biased history What a pity when National Geographic magazine, a journal with the photos of immerse beauty, publishes third grade texts, with some science aspirations on the top of that. What I am talking about? Just take a look on The birth of religion by Charles C Mann on the subject of the temple of Gőbekli Tepe in southern Turkey, 11,600 years old (National Geographic, June 2011). Read the claims like "the worlds’s oldest temple", "built by hunter-gatherers", "organized religion gives rise to farming", i.e. religion is older than agriculture, "the urge to worship sparked civilization" as opposed to "agriculture gave rise to cities", etc.
|
First of all, the author is mixing religion (a kind of philoso- phy) with a worship structure (temple, church). Religion, as a system of thoughts, has been practiced by human beings from the earliest evolution stages, as witnessed by hunter-gatherers who existed up to recent colonial times. And, yes, from that point of view, religion is older than agriculture - but it has nothing to do with Gőbekli Tepe. The temple does not mark the birth of religion. Then, the claim that Gőbekli Tepe marks the beginning of "organized religion" is on shaky grounds. It is, currently, the oldest known structure tentatively related to worship activities. What is earliest found is not necessarily the beginning - not only that warship structures of perishing materials, like wood, could existed but there could be older stone structured not unearthed yet. So, nothing uniquely religious is to be related to 11, 600 years ago. The author presents two ‘proofs’ that the Gőbekli Tepe is built by hunter-gatherers: (1) no human settlements found in the vicinity; (2) only animal bones found to evidence the builders’ diet. Very hollow. Settlements (living quarters) not found - that is not the same as not existed. [NOTE]. Only animal bones - of course, grains and lettuce don’t leave their ‘bones’ and cooking utilities are likely to be found in living quarters. I wonder if the author ever asked himself what logistics is involved in a stone structure building. Did hunter-gatherers built the temple in their spare time, in-between the two successful kills? Did they quarry stone blocks while gathering blueberries? And the crucial question: what is the author’s main agenda, the agenda for which he is ready to go into logical and historical inconsistencies? It’s author’s intention to pump up the role of religion in the rise of civilization. So, because the turning point in the rise of our civilization is linked to agricultural revolution in |
|
Neolithic times, he goes into hollow arguments to place religion before agriculture. The arguments are meaningless because both, religion and agriculture go back to much earlier times, both are much older than brick and stone buildings. The Neolitic Revolution does not represent the beginning of farming, it does represent the transition from hobby farming (a supplement to hunting and gathering) to arable farming
[C. TUDGE].By the way, it is an assumption, a reasonable assumption but assumption nevertheless, that G
őbekli Tepe was a temple. For all we know about the social life of people using the structure, it could have been a parliament building or a public toilet.
WEBSITE EDITOR:
Krešimir J. Adamić
