--though every watermill requires some intervention in the ordinary running of a river and while that intervention might have taken place a long, long time ago the effect on the river might still be there.

[Mick Harper]

The Rolling Stones, who from their name are clearly Modern Megalithics, made sure of world conquest by first appearing on an eyot, Eel Pie Island.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

Once a local regime of water control is established it follows that economic exploitation based on water control is likely. The one that crops up most often in historical accounts is the fulling mill though textile works need access to water for virtually all processes.

But the Megalithics have always been associated with the textile industry, not just because of the usefulness of flowing water, but in the control over the salt trade and alum works. The original impetus however derives from Megalithic long distance trade: firstly in the need for sails in the shipping business (leather and then cloth) and secondly because worked textiles are the sort of high value, low weight goods that can be carried over long distances and which have a universal demand in otherwise relatively undeveloped economies.

The mere existence of people permanently and professionally gathered to control water means that weirs and fish traps are likely to become Megalithic specialities. The transport of dried fish in large volumes becomes a lucrative industry as soon as the catchers-of-fish become fishers of men and can dictate that only fish may be eaten on high days and holidays. Yet another example of a modern religious practice being but a survival from Megalithic imperium.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

But why aren't the locals taking over these obviously useful and profitable enterprises? How do the Megalithics stay in control over the long haul? In relatively primitive economies--where literacy is not present being the rule-of-thumb--the state, being without a bureacracy, is not strong enough itself to provide capital intensive services nor to protect its own citizens to provide them on its behalf.

These services really are difficult to provide. Even the Romans blanched at the requirements of feeding the population of Rome and were obliged to entrust the task to the neo-Megalithic 'Equites' who organised a Mediterranean-wide system of corn imports.* .In Britain the absolutely critical Medieval wool trade had to be handed over to various equally 'Megalithic' organisations from the Cistercians to the Merchants of the Staple, who were able to dictate English economic and foreign policy for long periods.

But why? How? What is it about Megalithic-type organisations that allow them to survive not only the the vicissitudes of trade but often enough the downright hostility of the local governmnt and people?** It is all a question of two things: capital accumulation and long-term security.

*The Equites ran Rome during the time when the Megalithic Etruscans were in charge.

** Medieval Jewry used Megalithic principles too.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

How did the Megalithics aggregate capital? We can turn to the later Megalithics, of the literate era, to see how it was done. How did the Cistercians and the Knights Templar aggregate capital? The primary way was that they aggregated labour! Or to put it another way, they used labour as capital. Most human beings use their labour either to enrich themselves or to support their families and hence capital arises, if at all, in tiny amounts as savings. Profits are always small because the work force, whether it is the family or employed labour, has to be paid 'normal' amounts.

These accrued savings are normally dissipated in capital projects, like larger houses, that are non-productive but even if some 'capitalist'-minded individual decides to re-invest profits into the business the process dies when he dies and the capital passes to a not-very-capitalist-minded heir. Forgoing present consumption, except to allow one's children to enjoy present consumption, does not come naturally to human beings.

None of these factors apply to Cistercians or Templars, who managed to persuade significant numbers of people to eschew the enrichment principle, either as regards themselves (the vow of poverty) or their family (the vow of chastity). Hence profits are both immense and continually passed on to people foresworn to the same principles. The question that is inescapable to us is how this 'trick' was managed. But of course we do not need such organisations (having invented the joint-stock company) so the proper question to ask is 'what sections of the community can be readily mobilised to aggregate capital whenever it is the only way of doing it?'

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

It only requires an examination of the kinds of people who joined monasteries and knightly orders to work out that certain sections of the population--homosexuals, intellectuals, younger sons, religious and militaristic fanatics--are always available to be mobilised. It turns out that a surprisingly small proportion of the overall population is required to operate quite a sophisticated capital-aggregating economy, such is the efficiency of these organisations, although it should also be acknowledged that these 'marginal' people are principally from the upper echelons. It would seem that such is the attraction of this general way of life that applicants would, as it were, be required to bring something to the table.

Once the enterprises are in full swing, the profits from those enterprises are being constantly re-invested because there is no place for the profits to go. Unlike the family firm (including the largest of family firms, the dynastic state) there is little temptation to spend income on conspicuous display and other non-productive expenditure over and above that which is necessary to convince locals as to the worthiness of the organisation. Actually, the sheer amount of profit soon becomes something of a problem and a mad franchising system is entered into as, for instance, new Cistercian houses get budded off or the Templars set up fresh preceptories in virgin territories.

[nemesis8]

My instinct is saying that on the basis of what's gone before, control through storage and distribution of grain is important, yet you have hinted at it, without really discussing it.

Maybe I am too orthodox?

[Mick Harper]

No. Grain is much too bulky and much too widely grown and consumed to be of any interest to Megalithics. Feeding Rome is a special case. However, tolls may be important since large quantities of grain were exported by Iron Age Britain.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

An essential element of Megalithia is the voluntary nature of all commitments entered into. This is not a moral or ideological matter, it is only that Megalithia lacks the kind of local power that permits force to be used -- or at any rate, makes its exercise inadvisable. By contrast, literate bureaucratic states can use force to set up equivalent systems based either on slavery (slaves are of necessity subject to the vows of poverty and non-celibacy produces only more slaves) or on compulsory taxation (whereby the citizenry are obliged to be a little bit poorer and marry later than they ordinarily would).

The Romans were particularly successful because they introduced a thrid factor, a 'working' army (soldiers are de facto poor and celibate) to build large capital projects in the form of strategic roads, aqueducts, colonies, cities and so forth. It might also be said that the army was employed essentially in giant slave raids which is what Imperial foreign policy seems to have amounted to a lot of the time.

More modest literate states have the power to enforce a modified form of slavery known as serfdom where, though neither poverty nor celibacy is present, there is at least enough 'force' available to get the most meagre local capital projects--rudimentary roads, bridges, corn mills--up and running using forced labour. But this is small beer compared to the wonders that can be wrought by a Cistercian monastery in terms of turning entire barren landscapes into highly profitable farmland in quick order.

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

But the Cistercians, and all similar outfits of the literate era, ran into a problem that Megalithia must have solved. No matter how enthusiastic the uptake during the early stages these voluntary organisations soon gave way to the human failings of sloth, personal financial gain and (according to all the records) widespread non-celibacy.

It is true that, by the time this stage is reached, these organisations can afford to employ vast numbers of 'lay brothers' but lay brothers are merely ordinary employees rebadged which means, in so far as these monasteries or preceptories or whatever outward form they take are capital-accruing machines, they are little different from senatorial latifundia or gentry estates. There is nothing distinctly 'Megalithic' about them, they are no longer revolutionary forces in terms of either local or national development.

Megalithia itself lasted at least three thousand years so the question of how it avoided this apparently Iron Law of Decay remains to be answered

[Mick Harper]

Paying for Megalithia (cont)

There are two things about Megalithia that should help us to answer this question: 1) nothing much happened in the four and a half thousand years (4,500 to 0 BC) when Megalithia dominated north-west Europe and 2) literacy, though theoretically available during most of that time, never got established.

Not only are these two features presumably connected but they point to those operating the system having enough power to keep themselves 'in office' even when they are no longer serving any developmental function. It would be as if the Cistercians or the Templars could continue indefinitely without worrying about the state or the papacy ever curtailing their privileges. The only possible conclusion to draw is that the Megalithics were a secular priesthood able to control the temporal powers, perhaps on the model of the Ancient Egyptian priesthood. Such unalloyed power never lacks for recruits.

And yet this surely cannot be enough. It is reasonably clear that even down to the Druids there was a scientific and intellectual basis to the otherwise mundane world of ordering trade and capital accumulation, witness the astronomical level reached in the larger stone circles. What is harder to understand is that this scientific and intellectual product seems to have no relevance to the actual demands of trade and capital. This is perhaps the price paid for an independently powerful intellegentsia, what they find interesting is not necessarily what the rest of society needs. But again, as we know, science for science's sake is an ever beguiling-beacon to the brightest if not the best.

The difference between the modern world where science and technology are interwoven and hence development is breakneck and the world of Egyptian or Megalithic priesthoods where essentially there is no technology save that for tasks only of relevance to the prieshood is obvious enough. What is also obvious is that the latter can easily enough arrange for their own infinite survival, and can be overthrown only by an external power with a different set of imperatives.

[Here endeth Paying for Megalithia. A new chapter, Folk Customs, will begin serialisation next week.]