Special Items and Art as well as Special Elite Burials at Catal Huyuk

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Leopard Crown Male Hunter from wall art in a temple at level III wearing a leopard pelt. Here are two male figurines sitting, that seem to be wearing leopard skin caps that like the Male Hunter in the wall art that are not common and thus likely reflects elite. Moreover, the elite male skeleton seems to also be in a body position at burial like the two male figurines tightly sitting with his arms at his legs. Then there are the two depicted ceremonial daggers buried with elite males.

No gentry but grave-makers: inequality beyond property accumulation at Neolithic Çatalhöyük

“ABSTRACT: Archaeologists have adopted the Gini coefficient to evaluate unequal accumulations of material, supporting narratives modeled on modern inequality discourse. Proxies are defined for wealth and the household, to render 21st century-style economic tensions perceptible in the past. This ‘property paradigm’ treats material culture as a generic rather than substantive factor in unequal pasts. We question this framing while suggesting that the Gini coefficient can prompt a deeper exploration of value. Our study grows from multi-material evaluation of inequality at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. Here we use the Gini coefficient to scrutinize distributions of burial practices among houses. To the expectations of the property paradigm, the result is unintuitive – becoming slightly more equal despite rising social complexity. We explore possible explanations for this result, each pointing to a more substantive link between past futures and differentiated lives as a framework for archaeologies of inequality.” ref

“An inequality paradox: burial at Çatalhöyük: Çatalhöyük was first inhabited around 7100 BCE (Bayliss et al. Citation2015). It initially comprised clusters of mudbrick dwellings interspersed with open spaces. Over time it became larger overall, and buildings were wedged into almost all of its open spaces. By ca. 6700, it was a radically dense settlement of perhaps several thousand people, traversed in part by walking across rooftops and descending into buildings by ladder. After ca. 6500, the site dispersed, continuing as a lower-density settlement into the 6th millennium (Marciniak et al. Citation2015).” ref 

“Many narratives feature Neolithic settlements as likely locations for the first emergence of social inequality. However, it is now clear that interpreting the Neolithic in terms of social hierarchy is far from straightforward (Hodder Citation2022). Many analyses do show social and economic roles becoming more diversified between the ‘Early’ (7100–6700) and ‘Middle’ (6700–6500) periods at Çatalhöyük (chronology following Hodder Citation2022). Many buildings were richly decorated with sculpture and painting, while others contain less visual elaboration (Hodder and Pels Citation2010). Material culture such as body ornamentation, figurines, and lithics reveals makers of a range of skill levels (e.g. Bains et al. Citation2013). And certain material culture, such as groundstone tools and large timbers, are recovered disproportionately from a subset of houses (e.g. Wright Citation2014). Yet other analyses, such as Mazzucato’s (Citation2019) network analysis, complicate the picture, showing higher qualitative similarity between houses despite rising quantitative dissimilarity in the sums of things inside them. This complex picture presents ample material with which to study inequality – and also calls for caution.” ref

“Many authors see Çatalhöyük communities as organized around ‘history houses’, ‘memory houses’ or ‘meeting houses’, set apart by accumulations of some sort, whose inhabitants would have enjoyed outsized influence and opportunity (Hodder and Pels Citation2010; Kuijt Citation2018; Wright Citation2014). Others have discerned mechanisms of differentiation in Neolithic practices, arguing for the emergence of private food storage (Bogaard et al. Citation2009), central roles for elders (Pearson and Meskell Citation2015), and varying levels of access or seclusion for different households (Düring Citation2001). However, studies rarely agree about which houses were ‘socially central’. Table 2 illustrates this by evaluating houses in one Middle period neighborhood using several published criteria for ‘special’ buildings. Each set of criteria highlights different buildings. Incidentally, none identifies the largest and most storage-rich building (Building 59) as ‘special’.” ref

“A second challenge is the fragmented nature of inequality studies. Many studies focus one or two materials/practices, treating those measures as indicative of inequality across domains (e.g. Mazzucato et al. Citation2022). This is compounded by the property paradigm: buildings are sometimes treated as stand-ins for human beings (i.e. households), and sums of material culture within their walls are treated as reflections of those people’s social position. Ambiguous, contradictory, or changing traits of buildings become difficult to analyze (Kay Citation2020b).” ref

“In response to these challenges, Hodder (Citation2022) has recently argued for a ‘molar’ model of social structure at Çatalhöyük–one where overarching forms of value and habitus supported many domain-specific ways of connecting people together and defining their differences. He contrasts this with societies that arrange people into partially autonomous, formulaic (‘molecular’) groupings that hold true in almost all aspects of life. Put simply: some people may have been grouped together as a ‘social unit’ with ‘central’ people/places in one practice (e.g. burial) yet may have been grouped differently in other practices (e.g. harvesting crops).” ref

“Declining burial inequality at Çatalhöyük: To investigate domain-specific inequalities, we compiled data on a range of materials: artifacts such as clay objects and lithics; animal remains and botanical residues; information about the size and internal structure of buildings; as well as burials and display elements. Our goal was to see if narratives about inequality built around select datasets held up within a more robust, multi-practice evaluation of Neolithic life.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art  

ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Almost all human figurines found are women I only agree a few may be male and am sure the ones wearing the a Leopard Crown are most likely males.

This figurine both appears to be male and wears a leopard skin crown like depicted on the man that is hunting. Therefore, I surmise he is a clan/hunting-cult leader sitting not on a seat of power but could reference this or less likely, to me, a God/Demigod/Grandfather-father Ancestor Spirit. 

Picture Link: ref 

“Dancer. From a wall painting. South Anatolian Early Neolithic Culture, c. 6000 BC. From the temple in Level III of Catal Huyuk, Turkey. The male figure, a monochromatic silhouette, wears a cap of leopard skin and around his hips a leopard pelt.” ref 

None of the average male hunters are depicted as wearing a leopard skin crown. It is thus a special or elite thing to wear a leopard skin crown. Moreover, I see this not as standard hunting for food but rather  cult ritual hunting behaviors. I feel it is express hunting cult with totemistic warrior-shaman early paganist males seen taunting and ritualistically playing with animals, such as bears and bulls in demonstrations of bravery.  

Picture Link: ref 

A Modified Boar Skull from Çatalhöyük

“A boar skull with unusual modifications was discovered at the Anatolian Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük. The cranium and the mandible were both present and in articulation. Most of the mandibular cheek teeth had been deliberately removed. The interior of the cranium was absent as well, but the upper canine teeth were found in approximately correct anatomical position. Wheat and barley phytoliths were found in the back of the mouth. This article describes the find, contextualizes the skull morphologically within the said populations of Çatalhöyük and the broader Anatolian Neolithic, and discusses its manufacture and possible use.” ref

Picture Link: ref 

Referring to Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 9,500 to 7,700 years ago (Turkey)

“Elite Burial of an adult male Skeleton 21636 (I think could be a clan/hunting-cult leader),  Burial F.7632, from Building 132, with a ceremonial flint dagger several worked bone items a harpoon a hook and a pendent.” ref   

Building 132, Burial F.7632, adult male (21636), Cut (21631), and Fill (21630)

“F.7632 contained the primary undisturbed remains of a young adult male (21636). The body was placed in a very tightly flexed position on its left side with the head to the northwest (facing east) and the feet to the southeast. The skeleton was very loosely articulated, and the cranium crushed flat, with numerous elements out of place including many of the ribs, as well as the sacrum. Most noticeable, however, was the left forearm and hand, which was disarticulated from the left humerus and tucked under the right arm. Given the state of the skeleton and its extremely tight flexion, it is clear that this individual must have been largely skeletonized (to me possible vulture excarnation) and kept tightly bound in a container of some fashion before its eventual interment. Traces of phytoliths on the skeleton in the form of cord wrapping appear to confirm this. Several grave good were associated with this individual, including a finely worked chert dagger (21630.x5) and several worked bone items including a harpoon (21630.x3), a hook (21630.x1) and a pendant (21630.x2). These were found together just below the region of the neck and may have been kept in a hide pouch. Two stone beads (21630.x6, x7) were also recovered from the grave fill.” ref   

“The excavations in the North Area Çatalhöyük in Building 132 a head was found that had been modeled in plaster, painted and inserted with obsidian eyes. While a Neolithic statue with obsidian eyes has been found at Şanliurfa, parallels for the Building 132 head are rare. Building 132 occurs probably in Level North F level, roughly comparable to Mellaart’s Level VII. The head was multiply replastered, and in some of the replasterings the obsidian eyes were replaced with black paint. The head was originally attached to the wall of Building 132, above and looking into or watching over the entrance into the side storage room. It is tempting to interpret the head and its obsidian eyes as monitoring the movement of stores into and out of the side room. In the early and mid-levels at Çatalhöyük, there seem to have been strong constraints on the accumulation of stores and material wealth by individual houses and by individuals in those houses. It is not possible easily to determine whether the head represents a human or animal. When viewed face on, many observers see resemblances to a feline or bear, but when viewed from the side, the head has the type of nose and chin seen on anthropomorphic figurines.” ref  

“Two such insights resulted from the excavation of Building 132, mentioned above in relation to the discovery of the plastered head with obsidian eyes. The first insight resulted from the fact that the building had some unusual characteristics. For example, the building as excavated is very large; but the building also extends to the west and east below as yet unexcavated buildings, making it by far the largest building yet excavated at Çatalhöyük. In addition the walls are much thicker than other buildings of this time period (Level North F), and the building was abandoned in an unusual way, with 2.5m high walls left standing. All this suggests a building of special significance, an interpretation supported by the fact that the building above it, excavated over the last decade as Building 77, was very elaborate and had an unusually large amount of bodies buried beneath the floors. The main room in Building 132 was largely devoid of platforms in its latest phase before abandonment, but it did have ovens and hearths associated with in situ clay balls in its southern half.” ref 

“It is possible that this room acted as a food preparation and consumption area for a larger group than is normally seen at the site. Whether this is a special building for communal activity or just an unusually large building will have to await further excavation. But Building 132 does raise the issue of whether we have been entirely correct in saying that the society at Çatalhöyük was fully egalitarian. Another insight deriving from the excavation of Building 132 concerned the large number of burials found in the northeast corner of the main room. These, however, are all dated to the period after the aban donment of the building. There is much evidence of wall collapse, decay and rebuilding in the later phases of use of this building (again suggesting that a process of ‘forgetting’ was taking place). After a period of time in which the northeast of the abandoned building was used for refuse deposition, a series of burials were interred. These were placed before and during the foundation of Building 77 that was built above Building 132, and it was the northeast corner that was to become the center of burial and ritual elaboration in Building 77.” ref  

“It seems, then, that Building 77 was constructed over a cemetery located in the northeast corner of the abandoned Building 132. A similar process has now been found in a number of cases, such as the plastered skull placed in a foundation burial in Building 53, and the cemetery found beneath the B.65-B.56-B.44-B.10 sequence of buildings. Another possible example is the series of burials found beneath Building 17 in the South Area. Although the floors of Building 17 remain to be fully excavated, there is much evidence that below this building there are midden layers into which elaborate burials were set. In one case, a thick layer of phytoliths seems to suggest a plank placed on or with the body. A very similar plank burial was found in the same building during older excavations. Most commentators, including the present team, have interpreted Çatalhöyük as consisting of houses in which burials were placed. Perhaps we need to reformulate this perspective and see the burials as primary, with houses built up around them. Another new emerging interpretation concerns the fact that in the North Area we have now excavated four large and elaborate buildings in a row.” ref  

“Building 131 was situated to the south of Building 5 (that had the burned Building 1 above it), and to the north of Building 132 (with burned Building 77 above it). We have thus now excavated four large buildings, from north to south Building 5-1, Building 131, Building 132-77 and Building 52. All these buildings are large, long-lasting, have many burials, are often very elaborate and ‘rich’, and have a final phase of burning. They are surrounded to the west and east by smaller buildings, less elaborate, often with fewer burials, often unburned, and by large areas of midden or open space. We have yet to fully understand what these linear arrangements of special buildings indicate but we have seen similar arrangements in the South Area – for example Mellaart’s ‘shrines’ 1, 8 and 10 form a similar row of elaborate buildings, often with many burials, that end in burning. Might these be spatial representations of lineages of related buildings? Towards the end of the occupation of the Neolithic East Mound there are many changes in economic and social and ritual life at Çatalhöyük. There is understanding these changes best in the TP, TPC and GDN Areas of the site just to the east of the South shelter. Excavation and research continued in the TPC and GDN Areas discovered often very large buildings with thick walls and multiple rooms and without burials beneath the floors.” ref  

“Another change is that had been noted earlier is that wall decoration extends over the whole of the main room of houses in later levels rather than being confined to the walls near burials of adults in the northern part of rooms. This observation was confirmed in the excavation of Space 462. The walls of this room were richly decorated with geometric motifs, and had platforms, ovens, benches, bucrania (bull skulls) as well as two small painted pillars placed on a bench against the northern wall. In earlier levels of occupation at the site, the walls adjacent to storage rooms are not decorated. But in Space 462 the painted decoration extended over the eastern wall behind which there was Space 493 containing five large storage bins for wheat and barley. So, while in earlier levels of occupation storage areas were not marked and were ‘watched over’ with obsidian eyes, in later phases there was more open recognition and even celebration of stored wealth. The accumulation of stored wealth became more acceptable in the later phases of occupation at Çatalhöyük.” ref 

“In the course of several excavations, hundreds of skeletons have been recovered. The height of the walls is due to their destruction when a head of the household died. People destroyed the old home and moved when a significant man or woman died. They buried their dead in the floor of their homes. The bodies are in a fetal position. Some key people ‘s heads were kept in the home to serve in rituals. Some skulls were plastered and painted with red ochre. Burials in Catal Huyuk used to take place below the platforms of houses, such as seen from house Level VI-Building 34.” ref 

Picture Link: ref 

The two Pictures Above Link: Ref  

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

The two above pictures are connected relating to the same burial and its place and their Link is: ref

Leopard claw-bone pendant from the Possible Woman Shaman/Priestess burial with the plastered and painted woman’s head in her arms that is several generations removed. She was buried under the floor of the history house with the twin facing leopards at Catal Huyuk. Ref

“From about 7500 B.C.E to 5700 B.C.E., early farmers grew wheat, barley, and peas, and raised sheep, goats, and cattle. At its height, some 10,000 people lived there. Among its more noteworthy features, Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants were obsessed with plaster, lining their walls with it, using it as a canvas for artwork, and even coating the skulls of their dead to recreate the lifelike countenances of their loved ones.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

There are other clothing resembling miniskirts that have been identified by archaeologists and historians as far back as 3,390–3,370 years ago. But this is much older. ref

Leopard claw-bone pendant from the Possible Woman Shaman/Priestess burial with the plastered and painted woman’s head in her arms that is several generations removed. She was buried under the floor of the history house (house with multiple burials beyond that of the connected family) with the twin-facing leopards at Catal Huyuk. Ref

“From about 7500 B.C.E to 5700 B.C.E., early farmers grew wheat, barley, and peas, and raised sheep, goats, and cattle. At its height, some 10,000 people lived there. Among its more noteworthy features, Çatalhöyük’s inhabitants were obsessed with plaster, lining their walls with it, using it as a canvas for artwork, and even coating the skulls of their dead to recreate the lifelike countenances of their loved ones.” ref

Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal the Absence of Maternal Kinship in the Burials of Çatalhöyük People and Their Genetic Affinities

“Çatalhöyük is one of the most widely recognized and extensively researched Neolithic settlements. The site has been used to discuss a wide range of aspects associated with the spread of the Neolithic lifestyle and the social organization of Neolithic societies. Here, we address both topics using newly generated mitochondrial genomes, obtained by direct sequencing and capture-based enrichment of genomic libraries, for a group of individuals buried under a cluster of neighboring houses from the classical layer of the site’s occupation. Our data suggests a lack of maternal kinship between individuals interred under the floors of Çatalhöyük buildings. The findings could potentially be explained either by a high variability of maternal lineages within a larger kin group, or alternatively, an intentional selection of individuals for burial based on factors other than biological kinship. Our population analyses shows that Neolithic Central Anatolian groups, including Çatalhöyük, share the closest affinity with the population from the Marmara Region and are, in contrast, set further apart from the Levantine populations. Our findings support the hypothesis about the emergence and the direction of spread of the Neolithic within Anatolian Peninsula and beyond, emphasizing a significant role of Central Anatolia in this process.” ref

“Neolithic Çatalhöyük (7100–5950 BCE) is a world-renowned Neolithic settlement. Its size, remarkable preservation, presence of numerous works of Neolithic art, and large amounts of archeological data obtained through meticulous excavation have consolidated its unquestioned importance in the identification of a wide range of constituent elements of the Neolithic. The settlement was composed of a conglomeration of clustered neighborhoods with clearly defined modular house units. All houses were apparently occupied and used for domestic purposes. Burials were located under the floors of most buildings, especially under elevated platforms in northern and eastern parts of the living rooms. However, some of the buildings, notably the ones with more elaborate art installations, contained more burials (up to almost 70 individuals, more than one would expect from the estimated number of their inhabitants), implying their special status. Those buildings are thought to have been “history houses” that provided or controlled ancestors and rituals for a larger kin or other group.” ref

“Initially, it was proposed that Çatalhöyük individuals buried together in the same building were biologically related, and groupings of houses and constituting neighborhoods were defined by biological affinity. Then, an uneven distribution of burials among different houses was interpreted as evidence for some of them being a burial place for larger household communities, composed of a number of houses inhabited by nuclear families. A recent study based on dental phenotypes of individuals found in Çatalhöyük burials showed that individuals with close biological affinity spanned across several buildings. This result was interpreted as evidence of the lack of kinship patterning in burials found at the site. However, the correlation between biological distances based on both morphological traits and genetic kinship is poorly understood, as both types of data are rarely available for the same set of samples. In the few studies where direct comparison between morphological and genetic data was available, the results were inconsistent, pointing towards weak correlation. Several approaches and tools for genetic kinship estimation based on ancient DNA have been recently published, and although these tools were developed with low coverage data in mind, they still depend on significant overlap in nuclear single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between analyzed samples. However, where overall ancient DNA (aDNA) preservation between samples is poor and/or deeper sequencing data is not feasible, mitochondrial (mt) genomes can be used to exclude maternal kinship.” ref

“The emergence and expansion of the Neolithic within and outside of Anatolia is another issue that could be addressed with ancient DNA data from Çatalhöyük. This process is thought to be a sum of several waves and trajectories of migration. The Neolithic in Central and South-western Anatolia is thought to have developed under the influences from the upper Euphrates valley in the span of a thousand years, with the earliest evidence of some degree of Neolithic lifestyle seen in Central Anatolia in the second half of the 9th millennium BCE. However, the emergence of Neolithic societies in Central Anatolia was also proposed to be an autonomous process, involving local hunter-gatherers adopting the Neolithic lifestyle under the influence of farming communities from South-eastern Anatolia and Levant. Furthermore, it has additionally been proposed that the region of Central Anatolia might not have contributed significantly to the subsequent westward movement of Neolithic tradition, as both archeological and zooarchaeological data suggest that it constituted a distinctive cultural zone. At the same time, the maritime colonization originating in the Levantine coast has been proposed as the major factor contributing to the development and the spread of the Neolithic in the Aegean coast of western Anatolia. It is thought that this process did not involve any local populations, as Mesolithic occupation was sparse in the parts of the region where the Neolithic first appeared.” ref

“Çatalhöyük was undoubtedly a part of a large, far-reaching exchange network and could have potentially participated in the exchange of both goods and ideas. Elements of Çatalhöyük origin began to emerge in particular in North-western Anatolia/Turkey in the middle of the 7th millennium BCE. This process was unquestionably complex, presumably involving several subsequent impulses, as it took two millennia for the Neolithic to spread first to western Anatolia/Turkey, with the earliest dates for the Neolithic being around the late 8th millennium BCE, and then towards Marmara Region in the late 7th millennium BCE. The questions concerning to what extent those impulses towards the west and North-western Anatolia were connected with gene flow and what was the role of the autochthonous hunter-gatherers in the spread are yet to be resolved. In some parts of the region, intermediate and mixed traditions and economies have been observed. At the same time, genomic data, both from the Marmara Region and Central Anatolia, shows the genetic similarity of those regions and their close genetic affinity with Central European Neolithic populations. Those results support the leading role of the terrestrial route of the Neolithic spread both within and outside of Anatolia/Turkey.” ref

Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 9,500 to 7,700 years ago (Turkey)

• Possible Clan Leader/Special “MALE” Ancestor Totem Poles (Turkey) At Least 13,500 years ago?
• Fertile Crescent 12,500 – 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system somewhat centering on Turkey?
• Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000/13,000 years ago.
• Could a 12000-year-old Bull Geoglyph at Göbekli Tepe relate to older Bull and Female Art 25,000 years ago and Later Goddess and the Bull cults like Catal Huyuk?
• Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago.
• First Patriarchy: Split of Women’s Status around 12,000 years ago & First Hierarchy: fall of Women’s Status around 5,000 years ago.
• 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism

Marquis Amon “A leopard skin is no easy thing to get, and it seems that only highly distinguished people possessed them, either gender. If I recall an earlier discussion with you, this establishment seemed to have equal gender, but was possibly a matriarchy.

A few things hint to it. Women having leopard skins as well as their body image. Realistically it wouldn’t make sense for women to hunt if they were “fat”, given the dangerous animals they hunted. So to me, they likely held higher spiritual leadership roles. Some evidence had been found such as the male and female ornate plastered skulls. 

What I find interesting is that in my opinion, the city began to become increasingly religious. In my opinion, it looks to me like the gradual veneration of the dead (early art designated burial chambers) to more modern mainstream worship where it was found in work and oven areas. 

Another cool thing you point out is that the male ritual hunter may have taunted the animals. Namely with bulls come to mind is a modern-day Matador. I hypothesize that these leaders may be showing off bravery to ancestors or gods. We see a sort of shamanistic and totemistic nature as you mention. Not only do we see these animals in wall art, but carved in pillars if I am not mistaken. Suffice to say that these animals were not just very fierce but also played a role in their belief system. 

While I wouldn’t use the word “Skull Cult” here despite plastered skulls, head trauma injuries, ect. They definitely knew the head was important, and a leopard skin crown would have definitely been a high-status symbol. I am not sure of this, but it looks like to me that abandoned buildings became burial chambers. Or that events took place socially that designated certain places be burial chambers. Almost as if parts were a necropolis. Awesome article my friend.”  Marquis Amon

My response to Marquis Amon, Egalitarian society and possibly not matriarchy but there were elites and some difference even there with women eat more domesticated animals and men eat more wild animals both eat similar amounts its children that seem to get less. I see it as men as clan leaders and women as religious leaders. And, yes, “bulls come to mind is a modern-day Matador” I do think there is likely a connection. Moreover, to me, it was likely male hunting cult leaders or special members engaging in the taunting animals that may be showing off bravery to ancestors and/or goddesses. 

Marquis Amon “I was thinking that if this was a theocratic state the religious influence would be ruling. Yet as you mention this was a hybridization of hunter-gathers and religion. Previously, we had more of semi-permanent religious sites of a similar kind. I was also thinking that if they worshiped a goddess that the women would be more closely linked. This may be erroneous on my part and the deity could be androgynous as you mention later, By no means am I saying I think I am right regarding the matriarchy comment, rather just wanted to explain my rationale. Separate but equal status, genders fulfilling different roles. Interestingly from a behavioral standpoint, we have seen it in Neanderthals, socially. This is more complex regarding modern humans, but wanted to say we do have a precedent for it.” 

My response to Marquis Amon, I understand your thinking and would have thought the same thing but this is before the standard social norms we think of regarding gender that became more fixed around 4,000 years ago and after. This is 9,000 to before 7,000 years ago. It is largely at 7,000 to 5,000 that male and female gender treatment in society gradually changes favoring males over females. At around 4,000 is the first emerging of monotheistic type religion that with “only” male-gods pushing out paganism with male and female gods and goddesses. By 2,000 years ago relatively all goddesses faith was gone and man and sexism rained.  

Different types of egalitarian societies and the development of inequality in early Mesopotamia

“Abstract: There is no single form that equality takes in past societies. Some societies, horizontal egalitarian systems, manifest an absence of hierarchy, but in other societies (vertical egalitarian systems), privileged status coexists with substantial equality. A detailed comparison of the Halaf culture of northern Mesopotamia and eastern Anatolia with the Samarra and Ubaid cultures of central and southern Mesopotamia, examining settlement patterns, economy, and burial customs, reveals the ways the vectors of egalitarianism in these two contrasting systems and enables key variables determining the nature and distribution of equality to be distinguished. The excavation of the Halaf settlement at Kazane is still limited to an extremely small area and is mostly unpublished. Only an extensive excavation, stratigraphically connecting in detail the individual building phases recognized in different trenches, could actually prove the absence of shifting in the settled areas during the course of the same archaeological phase. A certain quantity of charred grains has been found at Sabi Abyad in the area around these structures. Researchers have suggested the use of the Latin term cretula (a white clay used for sealing) to designate clay sealings and any kind of sealed administrative tools.” ref

“This, rather than exchange or transhumant pastoralism, was, in the researcher’s opinion, the main explanation for the Halaf ‘expansion’, also according with the extensive, gradual, and capillary occupation by this culture of the Eastern Anatolian regions. The exchange of valuables over long distances was certainly also intensified during the urbanization process in Mesopotamia, and the exploitation of metals had undergone a clear intensification, starting from the end of the Ubaid period and more evidently in the Uruk period. The economic sectors that were subjected to an increasingly complex and sophisticated administrative apparatus – and were therefore under a real centralized control – were still, however, in the Late Uruk period, those related to the production of staples and the management of the labor force, as documented by the archaeological evidence, where it exists, in more than one site both in the north (Jebel Aruda, Arslantepe) and in the south (Uruk-Warka). The researcher is therefore convinced that the basic sources of wealth for the emerging elites were primary products, whereas trade and production of valuables (the so-called ‘wealth finance’) accompanied this process as a consequence of the increased power of the high-rank units and their new requests for prestige and craft articles.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

First Major Expression of the Male God? Yes, to me, it seems he stole the goddess’s birthing stool, and possibly her power?

The two top left male and female figurines are from Cernavodă, the necropolis where the famous statues “The (MALE) Thinker” and “The Sitting Woman” were discovered and may date some time after 7,000 to 6,600 years ago. ref, ref, ref

The Hamangia culture began around 7,250-7,200 years ago and lasted until around 6,550-6,500 years ago It was absorbed by the expanding Boian culture in its transition towards the Gumelnitsa. Its cultural links with Anatolia suggest that it was the result of a settlement by people from Anatolia, unlike the neighboring cultures, which appear descended from an earlier Neolithic settlement. ref

A Study Of Anthropomorphic Figurines In The Neolithic

“In the Neolithic, figurines largely appear at a time when human cultures were going through significant and critical changes, so significant and critical that the period has often been referred to as the “Neolithic revolution.” These figurines do not appear in every Neolithic society but seem to be common to a great many. Nor do they appear continuously through time in each culture where they are found. Agriculture and sedentism begin to replace the lifeways of the hunter-gatherer nomads, and some of the earliest clear examples of public architecture and ceremonial gatherings begin to show up in the material records of such places as Nevalı Çori, Göbekli Tepe and Çatalhöyük. Prior to the invention of writing, symbols and signs appear in the archaeological record in the form of pictographs, petroglyphs, murals, pottery designs, and figurines. These artifacts are among the precious few sources of information about cultures long dead before the advent of writing.” ref

“The Neolithic periods of Southwest Asia and Southeastern Europe total at least 403 anthropomorphic figurines, around 11,000 to 4,300 years ago, 148 (36.7%) were from sites in Southwest Asia and 255 (63.3%) were from sites in Southeastern Europe mostly of terracotta and stone, a disproportionate number of figurines are representative of the female sex compared to male as well as that asexual-figurines are also equally disproportionate. Although most Neolithic societies may have differences among the many commonalities that these cultures shared are small portable figurines of terracotta and, sometimes, stone. Anthropomorphic figurines are recovered in a variety of archaeological contexts, many of which can be clearly defined as domestic, burial, and ritual. In Bulgaria and Moldavia, for instance, figurines are frequently found in association with Neolithic cemeteries. Neolithic figurines filled a variety of roles which included rituals for curing, protection, initiation, and marriage, as well as to support oral narratives.” ref

“Anthropomorphic figurines are also very striking examples of Neolithic artifacts that have the potential to act as external symbolic storage. The quality of individual identity within Chalcolithic Bulgarian settlements by analyzing figurines within burials. Offers five methods of decoration: incising, piercing, painting, piercing and painting, and non-decoration, and sexual identities in the figurines excavated: female (69%), male (less than 1%) and asexual (31%) thus probably multi-sexual and multi-gendered culture. Most male figurines dominated the cemeteries and female figurines prevailed in the domestic spaces, a significant presence of asexual figurines were found throughout the Neolithic and Chalcolithic.” ref

“Many figurines express obesity and while obesity is definitely represented in the archaeological records of Neolithic cultures, the discontinuity between the obesity in figurines found at Çatalhöyük and the body types excavated. To date, no clear evidence has been discovered that would indicate a body was that of an obese or robust person. The mortuary data retrieved thus far from Çatalhöyük are far from conclusive and at least one case of a burial “special treatment” could exist of a person that was obese. ” ref

“The Neolithic in Southeastern Europe begins by many accounts (e.g., Talalay at around 8,500 years ago). In southern Greece and the Aegean, a large corpus of anthropomorphic figurines emerge in many places beginning around this time in the regions of Thessaly and Central Greece, Macedonia, and Crete. The region of Greece that has, to date, produced the most Neolithic figurines. The Sesklo culture in Thessaly at Dimini Sesklo and Achilleion. Notably, Sesklo figurines share many attributes with those of the Near East, such as seated posture, conical shaped heads, and coffee-bean or cowrie-shaped eyes.” ref

“North of Greece, the Karanovo culture begins in the Eastern Balkan region at about 7,800 years ago and figurines produced are marked by “focus[ed] attention on faces and hips, buttocks and the pubis”. In the Central Balkans, the Vinča Complex begins around 7,265 and the figurines from this culture are very striking with distinctive triangular, mask-like faces, detailed incisions, and symmetrical perforations. Several other regions in Southeastern Europe also provide a rich body of distinct anthropomorphic figurine styles. The Tisza culture in Hungary emerged during the Late Neolithic (around 6,970-6,380 years ago), the Cucuteni culture in modern Romania and Moldavia flourished from around. 6,800-5,500 years ago.” ref

“And closer to the Adriatic but still on the Balkan Peninsula, the Butmir culture is dated to around 7,300-6,200 years ago also in the Middle and Late Neolithic periods. Also considered to be within Southeastern Europe are the island sites of Malta and Sardinia. Malta was first settled by Neolithic farmers around 7,000 years ago and through the Final Neolithic, the island produced a rich body of figurines modeled in clay or carved from stone and bone. Malone notes that current evidence supports the idea that Sardinia was occupied continuously from the Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic which began on the island around 7,230 years ago. The figurines of Sardinia are more likely to be carved of stone than modeled in clay and many are found carved from tuff, marble, alabaster, gypsum, and steatite.” ref

“It is also possible that the idea that figurines are not simply media that communicate messages or store information but also to express or be utilized as representations that have meanings that can change over time and vary from observer to observer. The mental representation of the figurine becomes the ideas and concepts held by the observer, likely influenced the figurine’s context as it was used in domestic, ritual, and ceremonial settings. Posture for most figurines is a central attribute though often one that includes a combination of limb positions. So while standing and seated are two very general descriptions of posture, the positions of limbs could define the figurine as seated with a left leg crossed over the right, legs folded underneath the figure, or even kneeling. Figurines, of course, do not have an agency that is independent of humans.” ref

“Southeastern Europe contributed a more diverse and dispersed set of sites to the corpus, with a majority of 73 (18.1%) originating from sites in Romania. Other significant contributors were sites in the regions of Bulgaria (34 figurines at 8.4%), Central Greece (23figurines at 5.7%), Sardinia (23 figurines at 5.7%), Serbia (22 figurines at 5.6%), Malta (21figurines at 5.2%), and the Peloponnese of Greece (19 figurines at 4.7%). Other contributing sites were in the regions of Kosovo (10 figurines at 2.5%), Hungary (9 figurines at 2.2%), Bosnia(9 figurines at 2.2%), and then Crete, Macedonia, and Moldavia (each with 3 figurines at 0.7%). A single contributing Neolithic figurine was from Italy which was 0.3% of the corpus.” ref

“A male figurine from Nevalı Çori dating to between 10,500 and 9,900 years ago that appears to be wearing a belt or sash around the hips that may have a leopard design. This stylistic motif is similar to that of the somewhat younger design associated with an anthropomorphic figure in a mural at Çatalhöyük also of a male(s) (which could represent a hunting cult). If their creators fashioned figurines to represent bodies they knew best, then many or most of the creators may have been female since figurines that are clearly male represent a small percentage of the corpus but what would it mean in relation to the very high percentage of asexual figurines in the Neolithic, (could mean trans/intersex people or that they were for use by several male and female individuals, or diverse gendered duties, maybe a little of both?).” ref

The often largely forgotten Gender Fluidity in the Goddesses and Gods

“Many cultures have gods, demi-gods, and heroes with both male and female attributes. In Hindu mythology, Shiva is seduced by Vishnu’s female avatar, Mohini, giving birth to the god Shasta (Ayyappa). Shiva himself is often represented as Ardhanarishvara, an androgynous composite of Shiva and Parvati with a body that is male on the right-hand side and female on the left. Arjuna, the great warrior of the Mahabharata epic, spent a year as a woman, during which he took the name of Brihannala and taught song and dance to the princess Uttara.” ref

“The Mesopotamian Ishtar, the beautiful goddess of fertility, love, war, and sex, is sometimes represented with a beard to emphasize her more bellicose side. She could change a man into a woman, and the assinnu, kurgarru, and kuku’u who performed her cult had both male and female features. After the hero Gilgamesh rejected her offer of marriage, Ishtar unleashed the Bull of Heaven, ultimately leading to the death of Enkidu, whom Gilgamesh loved more than anyone: “Hear me, great ones of Uruk/ I weep for Enkidu, my friend/ Bitterly mourning like a woman mourning.” ref

“Hapi, the Egyptian god of the annual flooding of the Nile, brought such fertility as to be regarded by some as the father of the gods: he is generally depicted as intersex, with pendulous breasts and a ceremonial false beard. To seduce the nymph Callisto, Zeus, the king of the Greek gods, took the form of the goddess Artemis.” ref

Ten Intersex Goddesses and Gods

“Many cultures have had religions and beliefs that feature human-like gods and goddesses, most of them being specifically male or female. However, for some, creation and fertility was not always a female feature, and many concepts of nature and the universe could only be explained from a dipole perspective. Sometimes, being intersex was a result of magical or mysterious events. 1. Hermaphroditus (Greek), 2. Agdistis (Phrygian, Greek, Roman), 3.“Hapi (Egyptian), 4. Ardhanarishvara (Hindu), 5. Lan Caihe (China), 6. Ymir (Norse), 7. Ometeotl (Aztec), 8. Jehovah (Hermetic Kabbalah), 9. Phanes (Greek), and Ahsonnutli (Navaho).” ref

The First Expression of the Male God around 7,000 years ago?

The Balkans, where I think the first male god originates is the site of a few major Neolithic cultures, including Butmir, Vinča, Varna, Karanovo, Hamangia. And the threat of violence that accompanied the Copper Age “Kurganization” of the eastern Balkans (and the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture) is associated with an early expansion of the Proto-Indo-European people of a Kurgan culture north of the Black Sea from which the Indo-European languages spread out throughout Europe, Eurasia and parts of Asia. In Serbia, a 7,500 years ago copper axe was found at Prokuplje. The European Corded Ware culture 4,900-4,350 years ago used stone axes modeled on copper axes, imitating “mold marks” carved in the stone. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Paganism (beginning around 12,000 years ago)

Paganism (such as that seen in Turkey: 12,000 years ago). Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” around 12,000 years ago. Sedentism and the Creation of goddesses around 12,000 years ago as well as male gods after 7,000 years ago. Pagan-Shaman burial in Israel 12,000 years ago and 12,000 – 10,000 years old Paganistic-Shamanistic Art in a Remote Cave in Egypt. Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago and Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 10,000 years ago.

Paganism is approximately a 12,000-year-old belief system and believe in spirit-filled life and/or afterlife that can be attached to or be expressed in things or objects and these objects can be used by special persons or in special rituals that can connect to spirit-filled life and/or afterlife and who are guided/supported by a goddess/god, goddesses/gods, magical beings, or supreme spirits. If you believe like this, regardless of your faith, you are a hidden paganist.

Around 12,000 years ago, in Turkey, the first evidence of paganism is Gobekli Tepe: “first human-made temple” and around 9,500 years ago, in Turkey, the second evidence of paganism is Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city”. In addition, early paganism is connected to Proto-Indo-European language and religion. Proto-Indo-European religion can be reconstructed with confidence that the gods and goddesses, myths, festivals, and form of rituals with invocations, prayers, and songs of praise make up the spoken element of religion. Much of this activity is connected to the natural and agricultural year or at least those are the easiest elements to reconstruct because nature does not change and because farmers are the most conservative members of society and are best able to keep the old ways.

The reconstruction of goddesses/gods characteristics may be different than what we think of and only evolved later to the characteristics we know of today. One such characteristic is how a deity’s gender may not be fixed, since they are often deified forces of nature, which tend to not have genders. There are at least 40 deities and the Goddesses that have been reconstructed are: *Pria, *Pleto, *Devi, *Perkunos, *Aeusos, and *Yama.

The reconstruction of myths can be connected to Proto-Indo-European culture/language and by additional research, many of these myths have since been confirmed including some areas that were not accessible to the early writers such as Latvian folk songs and Hittite hieroglyphic tablets. There are at least 28 myths and one of the most widely recognized myths of the Indo-Europeans is the myth, “Yama is killed by his brother Manu” and “the world is made from his body”. Some of the forms of this myth in various Indo-European languages are about the Creation Myth of the Indo-Europeans.

The reconstruction of rituals can be connected to Proto-Indo-European culture/language and is estimated to have been spoken as a single language from around 6,500 years ago. One of the earliest ritual is the construction of kurgans or mound graves as a part of a death ritual. kurgans were inspired by common ritual-mythological ideas. Kurgans are complex structures with internal chambers. Within the burial chamber at the heart of the kurgan, elite individuals were buried with grave goods and sacrificial offerings, sometimes including horses and chariots.

The speakers of Pre-Proto-Indo-European lived in Turkey and it associates the distribution of historical Indo-European languages with the expansion around 9,000 years ago, with a proposed homeland of Proto-Indo-European proper in the Balkans around 7,000 years ago. The Proto-Indo-European Religion seemingly stretches at least back around 6,000 years ago or likely much further back and I believe Paganism is possibly an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system.

The earliest kurgans date to 6,000 years ago and are connected to the Proto-Indo-European in the Caucasus. In fact, around 7,000 years ago, there appears to be pre-kurgan in Siberia. Around 7,000 to 2,500 years ago and beyond, kurgans were built with ancient traditions still active in Southern Siberia and Central Asia, which display the continuity of the archaic forming methods. Kurgan cultures are divided archaeologically into different sub-cultures such as Timber Grave, Pit Grave, Scythian, Sarmatian, Hunnish, and Kuman–Kipchak. Kurgans have been found from the Altay Mountains to the Caucasus, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria. Around 5,000 years ago, kurgans were used in the Ukrainian and Russian flat unforested grasslands and their use spread with migration into eastern, central, northern Europe, Turkey, and beyond. ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, & ref

Proto-Europe 8 000 – 5000 BC Anatolian Civilization and the Indo-European Language Spreads to Western Europe with Agriculture

“Proto-European Cultures 8,000-2,500 BC Interactive map of the Proto-European cultures in the Balkans. It is now assumed that the pre Indo-European or Proto-European cultures which have evolved from rich archeological finds in the Greater Balkans, Greece and Sicily/Malta in the last 50 years go back to migrations from Anatolia. The archeological objects found in the Greater Balkans by Marija Gimbutas and others show a high sophistication in sculptures, ornaments and grave culture. The “Proto-European Culture” in the Balkans and Greece is the oldest collective “civilization” known. They preceed Egypt by 4000 and China by 6000 years. Several large urban settlements (20 000 people) have been found, posiibly under a female(?) priesthood.. The earliest temple cities have been unearthed in Göbekli (9200 BP) predating agriculture by 2000 years. The excavators believe that the large concentrations of laborers building the temples precipitated the need for agriculture.” ref

“Is there’s a connection between “Hamangia Thinker” and Cycladic art and the “Hamangia Thinker.” These and other similar figures could relate to another Neolithic clay figure that was found at a Cucuteni-Trypillian culture site in the town of Tarpesti, Romania called the “Thinker of Tarpesti” resemblance between the Thinker of Tarpesti statue and the Hamangia Thinker statue is uncanny.” ref

The Dead among the Living in the Hamangia Culture

“Human bones in the domestic space are not uncommon during Prehistory, but the settlements of the Hamangia culture did not provide, many such remains. A recent reanalysis of the excavations performed at Cernavodă–Columbia C settlement brought to light the discovery of several human bone fragments from the habitation layer. But they do exist, and they were found at various depths, in association with pottery.” ref

“The Butmir Culture was a major Neolithic culture which existed in Butmir, near Sarajevo, in the vicinity of Ilidža in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is characterized by its unique pottery, and is one of the best researched European cultures from 5100–4500 BC. It was part of the larger Danube civilization. The Butmir culture was the home for several large settlements, among them was the site of Okolište in Bosnia dating to 5200-4500 BC. with population estimates between 1,000-3,000 people. The settlement was largest in the early phase (5200 BC) with an area of 7.5 hectare, from there it gradually declined to reach the size of 1.2 heatare in 4500 BC. The site likely consisted of parallel rows of houses that ranged in size from four to ten meters in length. The site also likely had a series of ditches surrounding it with a single entrance. Other known settlements was Butmir and Obre. The site of Okolište would likely have been an egalitarian society with no evidence of social stratification. Most animal remains found in Okolište belong to cattle, while a fair amount belonged to sheep, goats, and pigs. The diet of the Okoliste people consisted mainly of cattle, emmer, einkorn, and lentils. Although there was an importance of agriculture and animal husbandry, wild game was still hunted as a source of food.Certain characteristics of the Butmir pottery designs (e.g. its resemblance with Kamares style Minoan pottery) made some suggest a connection to the Minoan culture on Crete. Of course, this was during the same time that some suggested Troy was found in the Neretva river valley, and overwhelming modern opinion is that the Butmir people were a unique culture of their own in the Sarajevo area. The culture disappeared during the Bronze Age, perhaps conquered by the Illyrians who, however, are only attested from 400 AD onward. The tribe who occupied the area in by far later Roman times were the Daesitates.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist. 

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so. 

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com