Putting the origin of civilization on its head.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Going by the Wikipedia article, the earliest building involved what looks like a temple, while buildings came later. I could have got that wrong, of course. But if I'm right, then it's possible to imagine people in the Neolithic, say, coming together for a season each year to work on a site, and erecting it over years, even decades. It's hard to imagine their being able to feed themselves without at least some farming, but the animal bones on the site suggest that hunting was important alongside that.

[hannibal2]

Re Robert's post.     Hunting (and foraging) preceded agriculture, so one would think animal rearing would likely develop from that. But animal rearing puts humans further up the food chain, and that necessarily means less numbers (you cannot outnumber the herd that feeds you; on which you prey. There will always be more gazelles than lions). To grow in numbers a species has to go further down the food chain --agriculture--.

As any farmer knows, the soil productivity can be exhausted or diminished and the best way to redress that is animal manure. So in agriculture the animals retained their importance. That would explain animal bones where there were human communities. It is still so today, especially where synthetic fertiliser has ruined the water table and are returning to sustainable farming. I remember reading about German households decades ago where it said prosperity was measured by the size of the manure heap outside the door. It was like at back home. Everything went back to the soil.  Because that insured soil productivity.

[hannibal2]

Molinari says "But that doesn't mean religious shrines or trade posts didn't predate the origin or agriculture..."

Trading is one thing. It is instinctive - from very early. Even animals trade; male birds feed females in return for other expected favours; same with monkeys. It is common in the animal world. We are specialist in that, vide all the political promises traded for votes.

Religious shrines is a different matter. The early gods were feared and hated. They were primarily linked to phenomena that were destructive. The temple was an attempt to appeasement first and foremost, then to ask for favours -like maiming a unfriendly neighbour-, and erected by an already established community, according to their beliefs. And if the gods failed to countenance they were discarded. We still do so today.

An example: 'Tas-Silg' was a very ancient and very revered sanctuary to Ast'rt, later to Juno, with many riches. It was pillaged in Roman times, but not for the riches as much as for the goodwill (though that is not mentioned). Cicero makes mention of that. A change of deity gave it another breath of life, but not the former glory. It is today an archaeological site -- rediscovered.

Cult -and trade- would be the start of something, but later and in different circumstances. I have in mind Martin Rowe's excellent thread on Arados.

[Molinari]

But what is your evidence that they were feared and hated?  And even if they were (which I highly doubt), there could still be shrines established in various areas that predate agricultural development.  I point to Chauvet as an example of such a phenomenon where we have essentially a massive sanctuary way before the notion of agriculture, equipped with altars, mixanthropic idols, abstract worship of fertility, etc. Golbeki is another.

[hannibal2]

Hi Molinari,

The evidence: probably the oldest literature (that comes to mind now) is Sumerian. A particular story is 'The creation of the hoe' , created by the gods so that men would work the soil--for their own survival--but primarily for the benefit of the gods. Refrain from working and the gods will starve you. Forced submission to the will of the gods is evident, and you can read hate between the lines, only lightly subdued. The gods there came as an explanation to why harvests fail. Someone else is seen as in control--ergo --gods are invented.

Go to another story, the flood, a story which predated the biblical. At the end of the flood after survival man offered sacrifice, not in thanks but for appeasement and to placate. The story says the hungry gods gathered to the smell of sacrifice "like flies to carrion". The utter contempt is all over those descriptive words, in a way clearly referring to the gods as despicable. (you can also see that in the biblical account were it paints god as the one who is sorry afterwards--( I say no more here just in case, but that is from a paper presented in the magazine Biblical Studies). It derives from the Sumerian works.

The earth as a Mother provider is far, far more ancient; a totally different concept from earthly slavery to gods. Fertility is a concept, leading to abundance, one can say the opposite of famine. Two examples may fit here. The first is the 'many breasted'(?) "Lady of Ephesus". There is something similar in Malta -said to be Isis- with garland of animals, somewhat in similar style. The second is a carving of a sow with thirteen piglets in a megalithic temple. I think this is not understood but I am not totally sure myself. Why? The breed of pigs I know have twelve milk nipples and each piglet chooses his at birth and does not ever change it, up to weaning. The thirteenth (meaning over-abundance) starves or rather goes to waste, but used to be my chore to bottle-feed (at age ~six). I think the concept there is quite clear.

[nogoodnicksleft]

Molinari says "But that doesn't mean religious shrines or trade posts didn't predate the origin or agriculture..."

Trading is one thing. It is instinctive - from very early. Even animals trade; male birds feed females in return for other expected favours; same with monkeys. It is common in the animal world. We are specialist in that, vide all the political promises traded for votes.

So where are the religious shrines created by animals ? and by their absence is that a valid confirmation that arable farming precedes city building? .......hang on rabbits and ants create sort of cities  ..... I think using animals as an argument to claim that trade is instinctive, is kind of wrong in the context of this thread, it still might be true, but the examples are not so relevant to the discussion on human civilization.

But what is your evidence that they were feared and hated?  And even if they were (which I highly doubt), there could still be shrines established in various areas that predate agricultural development.  I point to Chauvet as an example of such a phenomenon where we have essentially a massive sanctuary way before the notion of agriculture, equipped with altars, mixanthropic idols, abstract worship of fertility, etc. Golbeki is another.

I think we should also be careful to separate religion, minor places of constructed worship (simple shires or alters) and major places of constructed of worship (temples, stone buildings). Religion & minor places of constructed worship might precede the more formal systematic arable agriculture that is referred too, but something like Golbeki is unlikely to be built without a larger labour force, and that implies a more organised food supply.      

[nogoodnicksleft]

Re Robert's post.     Hunting (and foraging) preceded agriculture, so one would think animal rearing would likely develop from that. But animal rearing puts humans further up the food chain, and that necessarily means less numbers (you cannot outnumber the herd that feeds you; on which you prey. There will always be more gazelles than lions). To grow in numbers a species has to go further down the food chain --agriculture--.

As any farmer knows, the soil productivity can be exhausted or diminished and the best way to redress that is animal manure. So in agriculture the animals retained their importance. That would explain animal bones where there were human communities. It is still so today, especially where synthetic fertiliser has ruined the water table and are returning to sustainable farming. I remember reading about German households decades ago where it said prosperity was measured by the size of the manure heap outside the door. It was like at back home. Everything went back to the soil.  Because that insured soil productivity.

It is also true that a lot of our modern day grain production is grown directly for animal feed, we simply don't know if this was or was not also the case in the past. That could be one argument to claim that animal rearing pre-dates crop growing.

[Molinari]

Good points.  And you're probably right that Golbeki's construction needed agriculture.  At least in its final stages.  There could have been smaller shrines in the area that it was built upon, or built up on, over centuries. It'll be interesting to see what more they uncover.

[Molinari]

Hi Molinari,

The evidence: probably the oldest literature (that comes to mind now) is Sumerian. A particular story is 'The creation of the hoe' , created by the gods so that men would work the soil--for their own survival--but primarily for the benefit of the gods. Refrain from working and the gods will starve you. Forced submission to the will of the gods is evident, and you can read hate between the lines, only lightly subdued. The gods there came as an explanation to why harvests fail. Someone else is seen as in control--ergo --gods are invented.

Go to another story, the flood, a story which predated the biblical. At the end of the flood after survival man offered sacrifice, not in thanks but for appeasement and to placate. The story says the hungry gods gathered to the smell of sacrifice "like flies to carrion". The utter contempt is all over those descriptive words, in a way clearly referring to the gods as despicable. (you can also see that in the biblical account were it paints god as the one who is sorry afterwards--( I say no more here just in case, but that is from a paper presented in the magazine Biblical Studies). It derives from the Sumerian works.

The earth as a Mother provider is far, far more ancient; a totally different concept from earthly slavery to gods. Fertility is a concept, leading to abundance, one can say the opposite of famine. Two examples may fit here. The first is the 'many breasted'(?) "Lady of Ephesus". There is something similar in Malta -said to be Isis- with garland of animals, somewhat in similar style. The second is a carving of a sow with thirteen piglets in a megalithic temple. I think this is not understood but I am not totally sure myself. Why? The breed of pigs I know have twelve milk nipples and each piglet chooses his at birth and does not ever change it, up to weaning. The thirteenth (meaning over-abundance) starves or rather goes to waste, but used to be my chore to bottle-feed (at age ~six). I think the concept there is quite clear.

 Prehistoric religion was largely binary in nature and the mother goddess demonstrates that perfectly.  She is a god just as much as these other gods you are talking about from the Sumerian accounts.  And even those accounts you have gods operating in a variety of ways, like Sedu that I mentioned above.  This all reminds me of an interesting article I read about pollution and consecration in Greek religion, and how both complement each other in many cases.  I have to track down the title it is a very good read.

[hannibal2]

We need to separate the "staple" from the secondary. And pasturing or animal herding from agriculture, where the main food source is vegetative. The former lives totally off his flock or herd, and consequently has no fixed abode - they nearly always lived in animal-skin  tents-. The second mainly from his crop, and necessarily sedentary. However the work of the second has a byproduct that can support a smaller mixed herd. Meaning that animal bones will always be found in agrarian communities.

A second point of interest is the insurance against famine leading to long-lived civilisations. Grain is stored for years, covering hard times. Not so the herdsman. He is likely to perish along with his herd. The biblical father of Joseph asks his sons "go down to Egypt and buy grain, that we may not starve". You know the story.

[hannibal2]

Re "Prehistoric religion", I now think, is a misnomer. Today we start our own religion, like we start a new fan club or football club with its own followers ready to swear all for their team. I have come to believe different for the ancient religions, and specifically that of the Mother Goddess. That appears to have been an early concept with many perspectives. The same thing had different meanings in different situations.

I point to one, because it has been for me a curiosity for many years, and because there is an amount of documentation regarding it coming from over several millennia. See pic below. Same pair but different origins, and from different eras. It is probably of some familiarity to readers here. The child in the oldest image is (born and borne) in a wicker basket. But in its earliest form it did not represent a deity but  concept expressed metaphorically as a personification.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Herding and farming tend to be in a mutual relationship; farmers would get skins, etc from the herders, while they would get grain from the farmers. Would herders without farmers get an adequate diet? I just don't know. Then sometimes herders would settle down and farm, and vice versa.

[hannibal2]

Hi Robert,

There is a sort of answer to your question, but I warn, it may be considered heretical and objected to. Still I found it makes more sense.

The biblical Cain and Abel story, I find, may have a more profound meaning. Based on essentials, it is about the constraints of the necessary, meaning available land. And the fact that over-grazing sheep and goats destroy an eco-system. Cain is a metaphor for agriculture, Abel for animal herding. Population pressure automatically pushes Abel out and forces the adoption of Cain's methods. Ergo Cain kills Abel.

The biblical verses that immediately follow that episode really puts the matter in perspective. Gen4-17. "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enock; and he built a city----". Agrarian Cain started a sedentary civilisation.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Goat herding did eventually become destructive, but this was with a largely settled, agricultural population, and a very high population density. That could never have happened without farming; it was the end of the herding story, if you like. With a lower density, I wonder whether it would have done any harm at all.

[hannibal2]

With a lower density, I wonder whether it would have done any harm at all.

Quite so. Or if the pastures regenerated fast enough. The reality is there could have been several variable situations which dictated what and where.

This is interesting as an 'academic exercise'. Today climate and its variability is a constant news topic - with good reason.  5000 years ago that may have been a determining factor. A long period of drought terminates any established cereal based civilisation (ask Ahab for that, or the farmers of the US grain belt in the thirties ). They move away to another land (likely with their remaining food supply walking on its hoof). Pausanias (in above quote) did not say why the Phigaleans suffered so.

[nogoodnicksleft]

There would have also been a disruption in herding as a way of life as more and more settlements became fixed. Ideas of ownership and possession of the land would have likely lead to conflict and fighting between the two ways of life. Possibly resulting that the herders would be force away and relegated to surviving on the less fertile and isolated ground (decreasing there chances of survival).

   

[hannibal2]

There would have also been a disruption in herding as a way of life as more and more settlements became fixed. Ideas of ownership and possession of the land would have likely lead to conflict and fighting between the two ways of life. Possibly resulting that the herders would be force away and relegated to surviving on the less fertile and isolated ground (decreasing there chances of survival).

   

Quite so, in fact the 'Kudurru' or 'boundary stones' with pictographs  going back to an early period in Mesopotamia, indicate that territorial claims and conflict was already a common issue.

[Robert_Brenchley]

 That can certainly result from increasing population, as in the case of southern Africa at the end of the 18th Century.

[hannibal2]

Of some interest.

http://www.archaeology.org/news/4806-160831-mesolithic-domestic-grains

They now think!  The dual statuette in my above post is already that old. It represents a myth, a metaphorical personification of grain/cereal cultivation. That did not develop overnight, so grain cultivation goes far back, more than that. Perhaps that's only limited to central Europe. But I have come across that statuette from older eras, in anthropomorphic form, from central Europe. So??

[Molinari]

Thanks for this. But the article is referring to events much later than the time period we are discussing, and the grains, etc., were imported through social networks.  I think the heart of the argument here is whether or not religious shrines or trade posts (sometimes the same thing) emerged before agriculture and in fact promoted it.  Is it not?  Also, why is the article linked to at the bottom seemingly unrelated?

[hannibal2]

Hi Molinari,

The point I want to make in the above is that, as evidenced by early figurines - specifically the double headed (and sometimes double breasted also)-that are a metaphor/personification of grain cultivation, there is evidence that knowledge of cereal cultivation diffused into southern europe earlier than that article says/thinks and much earlier than any religion.

This links to one, 5th millen. : https://www.lessingimages.com/viewimage.asp?i=06010239+&cr=279&cl=1

From Catal Huyuk a millenmium earlier. The myth is really a parable of the life-cycle of grain. That does not develop in a short time. The author Anne Baring mentions it in "The myth of the Goddess".

Then the matter complicates some more. Between 13,000 and 11,000 the Earth transitioned from ice-age to a hot holocene.     

[Molinari]

I think we just have a different conception of religion or religious-spiritual practices.  Man-faced bull iconography emerges c. 5,000 BC and although I would agree it represents water, I also think it was a religious iconography worshipped by a cult.  Same with the mother goddess who is much earlier.  I do agree the "couple figures" don't appear obviously religious.  But other characters, like the mother goddess, though they do personify nature or a natural force, can still be religious.

[hannibal2]

The experts themselves have different conceptions where religion is concerned. Some spent their life studying the matter; and there are different views and opinions. We learn something new by studying and discussing it. But, as I have found, sometimes we find something important, that widens and perhaps change our perspective on life in general.

Have a look at this, the first part -heavy going beyond that unless one is researching it--:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_anthropology

[nogoodnicksleft]

I've just started reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari (Xmas gift) it has rather interesting ideas concerning pre-history and I was immediately reminded of this old discussion thread. Anybody else read it ?

[Molinari]

No, but I read his second book, Homo Deus, and didn’t care for it at all.  He comes across as arrogant, and hand-waves away very complex philosophical issues that he seems to think are meaningless or no longer relevant.