Putting the origin of civilization on its head.

[gallienus1]

Back 40 years ago when I was at university we thought the process of creating civilization theoretically happened in the following logical order-

1.   Agriculture began.
2.   First villages appeared to tend crops.
3.   Population began to increase as a result of increased food production.
4.   Religious structures appeared acting as a focal point for the development of cities.

Since then, work in the 1990’s showed the temple complex of Göbekli Tepe in Turkey was surprising old, dating to the 10th millennium BC. This is before evidence of agriculture in the region.

Now a study from the University of Utah has concluded that a population boom resulted in a scarcity of wild foods, causing a need to gain another source of food among Native Americans. Scarcity prompted early people in eastern North America to domesticate wild food plants for the first time on the continent, starting about 3,000 BC

Their work is not intended to fit into a general theory of civilization development, and it is narrowly focused on the reason for the switch to agriculture on the North American continent.

Never the less, from these early findings we could conclude the process of establishing civilization goes in a very different order to that put forward in the mid-20th century. Perhaps-

1.   Religious center established with temple structures.
2.   Villages appear to serve the center.
3.   Population begins to increase.
4.   Food shortage stimulates invention of agriculture.
5.   Cities develop.

See-

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160802104526.htm

Steve

[Molinari]

I think the new model is certainly more accurate- just look at Chauvet Cave, which is much, much older than Göbekli Tepe.

[Enodia]

i agree it is an interesting and compelling model. however i'm still baulking at this part...

1.   Religious center established with temple structures.
2.   Villages appear to serve the center.

 

... which seems backward to me, an unnatural progression.

~ Peter

[hannibal2]

The old model was based on decades of research and I'm certain its essentially correct. The author Franz Schwanitz in "the origin of cultivated plants" says a forager/hunter needs twenty square kilometers to sustain  himself, an area that can sustain 6000 under cultivation. Hunter gatherers are/remain essentially small in numbers, they never develop into any form of civilisation, as they still are to this day. Those basics have not changed. What changed is the habit of turning logic on its head for something new.

Gobleki tepe is an anomaly. A community with evidently plenty of time on its hands--it means established agriculture and sedentary (or a much later period). Then 12,000 years place it at a very odd era, the Younger dryas period, a time of great upheaval.

[Molinari]

But it is the religious or sacred area that draws the crowd which prompts the need, no?

[Jochen]

Sorry, you have not taken in account the influence of drugs. Do you know Josef H. Reichholf? He is an evolutionary biologist, and an ingenious scientist from Munich/Bavaria. I cannot spread out here his detailed Argumentation. Therefore only short: His new idea was to focus on drug use. He says that drugs were from early times on an essential part of human live. And he differentiates between nomads who are using smoke drugs, tobacco, mushrooms and others, which easily can be gathered by moving people, like Native Americans or Siberian nomads, and on the other side settled people who uses liquids like alcohol. This difference divides human people in 2 different parts. And people has to settle because the grain to brew beer cannot be collected by nomads but has to cultivate for at least one year. And that is only possibly by settled people. And it needs an administration who is responsible for the correct time for seed and harvest. And that was the real cause for settling of people. Interesting, or not?

Jochen

[Robert_Brenchley]

Is there any reason to believe that the 'original' form of alcohol was beer? Drink could have been made from fermenting wild fruits, for instance.

[hannibal2]

Re Molinari's comment, according to several text books (Thorkild jacobsen) the earliest gods were far from sacred. They were ugly and frightening and meant to scare the enemy in wars, (and that did not change much) with very distasteful human characteristics. A psychological weapon.

Re Robert's comment, stored barley may have fermented---into barley beer, or perhaps distilled too for a better kick.

[Molinari]

What's his evidence for that position?  It seems contrary to the examples I've seen in early art, from early sculpture (lion man, fertility idols) to cave art (bull man playing flute, etc.).  There were certainly apotropaic dimensions to these early gods but to limit it to that is a very limited view indeed.

[hannibal2]

Hi Molinari,       Jacobsen's view (for early sumerian deities) is in common with others on that subject. Xenophanes (~500 bce) set the idea by stating that 'men make gods in their own image'. JE Harrison repeats that for Greek theology, where she says the greeks 'severed the gods from their roots (from the form that was inherited from elsewhere), and 'shorn of every monstrosity'. See also Levi-Strauss. The worst -it is held- of the phoenician deities devoured children by fire; sacrificial burning. They all demanded blood for one reason or another.

Fertility idols are something else, and are a much older phenomenon, much before the bloodthirsty brutes that followed later. More than that they were really a metaphorical representation cum personification, (the best known, to me anyway, personified the cultivation of the cereals, an agrarian lesson --see also JG Frazer for that)

[Molinari]

So these are just speculations.  Jacobsen's opinion about Sumerian gods is outdated (I haven't read him myself, though).  A look through Wiggerman's translation of the later Babylonian ritual text alone shows that you had very early deities that were sources of both good and evil (for example Sedu, a demon of disease mentioned as a source of good, and other healing deities that were common).  He speculates all of these come from earlier deities, naturally. There are even examples of the bull-man mentioned in a lullaby for a baby. At least by the mid 4th millennium in Old Europe, such traditions probably existed, and it wasn't long after they appeared in Mesopotamia.  I think you'd enjoy the first chapter of my book, which discusses some of these old gods.

[hannibal2]

No, not quite speculations. Jacobsen is still a reliable reference (with proof).

I was not so interested in gods with names since these evolved considerably later. Mid fourth millennium myths had already been in existence for many centuries, and evolved into personified traits. The bull is definitely a prime character. (This may be of interest: one kind of bull appears in relief at a megalithic site {and on artifact}. It is said that descendants remained to this day until only the last male remained. It was saved in the last decade through repeated breeding to retain as much of the original genetic material as possible).

[gallienus1]

I would have agreed with hannibal2 a few years ago, Gobleki tepe is an anomaly. With an established temple complex apparently pre-dating agriculture in the area around it Göbekli Tepe does appear, as Pete says, an unnatural progression pattern. But what if it isn't?

Other evidence about how human hunter-gatherers start on the path to civilization also seems to challenge the old model. Looking at our assumptions for a moment. The most familiar transition to farming for most of us happened in Egypt. Here we have nomadic culture developing into an agricultural one where the technology of pottery seems crucial. Pots are needed to store grain, protecting it from rats and insects as well as damp. Where there is early agriculture we expect to find pottery.

Then consider Caral, called the Mother City because its date of about 3,000 BC makes it the oldest city in the New World.  It shows vast temple mounds and other structures but is pre-ceramic. How could it import and store its agricultural surpluses without pottery? It didn't- because there is no evidence that the culture that built the city had agriculture.

In 1973, Michael E. Moseley an American  archaeologist contended that a maritime subsistence maintained the Norte Chico civilization and the city of Caral, contrary to the general consensus that the origin of a civilization must always be based on intensive agriculture.

Later work has shown Caral had served as a major trade center, ranging from the rain forests of the Amazon to the high forests of the Andes. This trading environment may of allowed a priestly group that did not take part in the production of food to dominate producing the class distinctions necessary to the creation of an urban society.

Great quantities of cotton seeds, fibers and textiles have been found indicating industry and trade. Although the people ate vegetables that were locally sourced there is no grain crops and the vegetables they ate were too few for their required caloric intake.

It appears they traded textiles for food.

Trade comes before agriculture? That could explain Gobleki tepe.

The Smithsonian has an interesting article on the topic-

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/first-city-in-the-new-world-66643778/?no-ist

I'm not sure, but maybe, just maybe it was Egypt that was the anomaly.

Steve

[Molinari]

Religious shrines often operated as political and commercial hubs.

You also have to consider that when someone chose a place for agricultural projects, it was intimately related with the sacred.  So a spot on a river with consistent rain and 16 hours of sun was also a sacred location.

[Molinari]

And even in Egypt the case can be made that migratory cattle cults became stationary at certain spots (which had religious and practical value) and only after that did agriculture develop.  David Wengrow has an excellent essay on this topic on academia.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Yes, people may have fund grain fermenting, and this could well have been the origin of beer, but on the other hand, fruit ferments of its own accord, and doesn't need anyone to grow it first. I believe elephants, for instance, have been observed getting drunk from eating fallen fruit. So there's a possible origin of fermented drinks which doesn't require agriculture. All they'd have had to do was collect fruit, put it in a container, and strain the result. they'd soon have found ways to improve it, humans being what they are.

[gallienus1]

 Reading the  posts and the comments by Jochen and Robert about ancient pre-civilization drug use, particularly alcohol , put another surprising  piece into the origin puzzle for me. It sent me on a web surf to see what research might have been done and came across the work of Robert Dudley.

See-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87FOhjLK4yc

His book- The Drunken Monkey : Why We Drink and Abuse Alcohol is an evolutionary interpretation to explain the persistence of alcohol-related problems.  I am going to the bookstore and order a copy.

Temple complexes seem the solid evidence of the importance of a spiritual-religious specialist class at the start of a civilization. Drug use for shaman/priest/witch doctor/ priestess to gain a convincing "altered state" seems universal in tribal cultures.

So civilization got an alcohol fueled lift off?

Simply amazing. I think I'l have a double scotch.

Steve

[hannibal2]

From Robert re fermentation. There are two issues worth noting. 1) Not all fruits ferment into an strong alcoholic wine/beer. In fact the number of fruits that can because of sufficiently high sugar level is very limited (and ignoring here ripe fruit is only available for a couple of weeks at most). Even grapes don't make strong wine unless fortified with sugar. And you don't build a civilisation on sugar cultivation. The 2) point is that this is only done when it is available in excess. In many parts of the world vineyards have taken the place of more staple crops, because the latter have become cheaper from elsewhere. But that was far from the case in ancient times (except where cereal cultivation was established).

gallienus1 (and Jochen) point to drug abuse in religion (or any civilisation for that matter). There, what you see is really the downward spiral of a civilisation towards the end--decadence. A Arab historian from some (?) centuries ago described the rise and fall of civilisations via the generations of men. The sign of decadence was the planting of orange orchards, taking the place of the staple crop that fed the community (today opium instead of cereals is a good example). Drugs + religion destroy not build.

See Pausanias for the importance of staple crops.  Pausanias describes the people of Phigalea in Arkadia who neglected the sacrifices to Demeter, as “---acorn eaters---you have come to learn a cure for grievous famine, who alone have twice been nomads,-----Demeter who made you cease from pasturing,---made you pasture again after being binders of corn----”. Clear here is that grain makes civilisations, pasturing or animal husbanding makes tribal nomads. 'acorn eaters' is the hunter/gatherer--very small units. You find answers like that in someone like Pausanias or Hesiod (not in a New York eatery)

[nogoodnicksleft]

Item 1 and 2 are essentially the same, this being the fixing in location of people or creation of a settlement. There might be many other reasons for creating a settlement, like a fort for protection for themselves or livestock (perhaps from other tribes) or staying in places which have more abundance of hunt-able food or fresh water (coastal/river settlements, fishing etc).

I would argue that the reason for starting the settlement is irreverent, it is only as the available food gets scarce that agriculture needs to be developed further into fixed location. I say developed further rather than invented, because the definition of agriculture also includes the rearing of live stock for food, wool and other products.

Most likely the reason for food scarcity is the population increases, but that might not be the case. Since there could be other factors for the scarcity of the of existing food supply, like failure through natural disasters (diseases, pests or British weather).  Visa versa population increases might not just be down to a better food supply, improvements in the death rate of newborn children might be caused by increased knowledge (better hygiene) or by genetic evolution (improved resistant to diseases).

My list would probably be as follows

1. Settlement forms
2. Food becomes scarce
3. Agriculture develops
4. Settlement grows
5. City forms
 
But probably there are some holes in this too

[Molinari]

Those are all good points.

[hannibal2]

Perhaps.  But the evidence points otherwise. Small communities still exist even today, in all continents. Those reliant on herding remain essentially small tribes, some with no fixed home -seasonally on the move. Where the land is non productive, like several places in Africa, they remain small and backward. (provide food from elsewhere regularly and the numbers increase).

The past century or two population stats are distorted from mechanised production and distribution and travel means that reach everywhere quickly. But go several centuries back in time and a population size and development is determined first by its food supply.
Gallienus1's numbering at the start is the correct order.

To this apparent disagreement there is an underlying problem. Today's population in developed countries do not know what food scarcity is. Food availability is taken for granted. So much so that in modern economics the farmer is very low down in the list of  importance. In fact the enormous mechanised bread-basket of the US has killed other source elsewhere. Today swathes of poor land lies abandoned (but I'm old enough to remember it all worked for whatever grain it produced). As I said earlier, you won't hear this in large cities today. The old views were based on experience; today it is speculative imagination.

Added, just seen this:   http://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/agriculture-required-school-subject/

[Molinari]

"Some" evidence points otherwise. 

[Robert_Brenchley]

In order to build a city, you need to produce enough surplus food to feed the non-producers in it. That takes organisation on a reasonable scale, and that can only happen when some people stop farming or hunting, and do something else. It's hard to see how that can happen without agriculture.

[nogoodnicksleft]

In order to build a city, you need to produce enough surplus food to feed the non-producers in it. That takes organisation on a reasonable scale, and that can only happen when some people stop farming or hunting, and do something else. It's hard to see how that can happen without agriculture.

Yes and I thought that too, that the very existence of Gobleki Tepe site could indirectly imply that arable agriculture was fully established already.

In Graham Hancocks recent book The Magicians of the Gods he interviewed Professor Klaus Schmidt who lead the excavation there from 1996 to 2014 and quotes him saying that Gobleki Tepe is the site at where monumental architecture and agriculture were invented! but that is somewhat countered by the fact that also the oldest structures are the best in quality with no evidence of evolution/progress before the best structures. This doesn't fit any of the proposed models in this thread, however if one think of it as a green field site where an existing culture builds something new then that would explain the anomaly. Of course much of the site is still not excavated so there maybe further discoveries that turn everything on its head.

[Molinari]

In order to build a city, you need to produce enough surplus food to feed the non-producers in it. That takes organisation on a reasonable scale, and that can only happen when some people stop farming or hunting, and do something else. It's hard to see how that can happen without agriculture.

That's true.  But that doesn't mean religious shrines or trade posts didn't predate the origin or agriculture and prompt its development.