Bronze Age “Ritual” connections of the Bell Beaker culture with the Corded Ware/Single Grave culture, which were related to the Yamnaya culture and Proto-Indo-European Languages/Religions
I see religion as a “theme” of supernatural thinking/beliefs as a honeycomb or connected tree of branching ideas (similar to language or stone tool technology: “a cultural product”), several connected cells all influencing the others, and while they are all different cells that are all part of the whole religion phenomenon. I do not see them as old or new but a cultural product that evolved again and again from several different factors, but the majority was by transfer from cultural diffusion to others, 1. by people movements, and 2. idea transfer not directly connected to people moving to live but through trade and cultural interactions both positive and negative. To me, religion as a phenomenon (IE: several religions or religious ideas not grouped in a fully religious context but still influenced religiously/spiritually) it is several deviations and subsections all loosely connected in many loose ways.
“The Bronze Age (3300–1200 BCE or 5,320-3,220 years ago) marks the emergence of the first complex state societies, and by the Middle Bronze Age (mid-3rd millennium BC) the first empires. By the end of the Bronze Age, complex state societies were mostly limited to the Fertile Crescent and to China, while Bronze Age tribal chiefdoms with less complex forms of administration were found throughout Bronze Age Europe and Central Asia, in the northern Indian subcontinent, and in parts of Mesoamerica and the Andes (although these latter societies were not in the Bronze Age cultural stage).” ref
“Beaker culture was taken up by a group of people living in Central Europe whose ancestors had previously migrated from the Eurasian Steppe.” ref
“The Bell Beaker culture (or, in short, Beaker culture) is an archaeological culture named after the inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel used at the very beginning of the European Bronze Age. Arising from around 2800 BCE or 4,820 years ago, it lasted in Britain until as late as 1800 BCE or 3,820 years ago but in continental Europe only until 2300 BCE or 4,320 years ago, when it was succeeded by the Unetice culture. The culture was widely dispersed throughout Western Europe, from various regions in Iberia and spots facing northern Africa to the Danubian plains, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and also the islands of Sicily and Sardinia. The Bell Beaker culture was partly preceded by and contemporaneous with the Corded Ware culture, and in north-central Europe preceded by the Funnelbeaker culture. In its early phase, the Bell Beaker culture can be seen as the western contemporary of the Corded Ware culture of Central Europe. From about 2400 BCE or 4.420 years ago the Beaker folk culture-expanded eastwards, into the Corded Ware horizon. In parts of Central and Eastern Europe, as far east as Poland, a sequence occurs from Corded Ware to Bell Beaker. This period marks a period of cultural contact in Atlantic and Western Europe following a prolonged period of relative isolation during the Neolithic. In its mature phase, the Bell Beaker culture is understood as not only a collection of characteristic artifact types, but a complex cultural phenomenon involving metalwork in copper and gold, archery, specific types of ornamentation, and (presumably) shared ideological, cultural, and religious ideas. A wide range of regional diversity persists within the widespread late Beaker culture, particularly in local burial styles (including incidences of cremation rather than burial), housing styles, economic profile, and local ceramic wares (Begleitkeramik).” ref
“Corded Ware pottery of Central Europe and Single Grave culture, which consisted of burial under tumuli, burial mounds, or kurgans, in a crouched position with various ritual artifacts. They were related to the Yamnaya culture and the dispersal of Proto-Indo-European languages.” ref
“The Corded Ware culture (outdated called Battle Axe culture) comprises a broad archaeological horizon of Europe between c. 3100 – 2350 BCE or 5,120 to 4,370 years ago. Corded Ware culture encompassed a vast area, from the contact zone between the Yamnaya culture and the Corded ware culture in south Central Europe, to the Rhine on the west and the Volga in the east, occupying parts of Northern Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. The Corded Ware people of Central Europe carried mostly Western Steppe Herder (WSH) ancestry and were closely related to the people of the Yamna culture (or Yamnaya), “documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery,” the Eurasiatic steppes. The Corded Ware culture may be ancestral to the Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic Indo-European languages in Europe. The eastern Corded Ware Culture also shows genetic affinity with the later Sintashta culture, where the Proto-Indo-Iranian language may have originated. The term Corded Ware culture was named it after cord-like impressions or ornamentation characteristic of its pottery. The term Single Grave culture comes from its burial custom, which consisted of inhumation under tumuli in a crouched position with various artifacts. Battle Axe culture, or Boat Axe culture, is named from its characteristic male grave offering, a stone boat-shaped battle axe.” ref
When did the Celts arrive in Ireland?
“The question has plagued linguists and archaeologists alike for a century. By the 5th century CE., the beginning of Irish historical records, all of Ireland was Celtic speaking; but when had it become so? Theories have ranged widely, from as early as 5000 to as late as 100 BCE or 7,020-2,120 years ago. This article will summarize the present theories, and suggest a resolution. But before these various theories can be examined, the meaning of the term “Celt” must be clarified. “Celtic” was initially a linguistic concept, used solely to refer to the Celtic languages. The earliest recorded versions of Celtic are Gallic and Brythonic, spoken in Gaul and Britain respectively at the time of the Roman conquest, and Goidelic, the language of Ireland by the 5th century CE. The Medieval and Modern Celtic languages are Welsh, Cornish, and Breton, all derived from the early Brythonic spoken in Britain, and Irish, Scots Gaelic, and Manx, which are all derived from Old Irish Goidelic. Gallic appears to have become extinct during the Roman occupation of Gaul—at all events, there is no trace of it by the 5th century CE. when the Western Roman Empire collapsed.” ref
“Celtic is a branch of the great Indo-European language family, as are the Teutonic, Romance, and Balto-Slavonic languages of Europe, classical Greek and Latin, and many others. Indo-European languages, in fact, are found across a huge swath of the Old World, from northwestern Europe to the Indian sub-continent. Many of these languages, of course, are known from many centuries of written sources, and from place-names of considerable antiquity, as well as from their modern versions where these survive. Linguistic analysis has sorted this multiplicity of languages into closer groups and into more distant and disparate relationships, and named the whole huge ‘family’ Indo-European, from its distribution. From the earliest forms of the languages, which are linguistically closer to each other than their later descendants, it has proved possible to reconstruct the ‘skeleton,’ as it were, of the original language from which all were derived: this reconstruction is known as Proto-Indo-European, or *IE (the * indicating a language not known from any written sources, but reconstructed from its surviving descendants).” ref
“Celtic is divided into two main groups. Gallic and Brythonic (and probably the very poorly-known and long-extinct Pictish, so Professor Jackson argues) are P-Celtic, while Goidelic is Q-Celtic. This linguistic terminology identifies the shift from the original kw in *IE to qu in Goidelic and to p in Gallic and Brythonic. Old Irish is the only original Q-Celtic language known, Scots Gaelic and Manx resulting from historical Irish settlement in Scotland and the Isle of Man. Thus our problem in searching for the origins of a Celtic language in Ireland is compounded: Irish is the only native language recorded there, and there is no linguistic clue as to its origin, other than the general one that it is Celtic, and that Celtic is Indo-European. Moreover, Q-Celtic is usually considered to be linguistically more archaic and conservative than P-Celtic.” ref
“Here we introduce the archaeological problem. As in all parts of the world, one concern of archaeologists in Europe has been the attempted correlation of identifiable archaeological cultures and traditions with the languages, language groups, and language families identified by linguistics. In turn, linguistics has turned to archaeology (when and where no documents exist] for assistance. In our specific case, the problem for both archaeologists and linguists is this: since the *IE language is generally agreed to have originated in central and/or eastern Europe during the 4th/3rd millennia BCE., how and when did Q-Celtic find its way to Ireland? Did it once exist on the continent as well, but survived only in Ireland? Or did it develop in Ireland from some earlier introduced Indo-European language? In either case, the time limit is wide: as we have noted already, theories range from 5000 to 100 BCE. for this event—and we must remember that this linguistic ‘event’ may well have been a protracted process.” ref
“Our earliest references to the Celts come from Greek sources of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. These identify ‘Keltoi’ in central Europe, France, and at least parts of Spain. A growing number of such references in the succeeding centuries testify ever more clearly to Celtic-speaking peoples over much of Europe immediately north of the classical world. And the Roman conquests of Gaul and Britain, in the 1st centuries BCE. and CE. respectively, have left us substantial information of Celtic language, customs, and society in those areas. Archaeologically, this linguistic information correlates closely with the iron-using Hallstatt (ca. 700-500 BCE.) and the succeeding La Tène cultures. Distinctive metal types such as the long iron sword (sometimes copied in bronze), horse-bits, harness parts, and wagon fittings have been used by archaeologists to identify Hallstatt Iron Age culture in central Europe and parts of western Europe.” ref
“The succeeding La Tène culture, named after the find-spot of a large votive deposit on Lake Neuchatel, is renowned for its art style, manifested mainly in fine bronze drinking vessels, personal ornaments, weapons, and helmets, La Tene artists produced their own abstractions based on Hallstatt, Greek and Oriental motifs— acanthus leaves, running scrolls, palmettes and peltas. This was a totally new amalgamation of the art styles of three cultures and resulted in a distinctive, nonrepresentational style. Hallstatt material is found not only in central and Western Europe but also in Britain and Ireland, while La Tène material is even better represented in these areas. Their presence has been presumed to note expansion from the Continent into Britain and Ireland. Could either of these archaeological groups represent Q-Celtic speakers introducing their language to Ireland and imposing it there?” ref
Hallstatt Iron Age
“The archaeological evidence for a Hallstatt invasion of Ireland is, to say the least, sparse. The foreign artifacts consist of approximately twenty-four bronze swords, one iron sword, seven winged scabbard chapes, seven bucket-shaped cauldrons, fifteen to twenty riveted vessels of bronze and one of iron, a fragment of a gold cup, a band and some ribbons of gold, two “flesh hooks” and two shields. This is a rather paltry assemblage on which to base the claim of an invasion. Current archaeological literature dealing with the Hallstatt invasions has begun to question the wisdom of hypothesizing an expansion throughout Europe based solely on metal artifacts. In addition, it is interesting to note that the bronze swords, which are the major portion of the Hallstatt material in Ireland, are insular copies of Continental prototypes.” ref
“It has been postulated that the earliest appearances of the Hallstatt swords in the British Isles were attributable to trade, to traveling sword-smiths, or to princely gifts or exchanges; and that thereafter the imported varieties were quickly copied by local sword-smiths, sometimes with their own modifications so as to develop eventually into purely insular varieties. An alternative explanation for the presence of the Hallstatt material is that it might be due to raiding activities since the largest portion consists of warrior-type equipment with a coastal-riverine distribution. Such distributions are argued as constituting a classic raiding pattern. Whether it be trading or raiding adventurers who account for the presence of Hallstatt material, it is now becoming increasingly apparent that a massive Hallstatt invasion of Ireland in the 7th century BCE. and the subsequent hypothesized language change are very difficult to substantiate.” ref
“The evidence for a La Tène invasion of Ireland, although in number of artifacts more formidable, is still questionable. Etienne Rynne has identified and discussed fifty or so objects which he attributed to the La Tène invasion in the 2nd/1st centuries B.C. In addition, there are swords, spear butts, and horse-bits which he omitted from his paper. Together this material constitutes a considerable corpus of La Tène decorated artifacts in Ireland, and undoubtedly suggests the influence of the continental La Tène culture. The question arises as to precisely what form this influence took; was it, as Rynne proposes, a two-prong invasion of La Tène Celts from Gaul and Britain, or does it represent, as others have suggested, raiding, or trading, or just the adoption of a new art style by the indigenous people? I am inclined to accept the latter version.” ref
“In short, the appearance of a new art style, or even of a whole new metal industry, need not constitute the arrival, en masse, of a new population group. To ascertain the arrival of new population groups into any country it is necessary to substantiate the introduction of a number of indicative material objects and characteristics which constitute the known culture of the “invading people.” Yet in Ireland, the characteristics of the continental La Tène Celts are noticeably lacking: a few fibulae, swords, decorated torques, stones, and horse-bits are already well known, but the large flat cemeteries of the Marne, the wheel-turned or stamped pottery and the “princely tombs” are not evident.” ref
“The art of the Turoe stone has often been cited for its continental parallels, but Professor Duignan’s study indicates that its curvilinear ornament “represents an advanced stage of insular La Tène art” (my emphasis). Barry Raftery has described the Irish La Tène material as undoubtedly insular rather than continental in origin, and goes on to say that the limited burial and settlement evidence available “gives more than a hint of broad cultural stability in the last millennium BCE.” This does not necessarily signify that there were no La Tène Celts present in Ireland. However, it could be interpreted to mean either that a comparatively small number of La Tène people made their way to Ireland or that the new art motifs were introduced through trading. Neither interpretation seems likely to have been responsible for a total language change. There is also a critical linguistic objection to this postulated La Tene introduction of Q-Celtic to Ireland, however: all our information on both continental and British La Tène cultures of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. indicates that they were P-Celtic in language.” ref
“The view that Q-Celtic was a late introduction into Ireland thus can be seriously questioned. What alternative hypotheses have been proposed? A number of Indo-European scholars conclude that an archaic form of Celtic was in existence by circa 2000 BCE or around 4,020 years ago. Linguists are not alone in proposing such an early date for the emergence of a Celtic language, Several Celtic specialists have postulated that the Celts emerge as a separate people about 2000 BCE., Goidelic being the earlier form of Celtic, and Gallic (along with Brythonic) a later development. If this theory is tenable then the archaeological evidence should attest to a major population incursion into Ireland at about that time.” ref
“In the later third millennium BCE., the appearance of foreign pottery in considerable quantity strongly suggests the arrival of continental migrants in Britain. These people have been given the makeshift label, the Beaker Folk, due to their distinctive beaker-shaped pottery. Their presence is well attested in Britain, but what of Ireland? Few actual Beaker vessels have been found in Ireland. However, in the last twenty years the “Irish Bowl,” of which there are several hundred known examples, has been recognized as a locally derivative form of Beaker pottery. Thus a Beaker invasion of Ireland can be argued. But from where did this invasion take place?” ref
“The exact location of the Beaker Folk’s homeland is yet to be pinpointed, but the controversies of archaeologists need not concern us here as on two points there is general agreement: that the British and Irish beakers mainly derive from the Low Countries, and that the beaker series of the Low Countries includes a strong component derived from central and eastern European “corded beakers.” These “corded beakers” are part of a cultural complex (Battle-axe/Corded ware/Single grave) that is widely held both by archaeologists and linguists to correspond to that of the speakers of “proto-Indo-European.” ref
“A further aspect of the Beaker-Battle-axe group is their technology. It has been conclusively established by the recent work of Butler and van der Weals that tin-bronze and copper metallurgy were practiced among the Beaker Folk in the Low Countries. Hence, the Beaker Folk immediate continental origin has been located as well as several diagnostic features of their culture. Furthermore, it has been established that there is a definite correlation between the accepted culture of the Indo-European speakers and that of the Beaker Folk in the Low Countries. Can their presence in Ireland be proven?” ref
“The end of the Irish Neolithic is heralded not only by a technological change—the appearance of copper and tin-bronze metallurgy—but also by the arrival of the Beaker culture. Dr. Case has shown that the Beaker Folk were the first metallurgists in Ireland. In spite of the growing number of Beaker finds recorded in Ireland, the classic Beaker burial (i.e. single grave inhumation) with “true” beaker pottery is rare. The only representative group in Ireland which appears to have practiced this burial rite with any frequency was the makers of the Irish Bowl (mentioned above). Although this classic Beaker burial rite occurs infrequently, nonetheless, intrusive cultural elements can be discerned from the presence of the Irish Bowl and from the inclusion of “true Beaker” pottery within Late Neolithic Passage-graves. In short, it is possible to conclude that the joint appearance of various types of Beaker pottery and of innovations such as single inhumations and metalworking may be accepted as evidence of the movement of Beaker communities from the Low Countries to Britain and thence to Ireland.” ref
“The effect that the firm establishment of the Beaker Folk in Ireland had on the country must be discussed. Beaker migrations extended over a long period of time, starting perhaps with a phase of movements between Britain and Ireland, with exchanges of gifts and ideas. Next, settlers arrived in Ireland, with new metal technologies and new pottery types: the `eastern’ group has affinities with British Beaker assemblages, while the ‘western’ group may have come from northwestern France and buried their dead in `Wedge-graves’. The final phase corresponds to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, and is mainly a continuation of the second phase, with Beaker or Beaker-derived cultures persisting. It is perhaps during this phase that derivative forms of Beaker pottery came into existence, such as the Irish Bowl, Food Vessels, and Collared Urns.” ref
“It is apparent that the Beaker migrations to Ireland were not rapid and all-pervasive. Instead, they spanned hundreds of years and were characterized not only by the introduction of metallurgy and new pottery types but also by cultural interchange and assimilation between “foreign” and “native” populations. The final question which must be raised in regard to the Beaker settlement of Ireland is important—is there continuity of tradition throughout the Bronze Age? It has been noted that many of the features which characterize the Early Bronze Age, such as pottery types, burial, and ritual monuments, and all of the major metallurgical products of this period, can be traced down to about 1400 BCE or 3,420 years ago., but then disappear from the archaeological record.” ref
“From the Middle and Late Bronze Age we have pitifully few settlements, pottery manufacture becomes more and more infrequent, and we become increasingly reliant upon metal types for our knowledge of the period. New metal types do indeed occur but, as noted above, are not the safest basis for promoting the notion of large-scale population movements. In other words, there is no good archaeological reason to propose that any major language change occurred in Ireland through this time. Several archaeologists, perplexed by this, have sought the answer in a change of climate, for which there is evidence. This is a possible solution. Again, historical analogy shows that it is not necessary to conjure up new migrations each time there is some innovation or an apparent break in the archaeological record. The Early Christian period in Ireland witnessed such major cultural changes as the beginning of written records, the emergence of a new art style, and the foundation of many monastic sites. These changes are quite dramatic, but cannot be attributed to invasion. They reflect the external influence and internal social development.” ref
“Thus it can be argued both linguistically and archaeologically that the Beaker Folk appear to have brought an early form of Q-Celtic to Ireland. At this point a question arises which cannot at present be satisfactorily answered; under what circumstances will an indigenous population adopt the language of an incoming group? Tao few studies have dealt with this important aspect of culture change for us to reach any valid conclusions. However, the two most probable causes I have been able to discern are: 1) a massive influx of people and a subsequent takeover of the controls of power (i.e. an invasion) and 2) the indigenous population being “forced” to learn the language of a new dominant group in order to protect their economic, social and legal rights.” ref
“A massive influx and take-over of Ireland by the Beaker Folk? What little evidence is known of their presence in Ireland tends to indicate that their settlement was of a peaceful nature and in no way suggests any hostile intentions. Studies of the Beaker Folk’s migration and settlements suggest considerable cultural interchange, borrowing, and sharing. The evidence from Ballynagilly, Co, Tyrone, indicates that the Beaker Folk established their settlements in close proximity to the indigenous Neolithic population. What seems a likely cause of language change in this instance would be the second alternative cited above.” ref
“Although there existed peaceful interchange between the immigrants and the natives, the Beaker Folk were “socially preeminent.” They appear to have brought metallurgy to Ireland and therefore most likely controlled its production and distribution. This would certainly make them economically “superior.” If economically powerful, the Beaker Folk perhaps also held the upper hand in matters of legal priority and social interaction. It would therefore be advantageous to the native population to adopt the Beaker Folk’s language in order to sustain their social and economic position. I am not envisioning a rapid transition to this language, but instead, one that extended over a long period of time, eventually stabilizing in the unique Goidelic language.” ref
How Stone Age farming women tamed nomadic warriors to give rise to the Corded Ware culture
“Yamnaya Culture from the Caspian steppes migrated to Europe in 3,000 BCE or 5,020 years ago. Research shows men married the local Stone Age women shortly after Warriors went from meat-eating nomads to living in farming communities. They also brought new words and ideas, which formed a Proto-Germanic language and created the Corded Ware Culture where people lived on animals and crops. Ancient Yamnaya warriors, known for raiding and pillaging, were tamed by Stone Age farming women when they migrated from Ukraine to Europe. A team of experts have found that the men shifted from a meat-eating and semi-nomadic lifestyle to living in farming communities once they married the local Neolithic women. It was also revealed that a Proto-Germanic language and the Corded Ware Culture were formed during the transition.” ref
“The mechanism behind the emerging culture known as the Corded Ware Culture – the result of the encounter between the Yamnaya and the Neolithic people. By combining the results from genetics, strontium isotopes on mobility and diet, and historical linguistics on language change, helps to demonstrate how the integration process unfolded on the ground after the Yamnaya migrations from the steppe. Researchers argue that Yamnaya migrants were predominantly males, who married women who came from neighboring Stone Age farming societies. The Stone Age Neolithic societies were mostly comprised of farming communities and had a unique collective burial ritual. The Yamnaya people originated on the Caspian steppes where they lived as pastoralists and herders, and they were somewhat nomadic using wagons as mobile homes. From burial pits, archaeologists have found extensive use of thick plant mats and felt covers – and the deceased were mostly buried alone.” ref
“The Stone Age Neolithic societies were mostly comprised of farming communities and had a unique collective burial ritual. Unlike the Stone Age women, the steppe people ate mostly meat, dairy products, and fish – making them taller and healthier with little caries in their teeth.(pictured is pottery from the Corded Ware Culture). Unlike the Stone Age women, the steppe people consumed mostly meat, dairy products, and fish – making them much taller than most and healthier with little caries in their teeth. And what separates the two groups, even more, is that there has yet to be any evidence of agriculture found among the Yamnaya people. Barrows were aligned in groups forming lines in the landscape to mark seasonal routes and after death, diseased people were put into individual graves under small family barrows. Their burial ritual thus embodied a new perception of the individual and of small monogamous family groups as the foundation of society. There was a decline in agrarian Stone Age societies once the Yamnaya people started migrating to the new continent, which allowed for more people to settle in the communities. As the Corded Ware Culture developed it adopted words related to farming from the indigenous Neolithic people, which they were admixing with. Therefore, it was possible to conclude that the Neolithic people were not speaking an Indo-European language, as did the Yamnaya migrants.” ref
YAMNAYA WARRIORS VS STONE AGE WOMEN
“The Yamnaya people originated on the Caspian steppes where they lived as pastoralists and herders, and they were somewhat nomadic using wagons as mobile homes. From burial pits, archaeologists have found extensive use of thick plant mats and felt covers. Unlike the Stone Age women, the steppe people consumed mostly meat, dairy products, and fish – making them much taller than most and healthier with little caries in their teeth. And what separates the two groups, even more, is that there has yet to be any evidence of agriculture found among the Yamnaya people. Barrows/Kurgans were aligned in groups forming lines in the landscape to mark seasonal routes and after death, diseased people were put into individual graves under small family barrows. Their burial ritual thus embodied a new perception of the individual and of small monogamous family groups as the foundation of society.” ref
“However, researchers have suggested in the past that the decline was probably the result of a widespread plague from Siberia to the Baltic. ‘The disease dynamic here may have been comparable to the European colonization process in America after Christopher Columbus’, said Kristiansen. ‘Perhaps Yamnaya brought the plague to Europe and caused a massive collapse in the population’. In Kristiansen’s last work, he and his colleagues argue for a dominance of males during the early phase after the migrations, and correspond to the old Indo-European mythology of later times. The evidence has suggested that there was a war-band of youths known as ‘Black Youth’ who were employed in pioneer migrations as a dynamic force. Evidence from strontium isotopic analyses showed that a majority of the women in Corded Ware burials in south Germany were non-locals who had married in from Neolithic societies, since they had a Neolithic diet in their childhood.” ref
And these results now form part of the new synthesis.
‘Existing archaeological evidence of a strong 90% male dominance in the early phase of the Corded Ware/Single Grave Culture settlement in Jutland, Denmark, and elsewhere can now be explained by the old Indo-European tradition of war bands of young males who did not have any inheritance to look forward to.’ ‘Therefore they were probably more willing to make a career as migrating war bands.’ The Neolithic women also had the skill of pottery production and created imitate pottery containers from the wood brought by the Yamnaya migrants. This new type of pottery culture was deemed Corded Ware, because of the cord impressions around the neck of the pots. The pots were specifically made to drink beer from and the new migrants also learned how to grow barley from the in-married Neolithic women in order to produce beer. Ancient DNA analyses: ‘In a big Bronze Age study, researchers were astonished to see how strong and fast the genetic changeover was from the Neolithic to the Corded Ware.’ ‘There was a heavy reduction of Neolithic DNA in temperate Europe, and a dramatic increase of the new Yamnaya genomic component that was only marginally present in Europe prior to 3000 BCE.” ref
WHO WERE THE PASTORALISTS?
“In addition to the original European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern farmers, a third major population – steppe pastoralists – shaped Europe. These nomads appear to have ‘invaded’ central Europe in a previously unknown wave during the early Bronze Age, about 4,500 years ago. They introduced two very significant new technologies to Western Europe: domestic horses and the wheel. They originated from the Yamnaya Culture from the Russian/Ukrainian grasslands north of the Black Sea, genome testing revealed. The pastoralists were responsible for up to 75 percent of the genomic DNA seen in central European cultures 4,500 years ago, known as the Corded Ware Culture. This must-have represented a major wave of people, along with all their cultural and technological baggage. It’s thought that the Yamnaya were the first to introduce Indo-European language to Europe. This is because of the size of the genetic input, which suggests that it brought at least major parts, if not the whole thing.” ref
“Moreover, the apparent abruptness with which this change occurred indicates that it was a large-scale migration event, rather than a slow periodic inflow of people’. The Yamnaya brought the Indo-European languages into Bronze Age Europe, but as herders, they did not have words for crops or cultivation, unlike the Neolithic farmers. As the Corded Ware Culture developed it adopted words related to farming from the indigenous Neolithic people, which they were admixing with. Guus Kroonen, a historical linguist, was able to demonstrate that these new words did not belong to the original Indo-European languages. Therefore it was possible to conclude that the Neolithic people were not speaking an Indo-European language, as did the Yamnaya migrants. Thus, the process of genetic and cultural admixture was accompanied by a process of language admixture, creating the foundations for later Germanic languages, termed Proto-Germanic.” ref
Re-integrating Archaeology: A Contribution to aDNA Studies and the Migration Discourse on the 3rd Millennium BC in Europe
Abstract and Figures
“Since aDNA research suggested a marked gene influx from Eastern into Central Europe in the 3rd millennium BCE, outdated, simplistic narratives of massive migrations of closed populations have re-appeared in archaeological discussions. A more sophisticated model of migration from the steppes was proposed recently argued that a polythetic classification of the archaeological material in Central Europe in the 3rd millennium reveals the presence of a new complex of single grave burial rituals which transcends the traditional culture labels. Genetic steppe ancestry is mainly connected to this new kind of burials, rather than to Corded Ware or Bell Beaker materials. Here it is argued that a polythetic view on the archaeological record suggests more complicated histories of migration, population mixtures, and interaction than assumed by earlier models, and ways to better integrate detailed studies of archaeological materials with a deeper exploration of anthropological models of mobility and social group composition and the molecular biological data are explored.” ref
“The last few years have seen a resurgence of migration as an explanatory model for cultural change in prehistory, sparked by recent aDNA research, which showed several marked changes in the European gene-pool, among others in the 3rd millennium BCE. However, the aDNA data have not so far been connected to the archaeological record in a manner that would reflect the conceptual discussions and the state of the art of the 21st century. Instead, old models derived from the early 20th century which, although utterly deconstructed on a theoretical level, are still popular in much of archaeological daily practice, were picked, and thus revitalized to make sense of the data. These old models treat archaeological units of classification as representing distinct and closed groups of people and biological populations. In line with the traditional concepts, called ‘archaeological cultures’ are seen as distinct, brick-like entities of material culture, classified in a monothetic way, that is, defined by traits that are supposed to be present in all individuals of a unit. The alternative of a polythetic, in which the different traits can be unevenly and incoherently distributed among different units. A unit would thus be defined by a frequent but variable co-occurrence of a set of traits present in its individuals, not excluding their occurrence in other units. Polythetic classification is a much more realistic method because, when it comes to social phenomena, real monothetic units almost never exist. For example, a pottery style with a certain regional distribution might be –and in reality, mostly is –connected to more than one tradition in tool production, house building, or burial ritual.” ref
“However, while criticism was acknowledged, the mainstream of prehistoric archaeologists working in Europe, with only a few notable exceptions, still largely stick to units of classification that are conceptualized as monothetic blocks, even though they are –in most cases –only pseudo-monothetic in nature. Most colleagues will argue that monothetic units are just easier to handle, while a polythetic classification creates fuzzy units. However, we run into serious problems when we lose sight of the flawed nature of this practice, as it has happened in the recent boom of aDNA work. Here, ‘the Yamnaya’ and ‘the Corded Ware’ are repeatedly referred to as distinct groups of people, assuming a monothetic structure regarding the burial rituals, pottery styles, subsistence strategies, and social identities, and biological proximity. This has led to a stark misconceptualisation of the migration processes inferred from the new aDNA data. The polythetic classification better represents the fact that group membership is multi-dimensional and might have, in itself, a polythetic structure, that people might relate to a whole set of different social collectives, or communities of practice. For example, the realm of burial rituals might be connected to a different social collective than the realm of other activities, including the practice of pottery manufacture.” ref
“These collectives, or communities of practice, do not have to be congruent, a fact that is obscured when using a monothetic classification model. What is more, even when one uses a polythetic classification to account for the multi-dimensionality of social identities, or social group affiliations, the anthropological record suggests that people have the possibility to change their group affiliations, create new or join already existing social groups. Such a fluidity of social groups can show a wide range from more to less open and inter-mixed settings but it is a widespread phenomenon in state-less societies, and archaeological and scientific data have pointed to several Neolithic local communities being composed of individuals with diverse social backgrounds (that is, areas of origin, mobility patterns, diets). This is a cautionary tale for the association of archaeological units –be they polythetically of monothetically classified –with specific, clearly circum-scribed groups of people. Nevertheless, the heuristic advantages of a polythetic perspective on the archaeological material of the 3rd millennium BCE. I will argue that this will provide a more differentiated picture which is better suited to capture the dynamics of social processes connected to human mobility and social group composition. This perspective results in the definition of a new complex of burial rituals emerging in the 3rd millennium BCE, which is connected to different styles of material culture and shows the strongest affinity to individuals with genetic steppe ancestry. This is seen as a contribution to the ongoing debate about migration narratives, which has evolved around the aDNA data.” ref
A POLYTHETIC CLASSIFICATION OF 3RD MILLENNIUMEUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALST
“Rectify several misconceptions lying at the basis of the aDNA based migration narrative, a polythetic approach to the connection between material culture styles (mainly pottery, weapons, and tools), and burial forms dramatically changes the picture. The prevailing monothetic culture classification suggests that the two main units, the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker ‘Cultures’, have their own distinct burial rituals. Textbook characterizations suggest that ‘the Corded Ware burial ritual’ is basically single burials under burial mounds with west–east orientation of crouched burials and a gender-based differentiation (males: right side, head to the west, females: left side, head to the east). Male graves are associated with weapons (battle-axes and axes). By contrast, Bell Beaker burials are –so the text-book narrative continues –single burials in crouched positions with a gender differentiation, but oriented north–south, (females: right side, males: left side). Male graves are associated with weapons (daggers, arrowheads, and wrist guards). Told like this, it seems as if those two ‘cultures’ really are characterized by diametrically opposed, different burial forms. This view, however, overlooks a large bundle of shared characteristics: single burials, strict orientation rules, and gender differentiation, the central role of weapons in male graves, and drinking vessels (beakers) in general. Only in the details do the two ‘groups’ diverge, namely the choice of orientation and the choice on which side to rest the dead according to their gender. Even more importantly, the textbook characterization is a stark simplification of the actual empirical data, which are much more variable.” ref
“The burial customs described for the Bell Beakers only hold true in Central Europe, the Netherlands, and the British Isles (excluding Ireland). Even here orientation rules vary (eg, no standardized orientation in the north of the British Isles and the Netherlands, burial mounds are not present in all regions). On the Iberian Peninsula, in Italy, the largest parts of France, and Ireland, Bell Beaker materials are mostly found in other kinds of grave types (eg, megalithic graves, in collective graves, and cave burials). In Denmark, Bell Beakers are mainly found in settlements, while in the Hungarian Csepel Group, cremation burials are frequent. Burials connected to Corded Ware materials are also much more variable then the textbook version suggests. In some regions the pattern described is prevalent (Jutland, most of Germany, Austria, Bohemia, parts of southern Poland). However, in other regions we find regular deviations from the textbook pattern. Gender differentiation is missing (parts of central and southern Germany, the Baltic states), reversed (southern Sweden), orientation is variable (the Netherlands), or north–south orientation prevails (southern Poland, Moravia, the Russian Fatyanovo group). In some regions Corded Ware materials are found often, or even dominantly, in megalithic graves (Danish Isles, north-east Germany). Even in those regions, in which the textbook division between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker associated burial rituals apply overall, it is possible to point to considerable overlaps and ‘mixture’.” ref
“This is a situation much better characterized by applying a polythetic classification. In many regions burials connected with Corded Ware look very similar to the textbook Bell Beaker burials, with a dominant north–south instead of west–east orientation, or with a reversed gender-specific body placement. In addition, many Early Bronze Age ‘cultures’ directly following Corded Ware and Bell Beakers, such as the Únětice, Mierzanowice, or Nitra in Central Europe, the Nordic ‘Late Neolithic’ and Early Bronze Age in southern Scandinavia, or Wessex have also very similar burial rituals. All the burials connected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’ are basically variations over a common theme: highlighting the gendered individual; the association of weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds; and distinct rules of orientation and body placement. Drinking vessels are also a prominent grave good, be they Corded Beakers, Bell Beakers, or Bronze Age cups. There is regional variation as to how the rules are specifically executed and, in some regions, some of the elements are lacking (eg, the gendered deposition, strict orientation rules, the burial mound), while others are added (eg, stone cists), but these are regional specifics that are not restricted to burials connected with materials of one specific archaeological culture. Thus, from a polythetic perspective when looking at burial rituals and styles of material culture, it is much a more stringent practice to identify the burials just discussed –the single burials of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods (2900–1400BCE) in Central Europe, southern Scandinavia, the Nether-lands, and the British Isles –as one overall unit of burial forms, which is much more distinct from previous, neighboring, and following burial forms than there are differences between these graves, or between the graves connected to different archaeological cultures.” ref
THE SGBR COMPLEX
“Instead of seeing the 3rd millennium BCE in Europe through the lens of monothetic, distinct archaeological cultures, each with their own specific set of burial ritual, the polythetic perspective reveals a wider complex of new elements of burial ritual transcending the borders of these entities. This is a complex of burials that high lights individual interments, gender differentiation, male warriors, and mostly strict rules of the orientation of the dead, as opposed to the mainly collective burials of the preceding periods and neighboring regions. I would like to name it the ‘Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Single Grave Burial Ritual Complex’(SGBR). SGBR appears in Central Europe and southern Scandinavia around 2900BC, arrives on the British Isles a few hundred years later, and prevails until cremation burials takeover, somewhen after 1400BCE. In defining such a complex, it seems important to try to avoid a renewed reification. Explicitly, SGBR denotes a set of principles connected with burials, which are both variable and connected to different types of material culture and, most probably, different economic systems and social groups. In the beginning, burials subsumed under SGBR are connected to Corded Ware materials, but a few centuries later, other styles of material culture (Bell Beakers and the different Early Bronze Age materials) become more popular. Furthermore, Corded Ware pots and weapons, Bell Beakers and associated equipment, as well as Early Bronze Age things are found in other contexts than SGBR graves, namely in megalithic monuments, caves, or in settlements –often also in regions where there are no, or only very few, SGBR graves.” ref
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SGBRIN THE MIGRATION DEBATE
The identification of this distinct complex of burial forms is of special significance because it is these graves that are most strongly associated with the bio-molecular finding of steppe ancestry, much more so than Corded Ware or Bell Beaker material objects. The latter are, in some regions and periods, regularly and predominantly connected to SGBR but, in others, they are found in burials of different traditions, or predominantly in settlements. As Olalde et al.(2018) have shown, steppe ancestry is predominantly connected to SGBR with Bell Beaker materials in Central Europe, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, while in Spain, Portugal, and Italy SGBRis uncommon and most individuals show no or very little steppe ancestry. Some individual burials deviate from this pattern (eg, Petit Chasseur in Switzerland)but the trend is clear. In addition, several of the few incidences of steppe ancestry in Spain and France are connected to at least some elements of SGBR. In the case of burials connected to Corded Ware we find a similar pattern. Most obviously, there is a clear difference between regions in which Corded Warematerials are found in SGBR graves and those in which they are found in settlements.” ref
“Interestingly there is a real inversion between those two types of regions with Corded Ware materials. In the first group, that is central and southern Germany, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, south-ern Poland, the Netherlands, north-west Germany, and Jutland, as well as parts of the Baltic states, there are thousands of SGBR graves, while settlements with Corded Ware materials are found very rarely. By contrast, in those regions whereCorded Ware materials are frequently found in settlements, there are no, or very few, SGBR graves, as in Switzerland, the Baltic states coastal areas, Belarus, Finland, southern Norway, or coastal Netherlands. Corded Ware materials found in settlements are almost always from situations where they are successively integrated into previously existing settlement structures and styles of material culture (eg, in coastal Netherlands, western Switzerland, the Baltic states, and Belarus), or where they at least build upon exist-ing traditions (eg, eastern Switzerland and Finland). Additionally, there are regions where Corded Warematerials are found in non-SGBR –megalithic –graves and very rarely in settlements, as in north-east Germany and on the Danish Isles. The Fatyanovo Group on the Russian plain seems to be an exception showing an abundance of both SGBR graves and settlements. What is subsumed under ‘Corded Ware’, then, are obviously very different social phenomena.” ref
“On the most general level, it makes sense to differentiate between ‘Type 1’Corded Ware (Corded Ware in SGBR graves) and ‘Type 2’Corded Ware (Corded Ware in settlements, without SGBR). In Type 1Corded Ware graves, we consistently find individuals with steppe ancestry, in Type 2 Corded Ware contexts there are almost no connected burials from which to draw. Clearly, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the situation regarding Corded Ware is consistent with the Bell Beaker pattern: genetic steppe ancestry is strongly connected to SGBR burials. When it comes to the northern European megalithic graves, these are mostly connected to pre-CordedWare archaeological units. Most burials show a pre-steppe-impact genetic profile, a few recently published individuals from the later part of the 3rdmillennium also show steppe impact. Yet, overall steppe ancestry is most strongly connected to SGBR type burials. As SGBR shows parallels with the burials connected to steppe-based complexes like Sredni Stog, Usatovo, and Yamnaya, ie, the single burial under a kurgan and some form of rules for orientation of the dead, the connection in the biological ancestry is paralleled by connections in burial ritual.” ref
CONCLUSION: MODELS OF MIGRATION, FORMS OF MOBILITY?
This polythetic view of the 3rd millennium indicates that the narrative of Steppe-derived migration creating ‘Corded Ware Culture ‘and later ‘Bell Beaker Societies’ is misleading. What the archaeological record in Central Europe after 2900BCshows, first and foremost, is the creation of a new complex of burial rituals (SGBR) that is connected to many different styles of material culture. Most visibly expressed in the reliance on monothetically perceived units, like Yamnaya, CordedWare, Bell Beakers, and in likewise monothetical descriptors, such as ‘migration’ and pastoralism. This should be refined by integrating a more nuanced view on the archaeological materials, using a poly-thetic classification. Since the establishment of the simplified migration narrative, the image of a one-directional, single-event mass migration, has caught on in most works dealing with the new aDNA data. However, we should be able to pursue more complex models. First, the idea of neatly separated groups of migrants and groups of locals, who may or may not interact, is a false premise. As discussed above, social groups in the Neolithic are probably more fluid and group membership is more flexible than the simplified model implies. Thus, the suggestion of mixing between those labeled as ‘natives’ and ‘locals’ should not be seen as especially remarkable, or exceptional. Rather, it should remind us that what we often casually refer to as ‘migration’ is likely a summary term for a multiplicity of individual local and regional histories of movement, mixture, and secession, probably over many generations. To talk about ‘natives’ and ‘locals’ refers to emic self-characterizations which are neither to be equated with people’s genetic ancestry –which is not necessarily known, as it can be many generations old at any given point in time –nor with the material culture they produce and use –which is determined by socialization, and subject to the flexibility and social fluidity described above.” ref
“Secondly, this view is consistent with the archaeological evidence of the 3rd millenniumBCwhichshows a high degree of regional chronological variability and a polythetic setting between different kinds of materials (eg, burial rituals, pottery, tools, weapons). While many archaeologists tend to brush over both this variability and the non-congruent set-ting of different kinds of materials, and focus on regularities and similarities between, for instance, different Corded Ware regional groups, the evidence suggests that there is not one uniform migration phenomenon, but many different variants, which yield different archaeological outcomes. Thus, the definition of two types of archaeological units connected to Corded Ware should not be taken to suggest that there are exactly two distinct ways in which people migrated into Central Europe. Rather, it seems clear that the historical processes behind the formation of communities represented by Type 1 and Type 2 Corded Ware are likely to be much more varied and complicated than these types would suggest. But this still very simplified classification seems as a useful intervention in the ongoing debate of how to better understand the results of the aDNA studies by better integrating these data with the archaeological data and anthropological knowledge.” ref
Bell Beaker Phenomenon and neighboring influenced territories
“The social processes that we are able to reconstruct for the 3rd Millennium Europe were, however, not isolated from the civilization development in other parts of the Old World. From the point of view of the first civilization centers the European Continent has to be seen as a periphery. Better understood by comparing the different civilization aspects within the proto-historical early state formations of Near East and North East Africa and within the Mediterranean and Continental European communities.” ref
European spread of cultural uniformity
“While the Maritime Beakers are clearly south-western element, a symbolic system of the burial rites is based on the eastern Corded Ware and even earlier Yamnaya tradition. Maritime Beakers were thus only one investment into the creation of new phenomenon together with a tradition based on an already existing symbolic system of individual burials under round barrows, emphasizing gender and social position of individuals and sometimes their craftsmanship, solar cult, and drinking Beakers. For the casting of such new phenomenon perhaps the Lower Rhine area was important, as it was the westernmost region with the occurrence of Corded Ware (SGC). There it was the AOC and AOO Beakers that, together with the Maritime variety, created a new Bell Beaker style. This establishing process was a result of cultural interaction between the Iberian Peninsula and lower Rhine region.” ref
“Thus if the question is: from where and when did the Bell Beaker (Maritime) style originate, than we have to state that it was in first half of the third millennium BCE between Estramadura and Morocco, but if the question is: where was the Bell Beaker Phenomenon created?, it needs to be said that it was before the mid-third millennium as a result of communication between the Maritime style in Portugal and the western late Corded Ware groups. The Western Mediterranean, as well as, North Western Europe in the mid-third millennium joined the Beaker World that had previously been represented by the Corded Ware Cultures of the Central and North Eastern Europe. This process can be described as spreading of spontaneously accepted cultural uniformity. But we still have not mentioned what was the main driving force behind such spread of material culture and social values. It was apparently the new ideology spreading along with the prestigious significant technology of copper metalurgy. In quest for the motivation that led the local populations to leave or partially shift away from the local cultural traditions and to adopt the new cultural elements we can consider more different interpretations. Personally, I believe that the spread of new style in material culture does not necessarily needs to be related to population shifts. Communication between regions and communities was possibly organized in the form of marriages or migration of individuals, as it is described, for example, the model of contacts across the “Chalcolithic frontier”. Brodie combines the desire of the population from the non-chalcolithic area of North Western Europe, creating economic and social ties with the communities of the regions possessing knowledge of copper production technology. But this is probably only part of the problem. An important accelerator of this cultural exchange was apparently a new ideology, or more precisely, the new cult.” ref
The origins of money: Calculation of similarity indexes demonstrates the earliest development of commodity money in prehistoric Central Europe
Abstract
“The origins of money and the formulation of coherent weight and measurement systems are amongst the most significant prehistoric developments of the human intellect. We present a method for detecting perceptible standardization of weights and apply this to 5028 Early Bronze Age rings, ribs, and ax blades from Central Europe. We calculate the degree of uniformity on the basis of psychophysics, and quantify this using similarity indexes. The analysis shows that 70.3% of all rings could not be perceptibly distinguished from a ring weighing 195.5 grams, indicating their suitability as commodity money. Perceptive weight equivalence is demonstrated between rings, and a selection of ribs and ax blades. The co-occurrence of these objects evidences their interchangeability. We further suggest that producing copies of rings led to the recognition of weight similarities and the independent emergence of a system of weighing in Central Europe at the end of the Early Bronze Age.” ref
“Money is a type of commodity that acts as a means of exchange and is standardized to some degree, visually or in terms of their weight. Archaeology can provide a unique perspective on the development of money and systems of weighing over space and time, but the discipline has difficulties with the identification of objects that functioned either as commodity money or as (balance) weights. Typical statistical approaches are inadequate for dealing with the approximation that characterizes prehistoric weighing. What is needed for archaeology to contribute to the history of metrology and the origins of money are methods for identifying standardization on the basis of perceived similarity. A principal challenge at this point is to take the statistical tools employed to express accuracy, and adjust them in accordance to the findings from psychophysics, so that the ordinal and qualitative measurements of weight estimation by hand and sight are taken on board. In short, prehistoric weight units quite literally need to make sense.” ref
Bronze Age commodities
“Commodities are archaeologically defined as socially recognized, alienable objects that appear in large numbers and emphasize similarity. Candidates of prehistoric commodity money from the Central European Early Bronze Age are the so-called Ösenringe (hereafter rings), Spangenbarren (hereafter ribs), and possibly ax blades. Rings and ribs appear in the southern parts of Central Europe: the Danubian region of southern Germany, Lower Austria, and parts of the Czech Republic. Ax blades are typically, but not exclusively, found in central and north-eastern Germany, roughly corresponding to the cultural area of the Únětice. In between is an area of overlap where rings, ribs, and ax blades are regularly found together, primarily the Czech Republic (Moravia and Bohemia), though some mixed hoards also appear in north-eastern Germany and Poland. A third geographical region where these objects are encountered is Southern Scandinavia, though in lesser numbers.” ref
It is generally thought that different economies operated in the three regions where rings, ribs, and ax blades occur. In the southern region commodification was strongest and the economy is often interpreted as resembling to some degree a market economy, in which rings and ribs represented wealth. The Únětice region is better characterized as prestige-good exchange, though some commodification is visible. Scandinavia is different altogether. Here the context of rings suggests gift-exchange, and they mostly appear deposited as single finds in wetlands. A clear contrast between gift and market economies seems hard to sustain, however, and may be little more than a modern distinction. Found in bulk, sometimes in hoards containing multiple hundreds, many of the rings, ribs and axe blades are considered to have no other practical function besides their tentative use as ingots, or rough-outs for further production. Moulds, made of clay, stone, or cast directly in sand, made serial production possible, which led to some degree of unintentional standardization. However, there are indications that for some types of objects a deliberate effort was made to achieve a specific weight interval, meaning that weight mattered. In the case of rings, a standardization between roughly 170 and 220 grams has been hypothesized on the basis of histograms. Unclear is how prehistoric people would have recognized this standard.” ref
Psychophysics of weight discrimination
“The practice of weighing may have been far more imprecise than is generally assumed. Historically there are three basic ways to measure weight: 1) Through lifting two objects and comparing them, or estimation on sight. 2) Through practicality, i.e. the maximum weight that could be conveniently carried by a human or animal. 3) By means of a weighing apparatus. Each of these have their own level of impreciseness. In the case of the Central European Early Bronze Age, there is no evidence of a weighing apparatus such as balances. Weighing was a qualitative measurement based on comparative sensory perception with hands and eyes. But humans are known to be “rather ‘noisy’ measurement instruments”. Prehistoric standardization thus would have been imprecise, and worked based on approximation both in shape and weight. They must have had relatively low precision in terms of modern scientific tolerances and this should be taken into consideration when looking for standardization.” ref
“We assume that in the absence of measuring equipment counting must have been the preferred method of quantification, but the counted objects had to be perceptibly similar. Therefore, weight mattered. Weight is crucial for the determination of the value of goods in most economic transactions. Lacking balances, the only way to observe a reasonable degree of uniformity is through sensory perception. We consider objects uniform when they are perceptibly indiscriminate from each other. Psychophysics offers a methodology through which we can test the perceptible similarity of objects based on weight. This sub-field of cognitive psychology is concerned with the relationships between physical properties of stimuli and perceptual responses to these stimuli. The measure used to express people’s sensory acuity is the Weber fraction, and denotes the difference in stimulus strength that is just noticeable. As a general rule, the Weber fraction for weight discrimination is 0.1. This means that the difference between, for example, a weight of 100 grams and 105 grams is not noticeable, but between 100 and 111 grams is, since the threshold is at 110 grams (Methods).” ref
Data
“Using the measurement of weight, we employ a methodology based on psychophysics to quantify and operationalize our assumption that weighing in prehistory was a purely sensorial practice, done by hand. The perceptive equivalence is expressed though the calculation of a similarity index (SI), which gives the percentage of objects from a dataset that are perceptibly indistinguishable from a tested object (Methods). We collected the weights of 6317 objects, of which 5028 were used in the analysis as they were complete and dated to the Early Bronze Age: 2639 rings, 1780 ribs, and 609 ax blades. Ax blades can be divided into Early Bronze I (hereafter: EBA I: 2150–1900 BCE) and Early Bronze Age II (hereafter EBA II: 1900–1700 BCE) on typological grounds. Rings and ribs mostly overlap, though ribs are generally considered a slightly later development. We selected hoards originally containing at least five or more rings and ribs, or at least five ax blades. This selection procedure helps identify standardized commodities rather than particular types of rings and ax blades. We chose to draw the limit at five because we observed that rings and ribs are found in several instances in bundles of five.” ref
Results: Rings and ribs
“The analysis of the full dataset of rings and ribs revealed the existence of a peak at 193 grams, with a similarity index of 58.6%. What this means is that when compared to a ring of 193 grams, nearly 60% of all other rings in the database are perceptibly similar in weight. When the dataset was broken into its two main components of rings and ribs, the following picture emerged. The rings, totaling 2639 objects, presented one peak with a similarity index of 70.3% at 195.5 grams. The 1780 ribs had two peaks. One that corresponded largely with that of the rings, and stood at 186 grams and a similarity index of 44.3%, and a smaller one at 82 grams, having a similarity index of 13.1%. The separation between the two peaks was estimated using clustering at 135 grams. This value was used to further separate the ribs into a group of heavier and one of lighter objects, which were then analyzed separately. The heavier ribs (n = 1106) revealed the existence of a comparable peak at 185.5 grams, where the similarity index rose to 71.5%. The lighter ribs showed a peak at 81 grams, though the similarity index only reached a maximum of 37.8%.” ref
Combination of rings, ribs, and ax blades.
“In order to test whether EBA I ax blades were perceptibly similar in weight to rings and ribs, the datasets of rings, heavy ribs, and EBA I ax blades were combined and tested together. Given that there are only 208 EBA I ax blades and 3745 rings and heavy ribs, we took a random sample of the same number from the latter. These were placed together with the ax blades, giving a dataset of 372 objects after the exclusion of outliers. This dataset was then subjected to the similarity calculation. When plotted graphically the results revealed that, although in absolute numbers ax blades were heavier, in terms of weight perception a majority of objects were grouped together in one peak. The top of this peak corresponded to a similarity index of 60.8% at 199 grams.” ref
Analysis
“Our findings show that of a total of 2639 rings coming from 113 different hoards, 70.3% (1855 rings) weighed between 176 to 217 grams, making them perceptibly identical to a ring of 195.5 grams. This is interesting as research in psychophysics reports a decrease in accuracy with weights below 200 grams. Rings might have been produced at the lower limit of where differences between them were still easily recognizable. A large similarity was not only calculated for the rings of 195.5 grams, but also for the majority of the dataset: 1724 rings had a similarity index of over 50%. Even the average similarity index of all rings from the dataset was close to 50% and many individual hoards showed a similarity index of 100%. When excluding outliers, the similarity of the rings rose to 76.5%, while randomly generated data over the same weight interval remained below a similarity index of 49%.” ref
“Part of the ribs revealed a comparable situation with the rings. Of the 1106 heavy ribs, coming from 13 hoards, 71.5% were perceptibly identical to a rib weighing 185.5 grams, and weighed between 167 and 204 grams. Just like with the rings, a majority of these ribs (n = 741), showed a similarity index of over 50%. Randomly generated data over the same weight interval revealed a maximum similarity that was 20% lower than that calculated for the heavy ribs, when excluding outliers. The hoards themselves showed a high degree of internal homogeneity in terms of weight, as all of them had an average similarity index of over 60%. Ribs, therefore, just like rings, show a strong pattern of perceived standardization. Though our analysis shows that the targeted weight was 10 grams smaller than that of the rings, this weight interval could not have been perceived when comparing these objects and thus this standardization overlaps with the rings in what we suggest calling a perceptive category. This refers to a recognizable range of sensorial parameters which humans could reliably identify.” ref
“The 674 ribs that were lighter than 135 grams came from 24 hoards and did not reveal a high enough peak to argue for standardization. Even when analyzed separately, the group had a maximum similarity index of 37.8%. The large variety in weights is evident also at the level of the hoards themselves. The ribs for the hoard of Temelín for instance, even when only compared to the other ribs from the same hoard, only reached a maximum similarity index of 38%, which is far lower than the numbers obtained for the hoards with heavy ribs. Of the 208 ax blades dated to the EBA I, coming from 11 hoards, 44.2% weighed between 185 and 227 grams and would have been perceived as similar to an ax blade of 206 grams. While the similarity index is considerably lower than the results of rings and ribs, it is still higher than what one would expect in the case of random data. Furthermore, the dataset resulted in one peak only, with most weights falling within the same perceptive category of rings and heavy ribs. This conclusion was reinforced by the inability of the analysis to distinguish between EBA I ax blades, rings, and heavy ribs when combined into one dataset. However, in the case of ax blades this weight standard only applied to some hoards, such as Sennwald-Salez, while hoards like Dermsdorf or Soběnice displayed a greater weight range, and others still, like Hindelwangen, followed a different pattern altogether.” ref
The 401 ax blades from the EBA II showed even less homogeneity. The one larger peak found in the data, at 293 grams, with a maximum similarity index of 44.9%, seems to be the outcome of one hoard, in particular, Gröbers-Bennewitz, and to a lesser degree the smaller hoard of Niederosterwitz. Taken together, they accounted for nearly half of the EBA II ax blades. When analyzed separately, the two hoards showed a remarkable similarity index of 80%. However, this standard cannot be related to the one found in the case of rings and ribs, since the two showed a difference of nearly 100 grams and would thus have been clearly discernible. Noteworthy too is that both hoards contain poorly made and even unfinished ax blades. The rest of the EBA II hoards did not fit the above pattern. Hoards like Soběchleby and Pilszcz revealed a large differentiation in terms of weight, and included ax blades that started from under 200 grams and went to over 400 grams. Other hoards, like those of Bresinchen and Carsdorf contained ax blades that overall came close to 200 grams, making them comparable to those from the EBA I. These two hoards contributed together to the smaller peak observed when analyzing all the EBA II ax blades. Both of these hoards also contained rings, suggesting a chronological and functional overlap.” ref
Discussion
“There are two main directions for money definitions. They follow either a commodity theory (money as a means of exchange) or credit theory (money as a means of account). Essentially, the discussion between them revolves around the question of whether the idea or the material expression came first, and is thus a matter of directional causality. Recently, this distinction has been challenged through findings that material practices scaffold mental processes, and cognition thus has a material dimension. Most authors emphasize that the exchange of commodity money is based on perceived alikeness. Commodity money displays rough similarities in terms of shape and weight, because of standardization, without necessarily following a strict metrological system.” ref
“Though archaeologists have no insight in the transactions that took place, there can be no doubt that at least the rings and ribs conform to the definition of commodity money. Our analysis revealed perceptible similarity in weight between rings, ribs, and a selection of ax blades from the Early Bronze Age of Central Europe. We take this to be evidence of intentional standardization that follows from lifting objects and estimating their weight by hand, attesting for their use as commodity money. Standardization occurred around a weight of 195.5 grams, though this is not an absolute benchmark. It is unlikely that this exact weight was aimed for. Rather, the similarity in weight is the result of a rule of thumb corresponding to the material realities of casting metal in moulds and commodification. Moreover, in the absence of balances, the shape of objects was needed to express weight through a simple ‘same form same weight equation’. Employing psychophysics and the Weber fraction for weight of 0.1 we calculated that everything in the range from 176 to 217 grams would be perceived as equal in weight to 195.5 grams. Within this perceptive category we observe that ribs and ax blades form the opposite ends, with the rings at 195.5 in the middle. This argument is statistically supported by the observation that rings, ribs, and ax blades cannot be distinguished when combined in one dataset.” ref
“The co-occurrence of these objects in hoards, sometimes even tied together such as in the find from Wegliny, points at their interchangeability. Their overlap in weight suggests that a conversion between rings and ribs, and ax blades was aimed for in specific cases. For the EBA I, one ring or rib corresponded to one ax blade, while during the EBA II, three rings or ribs were needed to make two ax blades. Since geographically ax blades were found at the outer edges of the area where rings and ribs circulated, we interpret them as local economic articulations of commodification through which the gap between commodity and prestige good economies was vaulted. The choice of ax blades as commodity money seems a logical development from the observation that axes had long been valued, and are perhaps the single most important metal tool of prehistoric farmers. Not all EBA rings, ribs, and ax blades were used as commodity money. What our model shows is that many conform to a standardized weight. Some were made for a different purpose which did not impose weight limitations that we can identify with this model, however. Ax blades from the Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age showed no standardization.” ref
“At the end of the Early Bronze Age rings and ribs disappear and trade starts to take place in both scrap metal and (parts of) casting cakes. For such a system to operate two developments need to have been completed. The practical development of a set of scales, and the cognitive development of a system of weighing through which to operate a balance. The earliest evidence of balance weights and balances in Western Europe dates to the Middle Bronze Age, and were likely used for gold given their sizes and weights. Around the same time there is a noticeable increase in the amount of bronzes being traded from the south to the north of Europe. Weights are material-symbolic facts. You first need to experience differences in weight and engage with these material realities before you can articulate them conceptually. Rather than seeing rings and ribs as the material representation of a conceptual system of weight, we argue that they helped to articulate such a conceptual system. The material medium—bronze—helped to move this conceptual innovation along because it afforded an unprecedented sameness between objects. Moulds were the very first blue-prints through which copies could be easily produced. Since human cognition is a dynamic system that includes mind, body, and material forms, thinking through these objects helped scaffold the cognitive framework that is needed for the development of a weight unit throughout the EBA.” ref
“From experience, people came to expect that rings weigh about the same (around 195 grams), resulting in a cognitive stereotype of these rings and their weight. A cognitive stereotype is part of our cognitive toolbox and from this weight could be divorced from the actual physical rings, and thought of separately. Thanks to the particular affordances of bronze, equality in weight became a matter of concern and, following, a cognitive tool to think with, resulting in an abstract notion of weight. This is what allowed for a theoretical unit of weight to come into existence, which was needed to operate scales. Rings, ribs, and ax blades produced in a serial fashion and having perceptible similar weight are the material roots of a cognitive system of weighing. We suggest that producing perceptibly identical copies of rings, ribs, and ax blades, and their use as commodity money led to an increased recognition of weight similarities and the independent emergence of a system of weighing in Central Europe.” ref
“The European Bronze Age is characterized by bronze artifacts and the use of bronze implements. The regional Bronze Age succeeds the Neolithic. It starts with the Aegean Bronze Age in 3200 BCE (succeeded by the Beaker culture), and spans the entire 2nd millennium BCE (Unetice culture, Tumulus culture, Terramare culture, Urnfield culture, and Lusatian culture) in Northern Europe, lasting until c. 600 BCE or 2,620 years ago.” ref
Bronze Age Balkans
“A study in the journal Antiquity reported the discovery of a tin bronze foil from the Pločnik (archaeological site) dated to c. 4650 BCE as well as 14 other artifacts from Serbia and Bulgaria dated to before 4000 BCE showed that early tin bronze was more common than previously thought, and developed independently in Europe 1500 years before the first tin bronze alloys in the Near East. The production of complex tin bronzes lasted for c. 500 years in the Balkans. The authors reported that evidence for the production of such complex bronzes disappears at the end of the 5th millennium coinciding with the “collapse of large cultural complexes in north-eastern Bulgaria and Thrace in the late fifth millennium BCE”. Tin bronzes using cassiterite tin would be reintroduced to the area again some 1500 years later.” ref
Bronze Age Aegean
“The Aegean Bronze Age begins around 3200 BCE when civilizations first established a far-ranging trade network. This network imported tin and charcoal to Cyprus, where copper was mined and alloyed with the tin to produce bronze. Bronze objects were then exported far and wide and supported the trade. Isotopic analysis of the tin in some Mediterranean bronze objects indicates it came from as far away as Great Britain. Knowledge of navigation was well developed at this time and reached a peak of skill not exceeded until a method was discovered (or perhaps rediscovered) to determine longitude around CE 1750, with the notable exception of the Polynesian sailors. The eruption of Thera, which according to archaeological data occurred approximately 1500 BCE, resulted in the decline of the Minoan. This turn of events gave the opportunity to the Mycenaeans to spread their influence throughout the Aegean. Around c. 1450 BCE, they were in control of Crete itself and colonized several other Aegean islands, reaching as far as Rhodes. Thus the Mycenaeans became the dominant power of the region, marking the beginning of the Mycenaean ‘Koine’ era (from Greek: Κοινή, common), a highly uniform culture that spread in mainland Greece and the Aegean. The Mycenaean Greeks introduced several innovations in the fields of engineering, architecture, and military infrastructure, while trade over vast areas of the Mediterranean was essential for the Mycenaean economy. Their syllabic script, the Linear B, offers the first written records of the Greek language and their religion already included several deities that can be also found in the Olympic Pantheon. Mycenaean Greece was dominated by a warrior elite society and consisted of a network of palace states that developed rigid hierarchical, political, social, and economic systems. At the head of this societies was the king, known as wanax.” ref
Bronze Age Italy
“The Italian Bronze Age is conditionally divided into four periods: The Early Bronze Age (2300–1700 BCE), the Middle Bronze Age (1700–1350 BCE), the Recent Bronze Age (1350–1150 BCE), the Final Bronze Age (1150–950 BCE). During the second millennium BCE, the Nuragic civilization flourished in the island of Sardinia. It was a rather homogeneous culture, more than 7000 imposing stone tower-buildings known as Nuraghe were built by this culture all over the island, along with other types of monuments such as the megaron temples, the monumental Giants’ graves, and the holy well temples. Sanctuaries and larger settlements were also built starting from the late second millennium BCE to host these religious structures along with other structures such ritual pools, fountains and tanks, large stone roundhouses with circular benches used for the meeting of the leaders of the chiefdoms, and large public areas. Bronze tools and weapons were widespread and their quality increased thanks to the contacts between the Nuragic people and Eastern Mediterranean peoples such as the Cypriots, the lost waxing technique was introduced to create several hundred bronze statuettes and other tools. The Nuragic civilization survived throughout the early Iron Age when the sanctuaries were still in use, stone statues were crafted and some Nuraghi were reused as temples.” ref
Bronze Age Caucasus
“The Maykop culture was the major early Bronze Age culture in the North Caucasus. Some scholars date arsenical bronze artifacts in the region as far back as the mid-4th millennium BCE.” ref
“The Maykop culture, c. 3700–3000 BCE, was a major Bronze Age archaeological culture in the western Caucasus region. It extends along the area from the Taman Peninsula at the Kerch Strait to near the modern border of Dagestan and southwards to the Kura River. The culture takes its name from a royal burial found in Maykop kurgan in the Kuban River valley. According to genetic studies on ancient DNA published in 2018, the Maikop population came from the south, probably from western Georgia and Abkhazia, and was descended from the Eneolithic farmers who first colonized the north side of the Caucasus. Maykop is, therefore, the “ideal archaeological candidate for the founders of the Northwest Caucasian language family“. Maykop inhumation practices were characteristically Indo-European, typically in a pit, sometimes stone-lined, topped with a kurgan (or tumulus). Stone cairns replace kurgans in later interments. The Maykop kurgan was extremely rich in gold and silver artifacts; unusual for the time. In the south, the Maykop culture bordered the approximately contemporaneous Kura-Araxes culture (3500—2200 BC), which extends into the Armenian Plateau and apparently influenced it. To the north is the Yamna culture, including the Novotitorovka culture (3300—2700), which it overlaps in territorial extent. It is contemporaneous with the late Uruk period in Mesopotamia. The Kuban River is navigable for much of its length and provides an easy water-passage via the Sea of Azov to the territory of the Yamna culture, along the Don and Donets River systems. The Maykop culture was thus well-situated to exploit the trading possibilities with the central Ukraine area.” ref
Radiocarbon dates for various monuments of the Maykop culture are from 3950 – 3650 – 3610 – 2980 calBCE. After the discovery of the Leyla-Tepe culture in the 1980s, some links were noted with the Maykop culture. The Leyla-Tepe culture is a culture of archaeological interest from the Chalcolithic era. Its population was distributed on the southern slopes of the Central Caucasus (modern Azerbaijan, Agdam District), from 4350 until 4000 BCE. Similar amphora burials in the South Caucasus are found in the Western Georgian Jar-Burial Culture. The culture has also been linked to the north Ubaid period monuments, in particular, with the settlements in the Eastern Anatolia Region. The settlement is of a typical Western-Asian variety, with the dwellings packed closely together and made of mud bricks with smoke outlets. It has been suggested that the Leyla-Tepe were the founders of the Maykop culture. An expedition to Syria by the Russian Academy of Sciences revealed the similarity of the Maykop and Leyla-Tepe artifacts with those found recently while excavating the ancient city of Tel Khazneh I, from the 4th millennium BCE. Nearly 200 Bronze Age sites were reported stretching over 60 miles from the Kuban River to Nalchik, at an altitude of between 4,620 feet and 7,920 feet. They were all “visibly constructed according to the same architectural plan, with an oval courtyard in the center, and connected by roads. Researchers established the existence of a local Maykop animal style in the artifacts found. This style was seen as the prototype for animal styles of later archaeological cultures: the Maykop animal style is more than a thousand years older than the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Celtic animal styles. Attributed to the Maykop culture are petroglyphs which have yet to be deciphered.” ref
“The Maykop people lived sedentary lives, and horses formed a very low percentage of their livestock, which mostly consisted of pigs and cattle. Archaeologists have discovered a unique form of bronze cheek-piece, which consists of a bronze rod with a twisted loop in the middle that threads through the nodes and connects to the bridle, halter strap, and headband. Notches and bumps on the edges of the cheek-pieces were, apparently, to attach nose and under-lip straps. Some of the earliest wagon wheels in the world are found in Maykop culture area. The two solid wooden wheels from the kurgan of Novokorsunskaya in the Kuban region have been dated to the second half of the fourth millennium. The construction of artificial terrace complexes in the mountains is evidence of their sedentary living, high population density, and high levels of agricultural and technical skills. The terraces were built around the fourth millennium BC. and all subsequent cultures used them for agricultural purposes. The vast majority of pottery found on the terraces are from the Maykop period, the rest from the Scythian and Alan period. The Maykop terraces are among the most ancient in the world, but they are little studied. The longevity of the terraces (more than 5000 years) allows us to consider their builders unsurpassed engineers and craftsmen.” ref
Bronze Age Eastern Europe
“The Yamnaya culture[10] was a late copper age/early Bronze Age culture dating to the 36th–23rd centuries BCE. The culture was predominantly nomadic, with some agriculture practiced near rivers and a few hill-forts. The Catacomb culture, covering several related archaeological cultures, was first to introduce corded pottery decorations into the steppes and showed a profuse use of the polished battle ax, providing a link to the West. Parallels with the Afanasevo culture, including provoked cranial deformations, provide a link to the East. It was preceded by the Yamnaya culture and succeeded by the western Corded Ware culture. The Catacomb culture in the Pontic steppe was succeeded by the Srubna culture from c. the 17th century BC.” ref
Bronze Age Central Europe
Bronze Age Transylvania and Pre-Celtic
Important sites include:
· Biskupin (Poland)
· Nebra (Germany)
· Zug-Sumpf, Zug, Switzerland
“In Central Europe, the early Bronze Age Unetice culture (1800–1600 BCE) includes numerous smaller groups like the Straubingen, Adlerberg, and Hatvan cultures. Some very rich burials, such as the one located at Leubingen (today part of Sömmerda) with grave gifts crafted from gold, point to an increase of social stratification already present in the Unetice culture. All in all, cemeteries of this period are rare and of small size. The Unetice culture is followed by the middle Bronze Age (1600–1200 BCE) Tumulus culture, which is characterized by inhumation burials in tumuli (barrows). In the eastern Hungarian Körös tributaries, the early Bronze Age first saw the introduction of the Makó culture, followed by the Otomani and Gyulavarsánd cultures. The late Bronze Age Urnfield culture (1300–700 BCE) is characterized by cremation burials. It includes the Lusatian culture in eastern Germany and Poland (1300–500 BCE) that continues into the Iron Age. The Central European Bronze Age is followed by the Iron Age Hallstatt culture (700–450 BCE).” ref
Bronze Age Northern Europe
“In northern Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, Bronze Age cultures manufactured many distinctive and artistic artifacts. This includes lur horns, horned ceremonial helmets, sun discs, gold jewelry, and some unexplained finds like the bronze “gong” from Balkåkra in Sweden. Some linguists believe that an early Indo-European language was introduced to the area probably around 2000 BC, which eventually became Proto-Germanic, the last common ancestor of the Germanic languages. This would fit with the apparently unbroken evolution of the Nordic Bronze Age into the most probably ethnolinguistically Germanic Pre-Roman Iron Age. The age is divided into the periods I-VI, according to Oscar Montelius. Period Montelius V, already belongs to the Iron Age in other regions.” ref
Britain
“In Great Britain, the Bronze Age is considered to have been the period from around 2100 to 700 BCE. Immigration brought new people to the islands from the continent. Recent tooth enamel isotope research on bodies found in early Bronze Age graves around Stonehenge indicate that at least some of the immigrants came from the area of modern Switzerland. The Beaker people displayed different behaviors from the earlier Neolithic people and cultural change was significant. The rich Wessex culture developed in southern Britain at this time. Additionally, the climate was deteriorating; where once the weather was warm and dry it became much wetter as the Bronze Age continued, forcing the population away from easily defended sites in the hills and into the fertile valleys. Large livestock ranches developed in the lowlands which appear to have contributed to economic growth and inspired increasing forest clearances. The Deverel-Rimbury culture began to emerge in the second half of the ‘Middle Bronze Age’ (c. 1400–1100 BCE) to exploit these conditions. Cornwall was a major source of tin for much of western Europe and copper was extracted from sites such as the Great Orme mine in northern Wales. Social groups appear to have been tribal but with growing complexity and hierarchies becoming apparent. Also, the burial of dead (which until this period had usually been communal) became more individual. For example, whereas in the Neolithic a large chambered cairn or long barrow was used to house the dead, the ‘Early Bronze Age’ saw people buried in individual barrows (also commonly known and marked on modern British Ordnance Survey maps as Tumuli), or sometimes in cists covered with cairns. The greatest quantities of bronze objects found in England were discovered in East Cambridgeshire, where the most important finds were done in Isleham (more than 6500 pieces).” ref
Bronze Age Atlantic Europe
“The Atlantic Bronze Age is a cultural complex of the Bronze Age period of approximately 1300–700 BCE that includes different cultures in Portugal, Andalusia, Galicia, France, Britain, and Ireland and is marked by economic and cultural exchange that led to the high degree of cultural similarity exhibited by coastal communities, including the frequent use of stones as chevaux-de-frise, the establishment of cliff castles, or the domestic architecture sometimes characterized by the roundhouses. Commercial contacts extended from Sweden and Denmark to the Mediterranean. The period was defined by a number of distinct regional centers of metal production, unified by a regular maritime exchange of some of their products. The major centers were southern England and Ireland, north-western France, and western Iberia. The Bronze Age in Ireland commenced in the centuries around 2000 BC when copper was alloyed with tin and used to manufacture Ballybeg type flat axes and associated metalwork. The preceding period is known as the Copper Age and is characterized by the production of flat axes, daggers, halberds, and awls in copper. The period is divided into three phases: Early Bronze Age 2000–1500 BCE; Middle Bronze Age 1500–1200 BCE and Late Bronze Age 1200–500 BCE. Ireland is also known for a relatively large number of Early Bronze Age Burials.” ref
See also
Picture ref
Something Weird Happened to Men 7,000 Years Ago, And We Finally Know Why
“Around 7,000 years ago – all the way back in the Neolithic – something really peculiar happened to human genetic diversity. Over the next 2,000 years, and seen across Africa, Europe, and Asia, the genetic diversity of the Y chromosome collapsed, becoming as though there was only one man for every 17 women. Now, through computer modeling, researchers believe they have found the cause of this mysterious phenomenon: fighting between patrilineal clans. Drops in genetic diversity among humans are not unheard of, inferred based on genetic patterns in modern humans. But these usually affect entire populations, probably as the result of a disaster or other event that shrinks the population and therefore the gene pool.” ref
“But the Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck, as it is known, has been something of a puzzle since its discovery in 2015. This is because it was only observed on the genes on the Y chromosome that get passed down from father to son – which means it only affected men. This points to a social, rather than an environmental, cause, and given the social restructures between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago as humans shifted to more agrarian cultures with patrilineal structures, this may have had something to do with it. In fact, a drop in genetic diversity doesn’t mean that there was necessarily a drop in population. The number of men could very well have stayed the same, while the pool of men who produced offspring declined.” ref
“Instead of ‘survival of the fittest’ in a biological sense, the accumulation of wealth and power may have increased the reproductive success of a limited number of ‘socially fit’ males and their sons,” computational biologist Melissa Wilson Sayres of Arizona State University explained at the time. Tian Chen Zeng, a sociologist at Stanford, has now built on this hypothesis. He and colleagues point out that, within a clan, women could have married into new clans, while men stayed with their own clans their entire lives. This would mean that, within the clan, Y chromosome variation is limited. However, it doesn’t explain why there was so little variation between different clans. However, if skirmishes wiped out entire clans, that could have wiped out many male lineages – diminishing Y chromosome variance. Computer modeling have verified the plausibility of this scenario. Simulations showed that wars between patrilineal clans, where women moved around but men stayed in their own clans, had a drastic effect on Y chromosome diversity over time.” ref
“It also showed that a social structure that allowed both men and women to move between clans would not have this effect on Y chromosome diversity, even if there was conflict between them. This means that warring patrilineal clans are the most likely explanation, the researchers said. “Our proposal is supported by findings in archaeogenetics and anthropological theory,” the researchers wrote in their paper. First, the proposal involves an episode in human prehistory when patrilineal descent groups were the socially salient and major unit of intergroup competition, bracketed on either side by periods when this was not the case,” This hypothesis is also supported by a finding in the European DNA samples – shallow coalescence of the Y chromosome, a feature that indicates high levels of relatedness between males.” ref
“Groups of males in European post-Neolithic agropastoralist cultures appear to descend patrilineally from a comparatively smaller number of progenitors when compared to hunter-gatherers, and this pattern is especially pronounced among pastoralists,” they explained. “Our hypothesis would predict that post-Neolithic societies, despite their larger population size, have difficulty retaining ancestral diversity of Y-chromosomes due to mechanisms that accelerate their genetic drift, which is certainly in accord with the data.” Interestingly, there were variations in the intensity of the bottleneck. It is less pronounced in East and Southeast Asian populations than in European, West, or South Asian populations. This could be because pastoral cultures were much more important in the latter regions.” ref
“The team are excited to apply their methodology, which combines sociology, biology, and mathematics, to other cultures, to observe how kinship links and genetic variation between cultural groups correlates with political history. “An investigation into the patterns of uniparental variation among, for example, the Betsileo highlanders of Madagascar, who may have undergone an entry and an exit from the ‘bottleneck period’ very recently, could reveal phenomena relevant to such history,” the researchers wrote. “Cultural changes in political and social organization – phenomena that are unique to human beings – may extend their reach into patterns of genetic variation in ways yet to be discovered.” ref
ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref
Stonehenge: Paganistic Burial and Astrological Ritual Complex, England (5,100-3,600 years ago)
*Around 5,000 years ago Stonehenge (Britain):
Stonehenge: Paganistic Burial and Astrological Ritual Complex, England.
Stonehenge evolved in several construction phases, 1 (5,100 years ago), 2 (5,000 years ago), 3 I (4,600 years ago), 3 II (4,600-4,400 years ago), 3 III (2400-4,280 years ago), 3 IV (4,280-3,930 years ago), & 3 V (3,930-3,600 years ago). Anatolian/Turkish-farmers built Britain’s famous Stonehenge, as well as current males of Britain, 60-65% have Turkish genetics. Almost as the same as in Ireland where 85 percent of Irish men are descended from farming people that arrived 6,000 years ago. At or around Stonehenge 5,000-4,400 years ago, there were two separate burial rites, either letting the birds feed on bodies or cremation. And a 4,000-year-old burial pit for elite contains 14 females and only 9 males, as well as a chieftain’s grave, held several items including the depicted 4,000-year-old dagger. And a 4,000-year-old child’s grave held the depicted Folkton drums. As well as items from 4,600-3,600 involved gold beads, necklaces, earrings, pendants, and other jewelry show sophisticated burial culture. ref, ref, ref, 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
My thoughts on Religion Evolution with external links for more info:
- (Pre-Animism Africa mainly, but also Europe, and Asia at least 300,000 years ago), (Pre-Animism – Oxford Dictionaries)
- (Animism Africa around 100,000 years ago), (Animism – Britannica.com)
- (Totemism Europe around 50,000 years ago), (Totemism – Anthropology)
- (Shamanism Siberia around 30,000 years ago), (Shamanism – Britannica.com)
- (Paganism Turkey around 12,000 years ago), (Paganism – BBC Religion)
- (Progressed Organized Religion “Institutional Religion” Egypt around 5,000 years ago), (Ancient Egyptian Religion – Britannica.com)
- (CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS after 4,000 years ago) (Origin of Major Religions – Sacred Texts)
- (Early Atheistic Doubting at least by 2,600 years ago) (History of Atheism – Wikipedia)
“Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…
Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure, or a firefighter talks about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victims of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions.
Understanding Religion Evolution:
- Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago)
- Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago)
- Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago)
- Shamanism (Siberia: 30,000 years ago)
- Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago)
- Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago), (Egypt, the First Dynasty 5,150 years ago)
- CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago)
- Early Atheistic Doubting (at least by 2,600 years ago)
“An Archaeological/Anthropological Understanding of Religion Evolution”
It seems ancient peoples had to survived amazing threats in a “dangerous universe (by superstition perceived as good and evil),” and human “immorality or imperfection of the soul” which was thought to affect the still living, leading to ancestor worship. This ancestor worship presumably led to the belief in supernatural beings, and then some of these were turned into the belief in gods. This feeble myth called gods were just a human conceived “made from nothing into something over and over, changing, again and again, taking on more as they evolve, all the while they are thought to be special,” but it is just supernatural animistic spirit-belief perceived as sacred.
Quick Evolution of Religion?
Pre-Animism (at least 300,000 years ago) pre-religion is a beginning that evolves into later Animism. So, Religion as we think of it, to me, all starts in a general way with Animism (Africa: 100,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in supernatural powers/spirits), then this is physically expressed in or with Totemism (Europe: 50,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in mythical relationship with powers/spirits through a totem item), which then enlists a full-time specific person to do this worship and believed interacting Shamanism (Siberia/Russia: 30,000 years ago) (theoretical belief in access and influence with spirits through ritual), and then there is the further employment of myths and gods added to all the above giving you Paganism (Turkey: 12,000 years ago) (often a lot more nature-based than most current top world religions, thus hinting to their close link to more ancient religious thinking it stems from). My hypothesis is expressed with an explanation of the building of a theatrical house (modern religions development). Progressed organized religion (Egypt: 5,000 years ago) with CURRENT “World” RELIGIONS (after 4,000 years ago).
Historically, in large city-state societies (such as Egypt or Iraq) starting around 5,000 years ago culminated to make religion something kind of new, a sociocultural-governmental-religious monarchy, where all or at least many of the people of such large city-state societies seem familiar with and committed to the existence of “religion” as the integrated life identity package of control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine, but this juggernaut integrated religion identity package of Dogmatic-Propaganda certainly did not exist or if developed to an extent it was highly limited in most smaller prehistoric societies as they seem to lack most of the strong control dynamics with a fixed closed magical doctrine (magical beliefs could be at times be added or removed). Many people just want to see developed religious dynamics everywhere even if it is not. Instead, all that is found is largely fragments until the domestication of religion.
Religions, as we think of them today, are a new fad, even if they go back to around 6,000 years in the timeline of human existence, this amounts to almost nothing when seen in the long slow evolution of religion at least around 70,000 years ago with one of the oldest ritual worship. Stone Snake of South Africa: “first human worship” 70,000 years ago. This message of how religion and gods among them are clearly a man-made thing that was developed slowly as it was invented and then implemented peace by peace discrediting them all. Which seems to be a simple point some are just not grasping how devastating to any claims of truth when we can see the lie clearly in the archeological sites.
I wish people fought as hard for the actual values as they fight for the group/clan names political or otherwise they think support values. Every amount spent on war is theft to children in need of food or the homeless kept from shelter.
Here are several of my blog posts on history:
- To Find Truth You Must First Look
- (Magdalenian/Iberomaurusian) Connections to the First Paganists of the early Neolithic Near East Dating from around 17,000 to 12,000 Years Ago
- Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
- Possible Clan Leader/Special “MALE” Ancestor Totem Poles At Least 13,500 years ago?
- Jewish People with DNA at least 13,200 years old, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
- Baltic Reindeer Hunters: Swiderian, Lyngby, Ahrensburgian, and Krasnosillya cultures 12,020 to 11,020 years ago are evidence of powerful migratory waves during the last 13,000 years and a genetic link to Saami and the Finno-Ugric peoples.
- The Rise of Inequality: patriarchy and state hierarchy inequality
- Fertile Crescent 12,500 – 9,500 Years Ago: fertility and death cult belief system?
- 12,400 – 11,700 Years Ago – Kortik Tepe (Turkey) Pre/early-Agriculture Cultic Ritualism
- Ritualistic Bird Symbolism at Gobekli Tepe and its “Ancestor Cult”
- Male-Homosexual (female-like) / Trans-woman (female) Seated Figurine from Gobekli Tepe
- Could a 12,000-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.
- Alcohol, where Agriculture and Religion Become one? Such as Gobekli Tepe’s Ritualistic use of Grain as Food and Ritual Drink
- Neolithic Ritual Sites with T-Pillars and other Cultic Pillars
- Paganism: Goddesses around 12,000 years ago then 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.
- Natufians: an Ancient People at the Origins of Agriculture and Sedentary Life
- J DNA and the Spread of Agricultural Religion (paganism)
- Paganism: an approximately 12,000-year-old belief system
- Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism)
- Shaman burial in Israel 12,000 years ago and the Shamanism Phenomena
- Need to Mythicized: gods and goddesses
- 12,000 – 7,000 Years Ago – Paleo-Indian Culture (The Americas)
- 12,000 – 2,000 Years Ago – Indigenous-Scandinavians (Nordic)
- Norse did not wear helmets with horns?
- Pre-Pottery Neolithic Skull Cult around 11,500 to 8,400 Years Ago?
- 10,400 – 10,100 Years Ago, in Turkey the Nevail Cori Religious Settlement
- 9,000-6,500 Years Old Submerged Pre-Pottery/Pottery Neolithic Ritual Settlements off Israel’s Coast
- Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city” around 9,500 to 7,700 years ago (Turkey)
- Cultic Hunting at Catal Huyuk “first religious designed city”
- Special Items and Art as well as Special Elite Burials at Catal Huyuk
- New Rituals and Violence with the appearance of Pottery and People?
- Haplogroup N and its related Uralic Languages and Cultures
- Ainu people, Sámi people, Native Americans, the Ancient North Eurasians, and Paganistic-Shamanism with Totemism
- Ideas, Technology and People from Turkey, Europe, to China and Back again 9,000 to 5,000 years ago?
- First Pottery of Europe and the Related Cultures
- 9,000 years old Neolithic Artifacts Judean Desert and Hills Israel
- 9,000-7,000 years-old Sex and Death Rituals: Cult Sites in Israel, Jordan, and the Sinai
- 9,000-8500 year old Horned Female shaman Bad Dürrenberg Germany
- Neolithic Jewelry and the Spread of Farming in Europe Emerging out of West Turkey
- 8,600-year-old Tortoise Shells in Neolithic graves in central China have Early Writing and Shamanism
- Swing of the Mace: the rise of Elite, Forced Authority, and Inequality begin to Emerge 8,500 years ago?
- Migrations and Changing Europeans Beginning around 8,000 Years Ago
- My “Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis” 8,000/7,000 years ago
- Around 8,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Mistress of Animals, “Ritual” Motif
- Pre-Columbian Red-Paint (red ochre) Maritime Archaic Culture 8,000-3,000 years ago
- 7,522-6,522 years ago Linear Pottery culture which I think relates to Arcane Capitalism’s origins
- Arcane Capitalism: Primitive socialism, Primitive capital, Private ownership, Means of production, Market capitalism, Class discrimination, and Petite bourgeoisie (smaller capitalists)
- 7,500-4,750 years old Ritualistic Cucuteni-Trypillian culture of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine
- Roots of a changing early society 7,200-6,700 years ago Jordan and Israel
- Agriculture religion (Paganism) with farming reached Britain between about 7,000 to 6,500 or so years ago and seemingly expressed in things like Western Europe’s Long Barrows
- My Thoughts on Possible Migrations of “R” DNA and Proto-Indo-European?
- “Millet” Spreading from China 7,022 years ago to Europe and related Language may have Spread with it leading to Proto-Indo-European
- Proto-Indo-European (PIE), ancestor of Indo-European languages: DNA, Society, Language, and Mythology
- The Dnieper–Donets culture and Asian varieties of Millet from China to the Black Sea region of Europe by 7,022 years ago
- Kurgan 6,000 years ago/dolmens 7,000 years ago: funeral, ritual, and other?
- 7,020 to 6,020-year-old Proto-Indo-European Homeland of Urheimat or proposed home of their Language and Religion
- Ancient Megaliths: Kurgan, Ziggurat, Pyramid, Menhir, Trilithon, Dolman, Kromlech, and Kromlech of Trilithons
- The Mytheme of Ancient North Eurasian Sacred-Dog belief and similar motifs are found in Indo-European, Native American, and Siberian comparative mythology
- Elite Power Accumulation: Ancient Trade, Tokens, Writing, Wealth, Merchants, and Priest-Kings
- Sacred Mounds, Mountains, Kurgans, and Pyramids may hold deep connections?
- Between 7,000-5,000 Years ago, rise of unequal hierarchy elite, leading to a “birth of the State” or worship of power, strong new sexism, oppression of non-elites, and the fall of Women’s equal status
- Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite & their slaves
- Hell and Underworld mythologies starting maybe as far back as 7,000 to 5,000 years ago with the Proto-Indo-Europeans?
- The First Expression of the Male God around 7,000 years ago?
- White (light complexion skin) Bigotry and Sexism started 7,000 years ago?
- Around 7,000-year-old Shared Idea of the Divine Bird (Tutelary and/or Trickster spirit/deity), “Ritual” Motif
- Nekhbet an Ancient Egyptian Vulture Goddess and Tutelary Deity
- 6,720 to 4,920 years old Ritualistic Hongshan Culture of Inner Mongolia with 5,000-year-old Pyramid Mounds and Temples
- First proto-king in the Balkans, Varna culture around 6,500 years ago?
- 6,500–5,800 years ago in Israel Late Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Period in the Southern Levant Seems to Express Northern Levant Migrations, Cultural and Religious Transfer
- KING OF BEASTS: Master of Animals “Ritual” Motif, around 6,000 years old or older…
- Around 6000-year-old Shared Idea of the Solid Wheel & the Spoked Wheel-Shaped Ritual Motif
- “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan; a Proto-Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna or Star of Venus?
- Religious/Ritual Ideas, including goddesses and gods as well as ritual mounds or pyramids from Northeastern Asia at least 6,000 years old, seemingly filtering to Iran, Iraq, the Mediterranean, Europe, Egypt, and the Americas?
- Maykop (5,720–5,020 years ago) Caucasus region Bronze Age culture-related to Copper Age farmers from the south, influenced by the Ubaid period and Leyla-Tepe culture, as well as influencing the Kura-Araxes culture
- 5-600-year-old Tomb, Mummy, and First Bearded Male Figurine in a Grave
- Kura-Araxes Cultural 5,520 to 4,470 years old DNA traces to the Canaanites, Arabs, and Jews
- Minoan/Cretan (Keftiu) Civilization and Religion around 5,520 to 3,120 years ago
- Evolution Of Science at least by 5,500 years ago
- 5,500 Years old birth of the State, the rise of Hierarchy, and the fall of Women’s status
- “Jiroft culture” 5,100 – 4,200 years ago and the History of Iran
- Stonehenge: Paganistic Burial and Astrological Ritual Complex, England (5,100-3,600 years ago)
- Around 5,000-year-old Shared Idea of the “Tree of Life” Ritual Motif
- Complex rituals for elite, seen from China to Egypt, at least by 5,000 years ago
- Around 5,000 years ago: “Birth of the State” where Religion gets Military Power and Influence
- The Center of the World “Axis Mundi” and/or “Sacred Mountains” Mythology Could Relate to the Altai Mountains, Heart of the Steppe
- Progressed organized religion starts, an approximately 5,000-year-old belief system
- China’s Civilization between 5,000-3,000 years ago, was a time of war and class struggle, violent transition from free clans to a Slave or Elite society
- Origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation at least by around 5,000 years ago.
- Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)
- Ziggurats (multi-platform temples: 4,900 years old) to Pyramids (multi-platform tombs: 4,700 years old)
- Did a 4,520–4,420-year-old Volcano In Turkey Inspire the Bible God?
- Finland’s Horned Shaman and Pre-Horned-God at least 4,500 years ago?
- 4,000-year-Old Dolmens in Israel: A Connected Dolmen Religious Phenomenon?
- Creation myths: From chaos, Ex nihilo, Earth-diver, Emergence, World egg, and World parent
- Bronze Age “Ritual” connections of the Bell Beaker culture with the Corded Ware/Single Grave culture, which were related to the Yamnaya culture and Proto-Indo-European Languages/Religions
- Low Gods (Earth/ Tutelary deity), High Gods (Sky/Supreme deity), and Moralistic Gods (Deity enforcement/divine order)
- The exchange of people, ideas, and material-culture including, to me, the new god (Sky Father) and goddess (Earth Mother) religion between the Cucuteni-Trypillians and others which is then spread far and wide
- Koryaks: Indigenous People of the Russian Far East and Big Raven myths also found in Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and other Indigenous People of North America
- 42 Principles Of Maat (Egyptian Goddess of the justice) around 4,400 years ago, 2000 Years Before Ten Commandments
- “Happy Easter” Well Happy Eostre/Ishter
- 4,320-3,820 years old “Shimao” (North China) site with Totemistic-Shamanistic Paganism and a Stepped Pyramid
- 4,250 to 3,400 Year old Stonehenge from Russia: Arkaim?
- 4,100-year-old beaker with medicinal & flowering plants in a grave of a woman in Scotland
- Early European Farmer ancestry, Kelif el Boroud people with the Cardial Ware culture, and the Bell Beaker culture Paganists too, spread into North Africa, then to the Canary Islands off West Africa
- Flood Accounts: Gilgamesh epic (4,100 years ago) Noah in Genesis (2,600 years ago)
- Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)
- When was the beginning: TIMELINE OF CURRENT RELIGIONS, which start around 4,000 years ago.
- Early Religions Thought to Express Proto-Monotheistic Systems around 4,000 years ago
- Kultepe? An archaeological site with a 4,000 years old women’s rights document.
- Single God Religions (Monotheism) = “Man-o-theism” started around 4,000 years ago with the Great Sky Spirit/God Tiān (天)?
- Confucianism’s Tiān (Shangdi god 4,000 years old): Supernaturalism, Pantheism or Theism?
- Yes, Your Male God is Ridiculous
- Mythology, a Lunar Deity is a Goddess or God of the Moon
- Sacred Land, Hills, and Mountains: Sami Mythology (Paganistic Shamanism)
- Horse Worship/Sacrifice: mythical union of Ruling Elite/Kingship and the Horse
- The Amorite/Amurru people’s God Amurru “Lord of the Steppe”, relates to the Origins of the Bible God?
- Bronze Age Exotic Trade Routes Spread Quite Far as well as Spread Religious Ideas with Them
- Sami and the Northern Indigenous Peoples Landscape, Language, and its Connection to Religion
- Prototype of Ancient Analemmatic Sundials around 3,900-3,150 years ago and a Possible Solar Connection to gods?
- Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)
- The Weakening of Ancient Trade and the Strengthening of Religions around 3000 years ago?
- Are you aware that there are religions that worship women gods, explain now religion tears women down?
- Animistic, Totemistic, and Paganistic Superstition Origins of bible god and the bible’s Religion.
- Myths and Folklore: “Trickster gods and goddesses”
- Jews, Judaism, and the Origins of Some of its Ideas
- An Old Branch of Religion Still Giving Fruit: Sacred Trees
- Dating the BIBLE: naming names and telling times (written less than 3,000 years ago, provable to 2,200 years ago)
- Did a Volcano Inspire the bible god?
- The Amorite/Amurru people’s God Amurru “Lord of the Steppe”, relates to the Origins of the Bible God?
- Dené–Yeniseian language, Old Copper Complex, and Pre-Columbian Mound Builders?
- No “dinosaurs and humans didn’t exist together just because some think they are in the bible itself”
- Sacred Shit and Sacred Animals?
- Everyone Killed in the Bible Flood? “Nephilim” (giants)?
- Hey, Damien dude, I have a question for you regarding “the bible” Exodus.
- Archaeology Disproves the Bible
- Bible Battle, Just More, Bible Babble
- The Jericho Conquest lie?
- Canaanites and Israelites?
- Accurate Account on how did Christianity Began?
- Let’s talk about Christianity.
- So the 10 commandments isn’t anything to go by either right?
- Misinformed christian
- Debunking Jesus?
- Paulism vs Jesus
- Ok, you seem confused so let’s talk about Buddhism.
- Unacknowledged Buddhism: Gods, Savior, Demons, Rebirth, Heavens, Hells, and Terrorism
- His Foolishness The Dalai Lama
- Yin and Yang is sexist with an ORIGIN around 2,300 years ago?
- I Believe Archaeology, not Myths & Why Not, as the Religious Myths Already Violate Reason!
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Aquatic Ape Theory/Hypothesis? As Always, Just Pseudoscience.
- Ancient Aliens Conspiracy Theorists are Pseudohistorians
- The Pseudohistoric and Pseudoscientific claims about “Bakoni Ruins” of South Africa
- Why do people think Religion is much more than supernaturalism and superstitionism?
- Religion is an Evolved Product
- Was the Value of Ancient Women Different?
- 1000 to 1100 CE, human sacrifice Cahokia Mounds a pre-Columbian Native American site
- Feminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?
- Promoting Religion as Real is Mentally Harmful to a Flourishing Humanity
- Screw All Religions and Their Toxic lies, they are all fraud
- Forget Religions’ Unfounded Myths, I Have Substantiated “Archaeology Facts.”
- Religion Dispersal throughout the World
- I Hate Religion Just as I Hate all Pseudoscience
- Exposing Scientology, Eckankar, Wicca and Other Nonsense?
- Main deity or religious belief systems
- Quit Trying to Invent Your God From the Scraps of Science.
- Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic evidence shows the god myth is man-made nonsense.
- Ancient Alien Conspiracy Theorists: Misunderstanding, Rhetoric, Misinformation, Fabrications, and Lies
- Misinformation, Distortion, and Pseudoscience in Talking with a Christian Creationist
- Judging the Lack of Goodness in Gods, Even the Norse God Odin
- Challenging the Belief in God-like Aliens and Gods in General
- A Challenge to Christian use of Torture Devices?
- Yes, Hinduism is a Religion
- Trump is One of the Most Reactionary Forces of Far-right Christian Extremism
- Was the Bull Head a Symbol of God? Yes!
- Primate Death Rituals
- Christian – “God and Christianity are objectively true”
- Australopithecus afarensis Death Ritual?
- You Claim Global Warming is a Hoax?
- Doubter of Science and Defamer of Atheists?
- I think that sounds like the Bible?
- History of the Antifa (“anti-fascist”) Movements
- Indianapolis Anti-Blasphemy Laws #Free Soheil Rally
- Damien, you repeat the golden rule in so many forms then you say religion is dogmatic?
- Science is a Trustable Methodology whereas Faith is not Trustable at all!
- Was I ever a believer, before I was an atheist?
- Atheists rise in reason
- Mistrust of science?
- Open to Talking About the Definition of ‘God’? But first, we address Faith.
- ‘United Monarchy’ full of splendor and power – Saul, David, and Solomon? Most likely not.
- Is there EXODUS ARCHAEOLOGY? The short answer is “no.”
- Lacking Proof of Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods is Just a Lack of Research?
- Religion and Politics: Faith Beliefs vs. Rational Thinking
- Hammer of Truth that lying pig RELIGION: challenged by an archaeologist
- “The Hammer of Truth” -ontology question- What do You Mean by That?
- Navigation of a bad argument: Ad Hominem vs. Attack
- Why is it Often Claimed that Gods have a Gender?
- Why are basically all monotheistic religions ones that have a male god?
- Shifting through the Claims in support of Faith
- Dear Mr. AtHope, The 20th Century is an Indictment of Secularism and a Failed Atheist Century
- An Understanding of the Worldwide Statistics and Dynamics of Terrorist Incidents and Suicide Attacks
- Intoxication and Evolution? Addressing and Assessing the “Stoned Ape” or “Drunken Monkey” Theories as Catalysts in Human Evolution
- Sacred Menstrual cloth? Inanna’s knot, Isis knot, and maybe Ma’at’s feather?
- Damien, why don’t the Hebrews accept the bible stories?
- Dealing with a Troll and Arguing Over Word Meaning
- Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?
- Afrocentrism and African Religions
- Crecganford @crecganford offers history & stories of the people, places, gods, & culture
- Empiricism-Denier?
I am not an academic. I am a revolutionary that teaches in public, in places like social media, and in the streets. I am not a leader by some title given but from my commanding leadership style of simply to start teaching everywhere to everyone, all manner of positive education.
ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref
Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity
“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref
“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref
“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref
“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref
Tutelary deity
“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref
“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref
“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref
Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States
“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref
“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref
“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref
“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref
“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:
You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref
“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref
“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref
“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref
Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)
“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref
“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref
“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref
“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:
- Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
- Domovoy (Slavic)
- Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
- Húsvættir (Norse)” ref
“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref
“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref
“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref
“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:
The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref
“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:
It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …
In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” 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
Knowledge to Ponder:
Stars/Astrology:
- Possibly, around 30,000 years ago (in simpler form) to 6,000 years ago, Stars/Astrology are connected to Ancestors, Spirit Animals, and Deities.
- The star also seems to be a possible proto-star for Star of Ishtar, Star of Inanna, or Star of Venus.
- Around 7,000 to 6,000 years ago, Star Constellations/Astrology have connections to the “Kurgan phenomenon” of below-ground “mound” stone/wood burial structures and “Dolmen phenomenon” of above-ground stone burial structures.
- Around 6,500–5,800 years ago, The Northern Levant migrations into Jordon and Israel in the Southern Levant brought new cultural and religious transfer from Turkey and Iran.
- “The Ghassulian Star,” a mysterious 6,000-year-old mural from Jordan may have connections to the European paganstic kurgan/dolmens phenomenon.
“Astrology is a range of divinatory practices, recognized as pseudoscientific since the 18th century, that claim to discern information about human affairs and terrestrial events by studying the apparent positions of celestial objects. Different cultures have employed forms of astrology since at least the 2nd millennium BCE, these practices having originated in calendrical systems used to predict seasonal shifts and to interpret celestial cycles as signs of divine communications. Most, if not all, cultures have attached importance to what they observed in the sky, and some—such as the Hindus, Chinese, and the Maya—developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations. Western astrology, one of the oldest astrological systems still in use, can trace its roots to 19th–17th century BCE Mesopotamia, from where it spread to Ancient Greece, Rome, the Islamicate world and eventually Central and Western Europe. Contemporary Western astrology is often associated with systems of horoscopes that purport to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects; the majority of professional astrologers rely on such systems.” ref
Around 5,500 years ago, Science evolves, The first evidence of science was 5,500 years ago and was demonstrated by a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. ref
Around 5,000 years ago, Origin of Logics is a Naturalistic Observation (principles of valid reasoning, inference, & demonstration) ref
Around 4,150 to 4,000 years ago: The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, which was originally titled “He who Saw the Deep” (Sha naqba īmuru) or “Surpassing All Other Kings” (Shūtur eli sharrī) were written. ref
Hinduism:
- 3,700 years ago or so, the oldest of the Hindu Vedas (scriptures), the Rig Veda was composed.
- 3,500 years ago or so, the Vedic Age began in India after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization.
Judaism:
- around 3,000 years ago, the first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew”
- around 2,500 years ago, many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed
Myths: The bible inspired religion is not just one religion or one myth but a grouping of several religions and myths
- Around 3,450 or 3,250 years ago, according to legend, is the traditionally accepted period in which the Israelite lawgiver, Moses, provided the Ten Commandments.
- Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible, Tanakh, or Old Testament is the first part of Christianity’s bible.
- Around 2,400 years ago, the most accepted hypothesis is that the canon was formed in stages, first the Pentateuch (Torah).
- Around 2,140 to 2,116 years ago, the Prophets was written during the Hasmonean dynasty, and finally the remaining books.
- Christians traditionally divide the Old Testament into four sections:
- The first five books or Pentateuch (Torah).
- The proposed history books telling the history of the Israelites from their conquest of Canaan to their defeat and exile in Babylon.
- The poetic and proposed “Wisdom books” dealing, in various forms, with questions of good and evil in the world.
- The books of the biblical prophets, warning of the consequences of turning away from God:
- Henotheism:
- Exodus 20:23 “You shall not make other gods besides Me (not saying there are no other gods just not to worship them); gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves.”
- Polytheism:
- Judges 10:6 “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines; thus they forsook the LORD and did not serve Him.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:5 “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”
- Monotheism:
- Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
Around 2,570 to 2,270 Years Ago, there is a confirmation of atheistic doubting as well as atheistic thinking, mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods and should destroy the thinking that belief in god(s) is the “default belief”. The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”), thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by a god(s) claim. Short Definition: unbelieving, unbeliever, or unbelief.
Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:
- Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
- Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
- Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
- Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
- Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
- Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
- Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref
This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO
Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy“
Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)
Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)
Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)
Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)
Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power
Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)
Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)
Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)
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 (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