A temple so old, it's changing our thoughts on how civilization came to be

For example, there's a combined human-dog burial in Germany dated to 14,000 BC, and a dog burial in North America circa 11,000 BC. Religion is so old, we have evidence of religious practice among *Neanderthals*.

Oh, sure, but there's a difference between a ceremony for the dead and a full-scale temple. I'd argue that the ceremonies would be a prerequisite to even want to build a temple in the first place. I, at least, would fully expect to find burials that are older than temples... it seems, at least at first glance, to be the only reasonable outcome.

The thing about a burial is that all it takes is one human and a couple of basic tools. A permanent temple, at least of this size and construction, takes large-scale cooperation, and this building appears to be the earliest example we've found.

What does it mean to say "religion begat culture"? I'd say that's a statement that will be interpreted differently by modern literalist Christians than perhaps a Turkish archaeologist means it. I don't think he meant "God created culture", however.

I'm quite certain the archaeologist meant so such thing.... as you observe, he means the religious impulse drove us to civilization, not that any particular modern religion did so.

Imagining the possible arguments we might have on that front was specifically why I put this in P&C.

Malor wrote:
What does it mean to say "religion begat culture"? I'd say that's a statement that will be interpreted differently by modern literalist Christians than perhaps a Turkish archaeologist means it. I don't think he meant "God created culture", however.

I'm quite certain the archaeologist meant so such thing.... as you observe, he means the religious impulse drove us to civilization, not that any particular modern religion did so.

Imagining the possible arguments we might have on that front was specifically why I put this in P&C.

I think the archaeologist steps out of his bounds. By suggesting that, it connotes that without religion we would still be living a primitive nomadic lifestyle.

Malor wrote:

I'm quite certain the archaeologist meant so such thing.... as you observe, he means the religious impulse drove us to civilization, not that any particular modern religion did so.

Considering the quote that any civilization is only a few meals away from anarchy, I'm going to stick with the theory that agriculture kicked of the whole civilization thing rather than religion. Not having to hunt and gather gives the time needed to develop the specialized roles civilization needs. Religion, not so much.

Agreed. Religion just creates the need to make funny hats.

I would say that plants and humans co-evolved into early agricultural systems (mutually beneficial to human and plant fecundity), which in turn, resulted in sedentism and building of permanent structures.

I can kinda see it. A neutral ground in a "special" place hunter tribes visit at certain times of year to perform rituals, bury their dead. Mingle. Such place would perhaps also be a kinda diplomatic conference hall for tribes to put down some rough borders of their hunting territories, perhaps exchange woman. Such place could be kinda like seasonal anchor which tugs tribes together more and more, while benefits of interaction grow due to tradition. And finally it seems kinda nice idea to spend more time together.

Or perhaps..

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d03SQfs60vA/ShdKaE49mYI/AAAAAAAAAiY/INGhPqiqASE/s400/monolith.jpg)

Most wrote:

I can kinda see it. A neutral ground in a "special" place hunter tribes visit at certain times of year to perform rituals, bury their dead. Mingle. Such place would perhaps also be a kinda diplomatic conference hall for tribes to put down some rough borders of their hunting territories, perhaps exchange woman. Such place could be kinda like seasonal anchor which tugs tribes together more and more, while benefits of interaction grow due to tradition. And finally it seems kinda nice idea to spend more time together.

It could have worked out that way, but how do you test that hypothesis?

That is the problem when trying to study prehistory. The limitations of the archeological record as a data source are pretty strict. Most archaeologists ignore that harsh truth. Empirical generalizations and speculation couched in scientific language often pass for science in archaeology (and the social sciences as well). Organizing and describing artifacts, sediments, and structures in sequential order is fairly straight forward and useful. However, trying to explain the origin and nature of human social institutions in prehistoric times is near impossible. Hell, it is impossible to explain our present day institutions. Competing hypotheses in regards to modern economics, religion, politics, etc. abound.

The best we can hope for is that they start to use Evolutionary theory to generate testable hypotheses in regards to this stuff. Hypotheses that predict certain outcomes in the archaeological record, that can then be tested through discovery, excavation, and research.

What the archaeologist in the the piece is doing is the opposite (discovery->research->empirical generalization). There is no general theory he is using to generate falsifiable hypotheses. That is the essence of the scientific method.

Some interesting culture history there (old building). Nothing more.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

All I know is they took away my Brontosaurus, and with it my childhood dreams. I'll never forgive them. :(

You and my wife. I keep telling her that she can tell my son that the Brontosaurus was real as soon as we find herds of them living on Pluto.

It was also back when the tongue could only sense four tastes...it's amazing to think what's been discovered just since we were in school (not all that long ago).

According to the article they've only dug up 5% of the site. Seems a bit premature to declare much of anything.

Oh, sure, but there's a difference between a ceremony for the dead and a full-scale temple. I'd argue that the ceremonies would be a prerequisite to even want to build a temple in the first place. I, at least, would fully expect to find burials that are older than temples... it seems, at least at first glance, to be the only reasonable outcome.

The thing about a burial is that all it takes is one human and a couple of basic tools. A permanent temple, at least of this size and construction, takes large-scale cooperation, and this building appears to be the earliest example we've found.

Right. But given that agriculture arose at least seven times in disparate places, in fits and starts, and we know that materials less durable than stone were used, and we know that religious symbolism existed long before this (and in groups, as many of these burials are in or near habitations), the claim that this is somehow definitively "the one" seems like hype. I understand, you find something cool, you try to fit it into your theories and accomplishments to get as much recognition as possible, for your theories if not yourself. But if nothing else, the reporting seems to exaggerate the significance of the find. The fact that Turkey is going through a lot of stress between religious and secular elements in society might well play a role in this.

There's a real difference, in the Middle East, between saying "this is the earliest possible place of worship we've found", and "this is the first temple in the world". Heck, even our concept of "temple" as a place where organized religion is centered skews the understanding. We don't know anything about their practices outside of the imagery.

Make sense? I just got the feeling from reading the article that someone had an agenda.

Yeah, you could be right. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years.

Robear wrote:

Make sense? I just got the feeling from reading the article that someone had an agenda.

I figured it was just the archeologist engaging in a bit of self-promotion. Like it wasn't enough that he found the temple/stones. He wanted the discovery to completely change our understanding of why civilization began.

I wouldnt go hard on the scientist at this instance. He has uncovered something really cool and he personally thinks it might actually change many historical concepts. The "Religion Made Civilization, Definitely!" vibe comes not from his quotes but the journalists themselves, I think. He personally thinks it might overturn many preconceptions. Should he play mute just because the subject is kinda touchy? That`d be silly.
If I thought my discoveries might indicate that alien overlords were playing gods in ancient Greece and sexploiting virgins for the amusement of alien TV audiences, I`d spit it out as soon as journalists started recording.

Funkenpants wrote:
Robear wrote:

Make sense? I just got the feeling from reading the article that someone had an agenda.

I figured it was just the archeologist engaging in a bit of self-promotion. Like it wasn't enough that he found the temple/stones. He wanted the discovery to completely change our understanding of why civilization began.

With all deference, I tend to think the news source just snipped until they found something that would play in what they feel is Iowa. Forgive me for not recalling the proper name, but the Lemur-Like primate that was all the buzz last year often went along with stuff like "Was Darwin Wrong?" "Evolution blown apart" and so forth. In the more mundane, researchers into human behaviour often get their work recognized as "What is GTA teaching your kids?" "The health consequences of violent media."

I wouldnt go hard on the scientist at this instance. He has uncovered something really cool and he personally thinks it might actually change many historical concepts. The "Religion Made Civilization, Definitely!" vibe comes not from his quotes but the journalists themselves, I think.

That could well be.

This thread reminded me of a special I saw once about the site of Puma Punku. Take a look at how these stones were cut by a civilization so primitivie it's believe they didn't even have a language. Check out this picture:

IMAGE(http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/11059/wm/pd509775.jpg)

I can't even begin to understand how that was done but here's a link to some discussion of the site:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Ancient-Myst...

Bear wrote:

This thread reminded me of a special I saw once about the site of Puma Punku. Take a look at how these stones were cut by a civilization so primitivie it's believe they didn't even have a language

Interesting, but I suspect you mean they didn't have writing, rather than language, right? I think there's no need for written culture to support the sort of civilisation suggested in your link.

In similar news, I've seen a couple of other things pushing back human dates recently.

Sailing to Crete maybe 120,000 years ago. http://www.bu.edu/today/2010/02/24/riding-waves-130-000-years-ago

Possible writing in South Africa, 60,000 years ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254783/Researchers-discover-ostrich-egg-engravings-thought-earliest-form-writing.html

KingGorilla wrote:

With all deference, I tend to think the news source just snipped until they found something that would play in what they feel is Iowa.

According to the story:

Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold: it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city.

That's not the result of a journalist snipping, but a statement from the horse's mouth regarding why he thinks the site is important.

Like I said, out of context. I could give you some snippets of evolutionary anthropologists when taken alone make them sound like intelligent design proponents. His next sentence may be, or it may have been a bank, or was used to store water in gourds.

He may have an agenda or a bias. Or he may be sitting at home, reading newsweek shouting that is not what he meant at all.

KingGorilla wrote:

He may have an agenda or a bias. Or he may be sitting at home, reading newsweek shouting that is not what he meant at all.

That's not a quote that is taken out of context. It's a summary of his thesis. Yes, the reporter could have completely misunderstood what he said and decided to misrepresent his views, but how likely is that? Another reporter, from the Smithsonian magazine, did a report on the site that has a similar summary:

To Schmidt and others, these new findings suggest a novel theory of civilization. Scholars have long believed that only after people learned to farm and live in settled communities did they have the time, organization and resources to construct temples and support complicated social structures. But Schmidt argues it was the other way around: the extensive, coordinated effort to build the monoliths literally laid the groundwork for the development of complex societies.

Incidentally, the Smithsonian article describes the evidence more thoroughly than the Newsweek report.

MikeSands wrote:

Interesting, but I suspect you mean they didn't have writing, rather than language, right? I think there's no need for written culture to support the sort of civilization suggested in your link.

I'm sorry, yes I meant written language.

The question posed on the show was, how does a culture with no written language cut stones to such precise dimensions.

Yes, the reporter could have completely misunderstood what he said and decided to misrepresent his views, but how likely is that?

Well, this time around, maybe or maybe not, but keep in mind that science reporting in general is terrible. Scientists will say, "well, we just found this interesting thing that causes this material to be repulsed by this material enough to force them apart by 1mm", and reporters will shout, "SCIENTISTS FIND ANTIGRAVITY!" The exaggerations, distortions, and outlandish claims that get into mainstream journalism are legion.

I have no evidence that there's anything amiss in this reporting, I don't know enough about the field to say, but active misrepresentation of scientific findings is pervasive.

Bear wrote:

This thread reminded me of a special I saw once about the site of Puma Punku. Take a look at how these stones were cut by a civilization so primitivie it's believe they didn't even have a language. Check out this picture:

I can't even begin to understand how that was done but here's a link to some discussion of the site:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Ancient-Myst...

I've been there. Very interesting. Not a lot of answers and Bolivia makes it difficult for foreign archeologists to work.

I can't even begin to understand how that was done

It's sandstone. For rock, it's very soft and easy to work, and because it is made up of very small grains, you can get a lot of precise angles and the like. Nothing you can't find in other early cultures (and this one was not so early, AD 600-1000, South America has had permanent settlements since 3500BC.) If you like the stonework, you'd be *amazed* by their fabrics. Fabrics, knots and ropes were the high tech of the stone age, and extremely well developed well before any recorded settlements.

Fitting stone to stone tightly enough not to allow a razor blade or piece of paper between them is stunningly easy and can be done very quickly (hours even for large stones). The technique involves laying a stone in place, trimming it, then putting a mate in place, lifting it back and carving/grinding down the contact points until they fit much more closely. And with sandstone... Well, I suspect one reason the site is where it is was the easy availability of soft stone in quantity.

Robear wrote:

It's sandstone. For rock, it's very soft and easy to work, and because it is made up of very small grains, you can get a lot of precise angles and the like. Nothing you can't find in other early cultures (and this one was not so early, AD 600-1000, South America has had permanent settlements since 3500BC.) If you like the stonework, you'd be *amazed* by their fabrics. Fabrics, knots and ropes were the high tech of the stone age, and extremely well developed well before any recorded settlements.

Fitting stone to stone tightly enough not to allow a razor blade or piece of paper between them is stunningly easy and can be done very quickly (hours even for large stones). The technique involves laying a stone in place, trimming it, then putting a mate in place, lifting it back and carving/grinding down the contact points until they fit much more closely. And with sandstone... Well, I suspect one reason the site is where it is was the easy availability of soft stone in quantity.

Not according to the article:
"The stones in Puma Punku are made up of granite, and diorite, and the only stone that is harder that those two, is the diamond. If the people who built this place cut these stones using stone cutting techniques, then they would had to have used diamond tools."

Right. But according to actual archaeologists,

The Plataforma Lítica contains the largest stone slab found in both the Pumapunku and Tiwanaku Site. This stone slab is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide and averages 1.07 meters thick. Based upon the specific gravity of the red sandstone from which it was carved, this stone slab has been estimated to weigh 131 metric tons.

This is from the Wikipedia page, and the cite is a 1970 article. Ponce Sanginés, C. and G. M. Terrazas, 1970, Acerca De La Procedencia Del Material Lítico De Los Monumentos De Tiwanaku. Publication no. 21. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia.

Further,

The largest of these stone blocks is 7.81 meters long, 5.17 meters wide, averages 1.07 meters thick, and is estimated to weigh about 131 metric tons. The second largest stone block found within the Pumapunka is 7.90 meters long, 2.50 meters wide, and averages 1.86 meters thick. Its weight has been estimated to be 85.21 metric tons. Both of these stone blocks are part of the Plataforma Lítica and composed of red sandstone.[4] Based upon detailed petrographic and chemical analyses of samples from both individual stones and known quarry sites, archaeologists concluded that these and other red sandstone blocks were transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 10 km away. Smaller andesite blocks that were used for stone facing and carvings came from quarries within the Copacabana Peninsula about 90 km away from and across Lake Titicaca from the Pumapunka and the rest of the Tiwanaku Site.[2][4]

So we have quarries nearby for the sandstone, meaning that the people were well-acquainted with it's properties and working it. Andesite is just hard enough to scratch glass, but note that it was used for smaller facings and carvings. They didn't have a mystical way to work either, just hard work and the usual techniques.

Diorite is 7 on the Mohs scale; diamond is ten. (Sandstone is an aggregate and so is not on the scale, it is very easy to work.) Unless one believes that there are no minerals at 8 and 9, the claim that "only diamond" is harder than diorite is a clue that the writer is misinformed at best. (And the Mohs scale was developed by actually scratching minerals with other minerals.) Note also that Diorite *is* similar to granite. The problem is that the author you cited seems to think that the monoliths with the very straight lines were diorite, when in fact that was used for small touches and detail carvings, not the major pieces, which were sandstone.

I've noticed that there's a lot of hyperbole in some articles about Andean stone work. People don't understand the techniques involved and so assume that it's a lot harder technically than it actually is. There's been a lot of work that shows that unsurprisingly, the ancient cultures that used these stones were actually capable of working them.

Robear wrote:

So we have quarries nearby for the sandstone, meaning that the people were well-acquainted with it's properties and working it. Andesite is just hard enough to scratch glass, but note that it was used for smaller facings and carvings. They didn't have a mystical way to work either, just hard work and the usual techniques.

Diorite is 7 on the Mohs scale; diamond is ten. (Sandstone is an aggregate and so is not on the scale, it is very easy to work.) Unless one believes that there are no minerals at 8 and 9, the claim that "only diamond" is harder than diorite is a clue that the writer is misinformed at best. (And the Mohs scale was developed by actually scratching minerals with other minerals.) Note also that Diorite *is* similar to granite. The problem is that the author you cited seems to think that the monoliths with the very straight lines were diorite, when in fact that was used for small touches and detail carvings, not the major pieces, which were sandstone.

I've noticed that there's a lot of hyperbole in some articles about Andean stone work. People don't understand the techniques involved and so assume that it's a lot harder technically than it actually is. There's been a lot of work that shows that unsurprisingly, the ancient cultures that used these stones were actually capable of working them.

Interesting! I'm still puzzled though by the precision on some of those stones. Specifically the precision on the edges and depth. Even with modern tools that type of precision is incredible.

Bear wrote:

I'm still puzzled though by the precision on some of those stones. Specifically the precision on the edges and depth. Even with modern tools that type of precision is incredible.

I'm not sure that is really a mystery. Just a sign that they worked very, very hard to get it right.

Once, while living in Armenia, I was amazed by an old mason cutting an intricate cross and pomegranate design (hachkar -- a local divination tradition) into a cornerstone of a new building on my block in 30 min flat, using a hammer and a rather crude looking chisel.

There was no template, no onion skin, no preliminary markings -- the design was emerging out of the pink volcanic tuff rock right as he went. The resulting symmetry and precision was extraordinary.

I figure if you something very well, and you practice it all your life... The results might be incredible indeed.

Bear, human beings are really smart. Incans carved stairs into mountains, all Central American tribes carved out tremendous cities. With sand and water, the Greeks cut slabs of marble. More impressive, Greeks and Romans made roofs out of marble with no central supports. We got to the moon on a casio calculator's worth of computing power, and all that.

We have a damn hard time not thinking of people in the past as animals.