Loborubro writes:

> .. > .. That culture, being that of people who had been
> .. > .. settled for millenia, is likely to have been far richer
> .. > .. and well-developed than that of a group of nomads
> .. > .. fresh in from their wanderings.

> .. Why?

Again, I find myself wondering if I should take the hook out of my mouth, now. Surely, Loborubro is kidding us.

All that a nomad has is carried on his horse's back, and that's only if he is rich enough to even have a horse. If not, then all must be carried on his own back, and that sets limits.

Nomads do not get to set up large libraries, as settled peoples can - how would they carry that many books? They do not have cohesive social fabrics, as settled, extended family cultures do. The food supply was uncertain, and large bands would often have to break up, the parts going their separate ways, if all were not to starve. Without such a cohesive social fabric, as simple a thing as a festival not only becomes impossible to organize, it becomes unfathomable to a people for whom anomie has become the norm. In modern times, we even have an expression for somebody who has been out, away from the settled world for too long, or has never been part of it. We speak of the "infinity stare", that look of seeming to stare right through those around one, and all in one's vicinity, to beyond the horizon. It is as if the person's soul has passed over that horizon. It will not return. The basic capacity to connect to human beings, on a comfortable, fully civilized level has been lost.

When one speaks of stable, enduring oral traditions, one finds them in places like Israel and the Celtic countries, where the wanderer did have a home to return to, and be part of. If the memory of one story teller failed, and his version of an account became corrupted, there were others on hand to restore it. A small band, with maybe one or two elders, can't hope to see such a corrective measure put in place. As a result, the oral tradition can't support a complex culture, as it can't reliably transmit enough information to keep it intact.

Cultures grow as a result of the accumulation of centuries. Shakespeares and Molieres don't come in every generation. When the accomplishments of an Archimedes or an Aristotle are lost within a generation or two, because they are slowly distorted beyond recognition, that accumulation has no chance to occur.

Aside from discussion of theory, though, how can Loborubro be serious? The nature of Nomadic cultures is not hypothetical. We don't have to wonder what would happen were such cultures to arise, because they already have, and much about them has been recorded by travellers and many of their artifacts survive in our museums. In fact, many of their cultures survive precisely because somebody from civilization accurately recorded what he saw, and the greatgrandchildren of those interviewed could, in effect, hear the voices of their now dead relatives in those accounts. Dying nomadic cultures have been brought back to life in this fashion. (Eg. many of the Native American cultures, which have subsequently become settled cultures).

One need not speculate as to whether or not the 19th century Plains Indians would have as rich and complex a culture as that of the Persians or the French. One need merely look and see that they didn't. (I'll refrain from speculating on what the situation will be for the 39th century descendants of those Indians). Likewise for the other nomadic cultures that one can find.


Loborubro writes:

> .. > .. (One recalls that the Mongols, in conquering China,
> .. > .. found their culture becoming more Chinese;
> .. > .. the Chinese did not become especially Mongolian.
> .. > ..

> .. Yes... the Chinese still speak Chinese...
> .. now, the southern European folks speak
> .. Indo-European languages. Quite a difference.

Apparently not, as most Mexicans no longer speak Nahuatl, and yet, as Loborubro acknowledges himself (or herself), their cultural tradition is not an Indo-European one. (*)

This is not on-point, anyway. The question was whether a nomadic culture would be likely to maintain as rich and complex a culture as an ancient, settled one. As the Chinese/Mongol example beautifully illustrates, the answer is "no". The settled culture becomes the proverbial sea, that salts the nomadic river that flows into it.


Click here to continue.

(*) Once again, notice the circularity of the argument, to the extent that the course of an argument can be traced out in Loborubro's series of emotional outbursts. "Those cultures whose people speak Indo-European languages must have deep similarities", he would seem to be arguing, "and please forget about that glaring exception just to the South of your border, my kind American friend". Yet, when challenged on the plausibility of the assertion that the cultures of Southern Europe find their roots in that of the unknown Proto-Indo-Europeans instead of those of their neighbors in North Africa and (more to the point) their (far more ancient) neighbors in the Near East in the case of Greece (and thus, in the case of those cultures whose roots reach deeply into Greece), an assertion amazing to anybody familiar with the impact of Western Asian and Egyptian culture on that of Greece, he argues that this must be valid, because ... of a similarity in language! In effect, what Loborubro is attempting to do, is to use an assumption of the validity of his hypothesis in order to establish its alleged validity in those specific cases, which are supposed to illustrate the validity of his hypothesis.

In short, Loborubro is begging the question.