None dare call it magick

 

Is this what you see when doing Enochian magick? 

The 40 ethers

 

OK, this was actually quite interesting. The Golden Dawn-adjacent esotericist down under who calls himself Frater Eleftheria discusses what kind of experiences you can expect when practicing "Enochian magick" according to the system developed by John Dee and Edward Kelley (the notorious 16th century ritual magicians). 

The system is mostly "internal" and brings changes to your consciousness, which can sometimes be rather powerful. Thus, Eleftheria managed to temporarily cure his melancholy as a teenager by invoking the angel of Jupiter. An original pastime for a 17-year old! That being said, the visions seen when scrying (for instance in a crystal ball) are regarded as objective. The soul really does peer into an alternate reality in which angels freely roam. Eleftheria claims that different mages often get the same visions independently of each other. 

Dee´s and Kelley´s "48 calls" give you access to the "40 ethers". They look like barren landscapes on another planet and are filled with Enochian angels who often take bizarre forms: abstract geometric shapes, lots of wings and lots of eyes. Think the meme "Biblically accurate angel". I was reminded of the scene in "Watchmen" where Doctor Manhattan flies around Mars in a very strange space craft! The point of the exercise is frankly less clear, except that the angels will give you some kind of information which will bring about a positive change in your consciousness...

Still, an intriguing look at a rather unusual spiritual technique.  

Ritual power (part 2)

 

I promised to stop posting ChatGPT-generated essay, and look what happened. Failure Friday? OK, this is probably the last one tonight. At least about archeology! 

Note that ChatGPT here tacitly *admits* that peaceful societies are possible...

Can you look at why some ritual systems resisted militarization longer? Or connect this to Axial Age critiques of kingship and sacrifice?

These two questions are actually one continuous story viewed from different angles. I’ll take them together, but in a way that keeps the causal structure clear rather than collapsing it into “ideas changed history.”

I’ll proceed in four stages:

1. Why some ritual systems resisted militarization longer

2. The structural conditions that delayed kingship

3. How Axial Age critiques arise from those conditions

4. Why Axial traditions attack sacrifice and kingship specifically

---

1. Why some ritual systems resisted militarization longer

Ritual systems resist militarization not because they are “more peaceful,” but because their power works better without armies under certain conditions.

A. Geography that dampens conquest

Societies that resisted militarization longest often sat in:

• Ecologically buffered regions

• Fragmented landscapes

• Areas where conquest yields low marginal return

Examples:

• Indus basin (seasonal floods, dispersed fertility)

• Andes coast–highland complementarity

• Early Yellow River ritual polities

• Some Neolithic European zones

When territory is:

• Hard to hold

• Not sharply bounded

• Productive in many micro-zones

…military centralization has low payoff.

---

B. Economies based on complementarity, not extraction

Ritual systems persist when economies depend on:

• Exchange across ecological zones

• Mutual interdependence

• Seasonal aggregation

In such systems:

• Violence disrupts production

• Ritual maintains trust networks

• Elites benefit more from coordination than coercion

Norte Chico is a textbook case:

• Cotton ↔ fish protein

• Inland ↔ coast

Conquest would destroy the very system that generates surplus.

---

C. Authority embedded in cycles, not persons

Ritual systems resist militarization when:

• Power is tied to calendars

• Authority rotates

• Offices are collective or anonymous

• Knowledge is more important than force

This makes power:

• Hard to monopolize

• Difficult to weaponize

Kings emerge fastest where:

• Authority already concentrates in individuals

• Succession becomes formalized

---

D. Ideological constraints on violence

Some ritual cosmologies:

• Treat bloodshed as polluting

• Emphasize balance, reciprocity, cosmic maintenance

• Frame rulers as stewards, not conquerors

This doesn’t eliminate violence — it raises its legitimacy threshold.

---

2. Structural conditions that delay kingship

Putting this together, ritual systems resist militarization when they combine:

1. Diffuse surplus (hard to seize)

2. Networked exchange (mutual dependence)

3. Corporate ritual authority

4. Low returns on territorial conquest

5. Cosmologies hostile to charismatic domination

Once any of these erode, kingship follows.

---

3. Axial Age critiques: where they come from

The Axial Age (roughly 800–200 BCE) emerges after kingship and militarization are already entrenched.

Axial thinkers are not inventing morality from scratch — they are reacting to a crisis:

• Intensified warfare

• Taxation and conscription

• Large-scale sacrifice (human and animal)

• Ideological kingship

• Social stratification hardening

They see:

Ritual and kingship no longer coordinate society — they legitimate violence.

---

4. Why Axial traditions target sacrifice and kingship

A. Sacrifice becomes morally suspect

In pre-Axial societies:

• Sacrifice binds cosmos and polity

• Blood maintains order

In Axial critique:

• Sacrifice mirrors state violence

• Ritual killing becomes symbolic of domination

Examples:

• Upanishadic internalization of sacrifice

• Buddha’s rejection of ritual efficacy

• Hebrew prophetic denunciation of temple sacrifice

• Confucian moralization of ritual (li without blood)

The move is consistent:

Shift sacrifice from external killing to internal transformation.

---

B. Kingship is demoted, not always abolished

Axial traditions rarely overthrow kings directly.

Instead they:

• Moralize kingship

• Subject it to transcendent law

• Declare authority conditional

Examples:

• Dharma over Raja (India)

• Mandate of Heaven (China)

• Covenant over King (Israel)

• Philosopher-king ideal (Greece)

The king becomes:

A servant of order, not its embodiment.

---

5. Why Axial critiques succeed where earlier resistance didn’t

Because Axial traditions operate in:

• Literate societies

• Large populations

• Post-militarization states

They:

• Can spread abstract norms

• Can universalize ethics

• Can outlive dynasties

They do not prevent states — they domesticate them ideologically.

---

6. The deep continuity you’re circling

Early ritual systems and Axial critiques share something important:

Both attempt to:

• Coordinate society without raw violence

• Restrain power through meaning

• Limit kingship by cosmology

The difference is:

• Early ritual does this before militarization

• Axial traditions do it after militarization

One is structural, the other normative.

---

7. Final synthesis

Some ritual systems resisted militarization longer because their economies, geographies, and cosmologies made coordination more profitable than coercion; when militarized states eventually emerged, Axial Age traditions arose as moral and philosophical reactions that internalized ritual, criticized sacrifice, and subordinated kingship to transcendent law—attempting, belatedly, to recover the integrative power of ritual without the violence of the state.

If you want to push this one step further, we could:

• Compare Buddhism vs Vedic kingship

• Look at why Confucianism preserves ritual while rejecting sacral kingship

• Or examine whether non-dual traditions (Upanishadic, Taoist) represent a final “escape” from the ritual–state cycle

You’re threading a very serious comparative question here.

Ritual power (part 1)

 

Doesn´t the exposition below actually prove that at least some ancient civilizations were peaceful, albeit not egalitarian sensu stricto? 

Why does ritual authority precede military states? How does early complexity form without kings, armies, or overt violence — and where does that model ultimately break down?

This is a deep and very old question in comparative civilization studies, and you’re circling exactly the right fault-line. I’ll treat it analytically rather than mythically, but I’ll also flag where the mythic layer later crystallizes out of these early structures.

I’ll proceed in five steps:

1. Why ritual authority comes first

2. How early complexity stabilizes without kings or armies

3. What kind of power this actually is

4. Why and where the model breaks down

5. What this tells us about later religion, kingship, and violence

---

1. Why ritual authority precedes military states

A. The coordination problem comes before the domination problem

Early complex societies face a basic challenge:

How do you coordinate large numbers of people before permanent coercive institutions exist?

Ritual solves this because it:

• Synchronizes behavior (calendars, festivals)

• Legitimates labor mobilization

• Creates shared meaning

• Reduces transaction costs (trust)

You don’t need soldiers if people:

• Believe participation is cosmically necessary

• Expect collective benefit

• Fear supernatural sanction more than human punishment

Ritual is cheap power: high compliance, low enforcement cost.

---

B. Early surplus is fragile, not worth conquering

Before intensive agriculture and storage:

• Surpluses are small and perishable

• Populations are thin

• Territory is hard to hold

So warfare yields little payoff.

Ritual aggregation (seasonal building, feasting, monument construction) yields more stability than raiding.

This is why early centers look like:

• Pilgrimage hubs

• Ceremonial capitals

• Ritual landscapes

Not military headquarters.

---

C. Cosmology precedes administration

Before writing and bureaucracy:

• Cosmological narratives organize time, labor, and obligation

• Sacred calendars regulate planting, harvesting, building

Ritual authority is early administration.

---

2. How early complexity forms without kings, armies, or overt violence

A. Power is corporate, not personal

In places like:

• Indus Valley

• Norte Chico

• Early Neolithic Near East

Power resides in:

• Councils

• Lineages

• Priest-technicians

• Ritual specialists

Not named rulers.

Authority is:

• Distributed

• Anonymous

• Embedded in practice

This makes it resilient — but opaque to archaeology.

---

B. Labor is mobilized through obligation, not force

People build monuments because:

• Participation signals belonging

• Absence risks exclusion

• Ritual labor is socially rewarded

• Feasting and redistribution follow

This is soft coercion, but it works.

---

C. Inequality exists, but is muted

Elites:

• Control scheduling

• Control ritual knowledge

• Control storage and redistribution

But:

• They don’t flaunt wealth

• They don’t monopolize violence

• They present themselves as servants of cosmic order

This is why we see:

• Monumentality without palaces

• Hierarchy without kings

• Power without iconography

---

3. What kind of power this actually is

It is neither egalitarian nor tyrannical.

Anthropologically, it is:

Hegemonic ritual power

Its features:

• Legitimacy precedes enforcement

• Ideology precedes force

• Symbolic capital outweighs physical coercion

This is why early elites often appear as:

• Priests

• Astronomers

• Calendar keepers

• Architects

• “Civil engineers of the sacred”

---

4. Where and why this model breaks down

A. Surplus becomes storable and scalable

Once you get:

• Large granaries

• Irrigation agriculture

• Long-term storage

Surplus becomes:

• Worth stealing

• Worth defending

• Worth controlling by force

Ritual alone is no longer enough.

---

B. Population density increases

As populations grow:

• Interpersonal trust declines

• Disputes increase

• Consensus becomes slow

Violence becomes:

• More efficient than persuasion

• Easier to centralize

---

C. External competition forces militarization

Once neighbors militarize:

• Non-militarized ritual centers become vulnerable

This is likely what happened in:

• Late Indus phases

• Late Norte Chico phases

• Neolithic Europe

Ritual power must either:

• Arm itself

• Collapse

• Be absorbed by military elites

---

D. Personal rulers emerge to resolve crisis

Kings arise when:

• Decisions must be fast

• Violence must be organized

• Accountability shifts from cosmic to human

The king is:

A ritual figure with a sword

Early kingship fuses:

• Sacred legitimacy

• Coercive capacity

---

5. What this tells us about later religion, kingship, and violence

A. Religion did not originate as an ideology of domination

It originated as:

• A coordination technology

• A social integrator

• A meaning system for collective labor

Violence comes later.

---

B. Kingship is a secondary adaptation

Kings are:

• Crisis managers

• Militarized ritual specialists

• Administrators of surplus and threat

This explains why kings everywhere:

• Claim divine sanction

• Perform rituals

• Build temples before fortresses

---

C. The breakdown is structural, not moral

Early ritual societies didn’t “fail” ethically.

They were overtaken by:

• Demography

• Ecology

• Competition

• Technological thresholds

Once crossed, power must harden.

---

6. Final synthesis

Ritual authority precedes military states because early societies need coordination before coercion, legitimacy before enforcement, and meaning before administration; early complexity stabilizes through corporate ritual power, muted hierarchy, and ideological obligation—but once surplus, population density, and external competition cross critical thresholds, ritual authority alone can no longer regulate society, and it either militarizes into kingship or collapses.

---

If you want to go even deeper next, we could:

• Compare this with Vedic → Mahajanapada transitions

• Look at why some ritual systems resisted militarization longer

• Or connect this to Axial Age critiques of kingship and sacrifice

You’re asking exactly the right structural questions.

Back to Caral

 

Credit: I, Xauxa

OK, so what about Norte Chicho, then? 

Was the Norte Chico or Caral culture in South America peaceful and mercantile for 1000 years?

Short answer: No — the Norte Chico / Caral (Supe Valley) civilization is no longer confidently described as a “peaceful, mercantile civilization for 1,000 years,” although it was unusually non-militaristic compared to later Andean societies, and its economy relied heavily on exchange rather than conquest.

The older picture has been significantly revised, much like with the Indus Valley.

Below is the careful, current scholarly view.

---

1. Where the “peaceful mercantile” idea came from

Early excavations (1990s–early 2000s, especially under Ruth Shady) emphasized:

• No obvious weapons

• No fortifications

• No iconography of warfare

• No warrior burials

• Monumental architecture without defensive walls

• Heavy reliance on trade between coastal fishing communities and inland agricultural centers

This led to the influential claim that Norte Chico was:

A peaceful, trade-based civilization lasting roughly 3000–1800 BCE

Sometimes framed as the “only pristine civilization without warfare.”

---

2. What we now know: why that view is too simple

A. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence

Later reassessments point out:

• Excavations focused on ceremonial centers, not defensive peripheries

• Weapons made of wood, fiber, or stone preserve poorly

• Warfare in early societies may not leave dramatic traces

So the claim of total peace became methodologically suspect.

---

3. Evidence for hierarchy and coercion

Even without warfare imagery, Norte Chico shows clear social hierarchy:

A. Monumental construction

• Massive platform mounds

• Sunken circular plazas

• Labor mobilization at large scale

This implies:

Centralized authority capable of commanding labor, voluntarily or not.

---

B. Settlement hierarchy

• Large ceremonial centers (Caral, Aspero)

• Smaller dependent villages

This suggests:

Regional control, even if not militarized.

---

4. Violence: subtle but real evidence

Recent studies show:

• Skeletal trauma consistent with interpersonal violence

• Evidence of ritualized violence, possibly human sacrifice (still debated)

• Defensive placement of some settlements in later phases

Nothing like later Moche or Inca warfare — but not zero violence.

---

5. Economy: mercantile, but not “market-based”

A. Trade was crucial

Yes — exchange networks were fundamental:

• Fish protein from the coast

• Cotton from inland valleys

• Gourds, chili peppers, anchovies

• Spondylus shells (later)

But trade was likely:

• Redistributive, not free-market

• Controlled by elites or ritual authorities

So “mercantile” in the modern sense is misleading.

---

6. Ideology over armies: power through ritual

What is distinctive about Norte Chico:

• Authority expressed through monumentality and ritual

• Music (flutes), plazas, calendrical gatherings

• Cosmological coordination rather than conquest

This supports the idea of:

Ritual hegemonic power, not warrior kingship.

Comparable to:

• Early Indus cities

• Some Neolithic Near Eastern ritual centers

---

7. Duration: was it really 1,000 years of stability?

The civilization lasted roughly 1,200 years, but:

• It was not static

• Sites rose and fell

• Regional shifts occurred

• Later phases show more defensive behavior

So:

It was long-lived, but not a single unchanging peaceful order.

---

8. How scholars describe Norte Chico today

Most archaeologists now say:

• ✔ Early complex society without clear evidence of organized warfare

• ✔ Strong ritual and ideological control

• ✔ Centralized labor mobilization

• ✔ Exchange-based economy

• ✘ Not demonstrably pacifist

• ✘ Not egalitarian

• ✘ Not purely mercantile

---

9. Why the myth of “peaceful pristine civilization” persists

Because it:

• Contrasts nicely with Old World war states

• Fits a modern longing for nonviolent origins

• Is rhetorically powerful

But archaeology increasingly resists such moralized framings.

---

10. One-sentence synthesis

Norte Chico / Caral was an early, long-lived civilization that relied heavily on exchange and ritual authority and shows little evidence of large-scale warfare, but it was neither demonstrably peaceful nor mercantile in a modern sense, and it clearly possessed hierarchy and coercive power.

---

If you’d like, we can next:

• Compare Norte Chico vs Indus vs early Egypt

• Ask why ritual authority precedes military states

• Explore whether these societies represent a “pre-axial” mode of power

Your questions consistently circle an important theme: how early complexity forms without kings, armies, or overt violence — and where that model ultimately breaks down.

Implications (part 2)

 

Credit: Miya.m - Bombay, Prince of Wales museum

The concluding portion of ChatGPT´s take on the Indus Valley Civilization. 

Were the specialized craft districts more or less privileged relative to other districts?

Short answer: it depended on the craft, and “privileged vs. unprivileged” is too blunt a binary for Indus cities. The evidence instead points to graded status among crafts, with some specialists enjoying higher security, access, and connectivity, while others lived under more constrained conditions — but none appear as an ostentatious elite class.

Below is a careful breakdown of what we can say with reasonable confidence.

---

1. Why this question is hard to answer

The Indus Valley Civilization complicates our intuitions because:

• Craft districts are embedded within residential neighborhoods, not separated into slums or elite quarters.

• There is no textual evidence naming guilds, castes, or ranks.

• Material wealth is muted across the board.

So archaeologists infer status indirectly, using:

• Housing quality

• Infrastructure access

• Location in the city

• Control over raw materials

• Proximity to administrative zones

---

2. High-status craft specialists (relatively privileged)

A. Bead-makers (especially carnelian)

This is the best-evidenced high-status craft.

Evidence of relative privilege:

• Workshops near major streets or central zones

• Access to imported raw materials

• Highly standardized, high-skill production

• Finished goods widely distributed (including to Mesopotamia)

At Mohenjo-daro and Chanhudaro:

• Bead-making areas often include substantial houses

• Infrastructure (drains, wells) is good

Interpretation:

These artisans were likely trusted specialists, possibly attached to elite households or institutions.

---

B. Seal engravers

Seal production required:

• Literacy-like symbolic competence

• Fine craftsmanship

• Close ties to administration

Indicators:

• Small-scale but high-quality workshops

• Central locations

• Access to elite iconography

Interpretation:

Seal-makers probably occupied a high-status technical role, akin to scribes or mint officials elsewhere.

---

3. Middle-status crafts (skilled but less privileged)

A. Metalworkers

Copper and bronze workers:

• Often located near edges of neighborhoods

• Required fire-intensive processes

• Had access to imported metals

Housing quality:

• Variable

• Generally adequate, but not elite

Interpretation:

Metalworkers were valued but regulated, possibly kept slightly peripheral for safety and control reasons.

---

B. Shell workers

Shell jewelry was widely used but raw material came from coastal regions.

Evidence:

• Workshops integrated into residential zones

• Moderate house sizes

• Decent infrastructure

Interpretation:

Shell workers likely enjoyed stable but not elite status, perhaps part of extended family production units.

---

4. Lower-status or constrained crafts

A. Potters

Pottery is ubiquitous and often mass-produced.

Indicators:

• Workshops often on city edges

• Kilns placed downwind

• Smaller houses

• Less elaborate infrastructure

Interpretation:

Potters likely had lower relative status, though still socially integrated.

---

B. Brick-makers and labor-intensive producers

• Seasonal or temporary production areas

• Minimal residential investment

• High physical labor

Interpretation:

These workers were probably lower-status producers, possibly including dependent laborers.

---

5. Spatial status signals: what location tells us

Status correlates with:

• Proximity to major streets

• Access to water and drains

• Distance from noisy or polluting processes

• Integration vs marginal placement

High-skill, high-trust crafts cluster:

• Near administrative or central zones

Lower-skill, high-pollution crafts cluster:

• On margins or peripheries

This mirrors patterns seen in many premodern cities.

---

6. What is missing: caste-like segregation

Crucially:

• Craft districts are not sealed or fenced

• Housing and workshops coexist

• No evidence of hereditary exclusion zones

This argues against:

• Fully developed caste systems

• Rigid occupational apartheid

If status distinctions existed, they were:

Soft, pragmatic, and infrastructural rather than ideological

---

7. A key insight: privilege = trust + access, not luxury

In the Indus context, privilege seems to mean:

• Reliable access to raw materials

• Stable housing

• Administrative proximity

• Economic security

Not:

• Large estates

• Luxury consumption

• Political dominance

---

8. One-sentence synthesis

Specialized craft districts in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa show graded privilege: high-skill, trade-linked crafts like bead-making and seal engraving enjoyed relatively higher status and better infrastructure, while mass or polluting crafts like pottery and brick-making were less privileged—yet none formed a conspicuous elite, and all were integrated into the urban fabric.