V-cones of Diffusion

Our transitions create a series of diffusion fields (or V-cones) where a high degree of sequential dependency reigns. The fields or V-cones can overlap, please note, and tracing the layers is often a considerable study. Because of this factor, among others, it is more useful to recast our ‘fundamental unit of analysis’ as a series of transitions and their fields of diffusion, rather than as a series of civilizations.

Theories of the birth of civilization, such as Toynbee’s consideration of challenge and response and many others, are confounded by the relativity of the term ‘civilization’ and the clear evidence of its gestation, if not outright early appearance as ‘civil evolution’, in the primordial transition, village, town, state. And yet the rapid crystallization of the forms of the state, the invention of writing, indeed most of the foundations of later social organization, seem to cross a threshold in the centuries clustered around -3000, to stabilize for an immensely enduring era that will last until a new period seems to dawn at the time of the Classical Greeks and the world of Canaanite ‘Israel’. This emergence of higher civilization, as a relative onset, is highly concentrated in the Fertile Crescent, and we suspect, despite every possibility of the independent emergence of the discovery of agriculture, that the appearance of advanced civilizations occurs uniquely in one source. This challenge to theories of the independent evolution of civilization is controversial, and depends on the consideration of issues of diffusion. But it is difficult to defend, for example, the absolute independence of the New World civilizations from any contact with the Old World sources. As Cyrus Gordon notes,

Prehistoric and primitive men may have ‘invented’ in isolation a number of ways of life belonging to the domain of cultural anthropology. For historians of civilized man, however, the entire globe has for thousands of years constituted One World. If high independently invented civilizations have existed, they were not on this planet.[i]

Although we strongly suspect this to be the case, our model is more flexible, and allows other possibilities. Indeed, we have created a two-level construct, and nothing disallows both the independent emergence of proto-civilization, and the distinctly driven eonic evolution we see in our mainline. These two possibilities can then interact, creating a complicated situation. But as time goes on the mainline is likely to predominate. This would go a long way toward explaining the complex situation we see in the New World civilizations, whose status we cannot determine without better data. Finally, the appearance of synchrony as seen especially in the Axial transitions should advise us to exercise extreme caution about the sources of anything. The advantage of our approach is that it uses ideas of relative changes, and from this perspective we don’t have to commit our model to extravagant assumptions about poorly observed civilizations. But, despite this, we should be strongly suspicious in favor of diffusion in many cases where independent evolution is claimed.

Note: Sequential dependency and focal emergence One of the properties of our emerging ‘eonic system’ is the suggestion that ‘evolution’ doesn’t just happen and accumulate results. Instead it emerges from a focal source, which then stages diffusion via an oikoumene, the simplest and most obvious of characters for an evolutionary process. Darwinists simply forget the problems that arise with their thinking. It is one thing to imitate a technology, another to transfer the elements of statecraft. Something like Greek tragedy sinks like a stone. Note how the Axial phase produces ‘missionary’ effects to stage ‘rich diffusion’. We should note without prejudice that the elements of statecraft passed into the New World civilizations, yet by the time of Columbus we find a very odd series of statist mutations. This was one impulse of the monotheistic stream, its reckoning with issues of animal sacrifice. It might seem prejudicial, but it is not in the least ethnocentric to point out this ‘starved for rich diffusion’ factor in the New World civilizations, which never receive the system processing that goes on in the great religions that do a complex transformation of the question of sacrifice, human or otherwise. Getting ‘civilization concepts’ second hand from the Phoenicians injects a retrograde issue into the mix, very tragically. Any secular critique of religion must be wary on this point.

The property of focal emergence is so natural and the point so obvious we might forget that Darwinian theory dispenses with this property, the reason we always suspect something is wrong. Without an intermittent shot in the arm things fall apart, and in general need an advancing front. The question of sequential dependency creates the issue of studying and verifying the tracks of diffusion between different civilizations, and their relations of sequence. This is very difficult, and also controversial, although it need not be. In almost all cases we can see the effect of diffusion arising in a series of V-cones of influence. A close look always shows the dependencies, although we can’t be sure in all cases. The issue isn’t ‘civilizations’ so much as the diffusion of information, and this proceeds from the most advanced to the outlying areas. The fact is that we can trace the sequence very clearly from our first phase of Sumer and Egypt. Almost like clockwork secondary civilizations arise in the wake of this period, and we see the Indus, then China, Rome, and the rest, showing their sequential dependency on the first beat in our series. The problem is that without a greater dataset, we can’t always be sure.

The most interesting case is that of the New World Civilizations. Is there such a thing as the independent evolution of civilizations? This is the confusing point. There is! But it is less than we might think, and we should predict at once that some element of diffusion is present in the worlds of the Olmec, Maya, and other New World civilizations. But since we don’t have the full data we won’t commit ourselves in advance, save as a prediction. Note that the issue is one of relative free action in a field of diffusion. Civilizations aren’t autonomous, and ideas and technology spread rapidly. If someone arrives with new information, that is overlaid on the resulting civilization. If the information is at second hand often the result is less than stellar.

This is why we have changed our fundamental unit of analysis. This double aspect is surely present in the New World. The legends of the Maya, Inca, Aztecs even said so! It is not prejudicial to take this stance. Quite the contrary, once we see that there is a mysterious driver behind the great advances, the sluggishness of many sectors ceases to be some sort of judgment on other cultures. Behind the rise of civilization in the Fertile Crescent lies the whole history of the Neolithic. A great preparation occurred, almost five thousand years! That’s a lot of preparation. So far all we see in the New World is the sudden emergence of the Olmec. We don’t see, at least not yet, the equivalent lead up in the New World. We must therefore suspect diffusion.

But note that both viewpoints are possible, up to a point. Civilizations evolve in isolation, but their integration and manifestation of advanced features almost always shows direct diffusion from the Sumer and Egypt phase. This does not rule out prior influences however from an earlier period. With or without extensions to the eonic sequence. This does not contradict the basic model, but it does leave the pattern ragged. It would be very nice to know what was going on throughout the Neolithic, for we see definite cases where diffusion has clearly occurred from some earlier phase of the Neolithic. The question of the fundamental unit of analysis is primed for such an extension since the ‘birth of civilization’ was nothing of the kind, and the sequence from village to state is an excellent terrain for our style of analysis. We are left, we suspect with one half of our subject matter, and can’t proceed without evidence from earlier ‘invisible’ transitions.

A good example is the early world of English Megalithic. Was this ‘civilization’? Certainly. But note that ‘civilization’ isn’t the issue, it is one of the series of transitions and their sequence. This English example most probably reflects a phase of the early Neolithic that we don’t know about. This era simply does not generate the long-range sequential dependency and regeneration seen in the mainline eonic sequence. This is rich cultural soil, but doesn’t really take off until it enters the diffusion field of the Romans. This example is perfect for the eonic model, because the English world remains sluggish until it enters, first the field of sequential dependencies, i.e. the rich influences of the Roman Empire, and Christianity and Islam, then explodes as it intersects with the master sequence in the eonic mainline. Note that the New World civilizations did not get that particular help, but did probably receive influences from the first phase of Sumer/Egypt, perhaps indirectly, via Phoenicians. We don’t know. This is not hard proof, but the data always reflects our model—after -3000 or so. Before that errors are possible. We can’t guess.

This and many other examples put our sequence in a somewhat ambiguous light because it seems to favor the mainline of the sequence. We have to face the fact that we are one world evolving towards a greater unity, and the temporary advantage of the transitional areas near the mainline sequence is not a function of cultural superiority but the action of the eonic effect itself. Small wonder the modern transition produces its convulsions of globalization and Eurocentric imbalance!

In general, diffusion reigns. Look at Virgil trying to clone the Iliad and Odyssey. As Thor Heyerdahl notes,

The isolationist sees it as an insult to the intellect of the American Indian to look for outside inspiration behind the aboriginal American civilization. But is it not more of an insult to the bulk of American Indians, who lived outside the high culture areas and who had no civilization, to overlook the possibility that they simply have lacked corresponding helpful influence? Can we Europeans say that we descend from independent inventors of civilization? Do we forget that Europe was still the domain of illiterate barbarism when the literate Olmecs erected masterpieces of sculpture with hieroglyphic inscriptions and complicated calendar dates...[ii]

Note the implications of the stream and sequence argument, taking the case of Greece. The stream of Greek culture shows two periods of early flowering, the first is the Mycenaean. This is out of the master sequence, and shows diffusion and sequential dependency on the first phase, the transition of Sumer and Egypt, mediated via the mideonic world of the Minoan. It actually collapses and goes into decline, then takes off like a rocket in the next phase of the master sequence. Only a model of the type we have constructed can do justice to this complex of relations in three and four dimensions on the surface of a planet.

[i] Cyrus Gordon, Before Columbus (New York: Crown, 1971), p. 35.

[ii] Thor Heyerdahl, Early Man and the Ocean (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 70.