Israeli archaeologists discover signs of religion in 9,000-year-old city near Jerusalem

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The region around Jerusalem has a long history of religious practices.
Those practices might date back to the Stone Age.
The people who lived in a recently discovered 9,000-year-old city just outside present-day Jerusalem were likely people of faith, according to an archaeologist who co-led the excavation....

Vardi said the residents carefully buried their dead in designated burial locations and placed “either useful or precious objects, believed to serve the deceased” after they died, inside the graves.
“We have decorated burial sites, with offerings, and we also found statuettes and figurines, which indicate they had some sort of belief, faith, rituals,” Vardi said. “We also found certain installations, special niches that might have played a role in ritual.”

To read more:

https://religionnews.com/2019/07/19/israeli-archaeologists-discover-signs-of-religion-in-9000-year-old-city-near-jerusalem/

Religion has very deep roots.

[bloom]

1. most of the figurines found from before 5000 bce or so are female

It would have been nice if the article had been more specific.

[guillaumeb]

14. In my view, the focus here was on the age of the settlement. eom

[AJT]

2. FAKE NEWS!!!!

The earth is only 6000 years old.

[guillaumeb]

7. These were 9,000 Biblical years. eom

[Cartoonist]

3. statuettes and figurines

I wonder what the names of their gods were. In any event, I'm sure today's Christians would regard them as pagans, and that their gods are false.

[guillaumeb]

8. Some Christians would indeed.

But theism is the commonality.

[Cartoonist]

9. Believing in nonexistent beings is the commonality

Or are you saying their gods actually existed?

[guillaumeb]

11. Theism is the commonality.

The search for the Creator, in my words.

[Major Nikon]

16. He's saying they believed in an interventionist creator

With no evidence mind you, but the best part about faith is it gives you liberty to fill in the blanks with no proof of anything.

[trotsky]

4. Religion does indeed have very deep roots.

Lots of things do. Rape, murder, war, genocide. Just because humans have a tendency for something doesn't automatically mean that something is desirable or beneficial today.

[Major Nikon]

6. Except unlike religion, those things have always gone together with humans

Burial rituals are not evidence of religion which requires doctrine and dogma. It's just evidence humans were sentimental about loved ones who died, which isn't surprising given humans aren't unique in that regard.

Religion didn't appear until humans started gathering in larger groups where more sophisticated means of control were required. As long as you could convince someone your authority to rule came from an invisible higher authority, leadership was less likely to be questioned. It also made things like convincing people to march to their deaths in battle far easier.

Obviously someone is trying to create a narrative that suggests religion has always been a part of humans, but pointing to flimsy evidence that only goes back about 1/50th of human existence is kind of a piss poor way to do that. It also betrays a much simpler explanation that religion was simply an invention of convenience intended to manipulate larger populations.

[MineralMan]

5. "special niches that might have played a role in ritual."

Key words: "Might have."

Inferring religious belief from burial practices is common. Why those burial practices existed remains unknown. Making assumptions about why people do or did things is specious, and derivative of current practices. That trick works poorly.

The thing about death and burial is that the people were loved and missed by those close to them. Rituals to demonstrate that are not necessarily tied to religious beliefs.

"Here! Put toy in hole! Og loved toy!"

[guillaumeb]

10. And these funerary rituals, as you know,

are seen in so many ancient cultures.

One would think that the example of the ancient Egyptians providing ritual and actual objects for the use of the deceased to use in the afterlife is the most well known.

[MineralMan]

12. Some non-theistic animistic religions also buried

useful objects with their dead. Our Native American cultures did that. Belief in an afterlife is not necessarily a theistic thing.

Seems like a common enough thing to do, given all of the archaeology I've seen.

"Joe died. We bury him so he doesn't stink."
"Where Joe go?"
"I don't know."
"Maybe he need arrows and bow?"
"We bury those too."

Assigning religious beliefs to such practices is not necessarily accurate, I think.

[guillaumeb]

13. To your example,

why would Joe need any physical objects?

The obvious answer is that these people believe in an afterlife.

[MineralMan]

15. That does not require theism in any way.

[Major Nikon]

17. ...

[MineralMan]

18. LOL! Ban Straws!

[uriel1972]

20. "Obvious" to you perhaps...

the people involved aren't here to answer questions, so it's more likely "Likely".

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Why do you assume 'need'?

Ascribing motive to objects from a distant and unknown civilization is perilous, using your modern assumptions.

[guillaumeb]

30. Because Joe, in the example, is dead.

So this assumption of need proceeds from the survivors who buried these useful and/or symbolic objects with Joe.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Doubling down on your *claim* of 'need' doesn't actually demonstrate an actual need.

[guillaumeb]

36. If the objects were in the grave, someone placed them there.

And if the objects had value in the life of the deceased, yes, people will infer that the survivors placed these now unneeded objects in the grave.

And given that many religions deal with the concept of the afterlife, it is not surprising that scientists decide, on the weight of the evidence, and based on their own studies, that these objects have a religious significance.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You say that as if the existing studies and claims in this area are not contested at all.

There's no climate change level of consensus here. Not even remotely close.

[guillaumeb]

38. Climate change is measurable.

Interpreting or inferring the intent of a 9,000 year old object is not. Thus the need to compare between cultures.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Hence the source of my objection.

[MineralMan]

40. Belief in some form of afterlife does not require theism.

That is just your assumption, based on your own theism. We do not know anything about the thoughts of pre-historic cultures. We cannot, because they had no written languages. We can only project our assumptions into them - or we can more properly say, "We don't know what that meant to them."

[guillaumeb]

41. If we can see from the written record that human societies that left a written

were theistic, we can infer from the existing evidence that earlier, pre-literate human societies were theistic as well.

And projecting that these earlier societies were not theistic lacks evidence.

[MineralMan]

43. You can infer many things from many things.

That does not mean that your inference is correct.

[guillaumeb]

45. And the same applies to your own inferences.

But my inferences, or speculations, rely on actual evidence from societies with a written record, and the assumption that theism did not spring into existence with writing. It preceded it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Buddhism is not theistic

So we have evidence that a belief in rebirth, and funerary traditions, can be non-theistic. Assuming they were theistic is a leap of faith.

[guillaumeb]

60. True, but I did not say all societies. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. 'all' was implied by your remark in full

If we can see from the written record that human societies that left a written were theistic, we can infer from the existing evidence that earlier, pre-literate human societies were theistic as well.

And projecting that these earlier societies were not theistic lacks evidence.

If you'd said "that some earlier societies were theistic", then the next sentence - that you can't say that some earlier societies were not theistic - wouldn't make sense. So it didn't read like you were saying some could have been theistic, and some might not have been.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. History is not evidence of naturalism.

The validity of a claim is in no way related to its lifespan.

But hey, I like history.

[uriel1972]

21. That they may... MAY have had religion...

does not tell us what that religion was, or what they believed. It's interesting, yes, but not an argument for the validity of religion.

[guillaumeb]

22. It is an argument that theism, and religion, have deep roots.

And that is all that it is.

[trotsky]

57. It's a pathetically poor and biased argument, but yes, it's an argument.

Good job.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Is this one of those things where every statuette is assumed to be a 'fertility goddess' without

evidence?

[guillaumeb]

24. That question is one you might discuss with the actual archeologists

who made the discoveries.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Pointless. If you're in the paradigm, you can't see the paradigm.

Example, Venus of Willendorf. Lay it on its back, and look down along the length of the body. Suddenly, it is no longer distended and distorted. It falls into line and looks, as a sculptor might see, looking down at their own body, in a society where mirrors aren't really invented yet.

Archaeologists are certainly within the sphere of anthropology, but there's more perhaps to it, than just what they know currently.
A sculptor (fine arts) would perhaps have more insight into what a statue means.

Edit: Some light reading.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744349?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[guillaumeb]

26. But this sculptor might have no knowledge of the history of fertility statues, or religious

statuary in general.

And this sculptor might have no knowledge of the particular area covered by this article. Or the many other examples of religious statuary and related artifacts.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. All true. But there are ways to tell what something might be, from the thing itself.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2744349?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

You just have to look at it the same way the creator of the thing would have.

[guillaumeb]

29. But we cannot truly understand how people from 9,000 years ago really saw some of their artifacts.

But if we see similar artifacts, and if these artifacts are commonly found in graves, we can infer that these artifacts had a symbolic purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. You assume too much. It's funny that you decry patriarchal erasure of Mary, but you actually perform

it yourself here, toward Paleolithic/Neolithic women. (Who CERTAINLY existed.)

When you're in the paradigm, you cannot see the paradigm.

Please read “Toward Decolonizing Gender: Female Vision in the Upper Paleolithic” and https://qz.com/quartzy/1399713/a-different-view-of-gender-in-prehistoric-society-and-art/

You're guilty of the thing you were just complaining about a patriarchal church doing.

[guillaumeb]

34. And you are not in the paradigm?

The one that denies the fact that theism, and religious thought, are present in every society with a written record. You cannot accept that these articles might have religious significance.

So you cannot see your own paradigm, and how it colors your interpretations.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I accept that it is a POSSIBILITY, but do not assume it is the actual fact.

And no, I'm not in the paradigm. The 'female fertility goddess' male-gaze explanation for the 'venus' statues never 'felt right' to me, because they don't explain anything, and do not fit the suggested purpose.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Here's the 'decolonizing gender' article. I implore you to read it.

https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/schustm/docs/VenusFigurines-WomensPerspective_HIGHLIGHTED.pdf

[guillaumeb]

39. I did read it.

And the part about the physical perspective of the artist, and the possible self-perspective while reclining, which I must confess to having never considered, is very interesting, but is in my opinion too restrictive. Would these artists not also have had the ability to look at females from a frontal perspective?


And could one intent, perhaps the primary intent, have been to show woman as the creator of life?

[AtheistCrusader]

56. The intent could be a lot of things. The lack of perspective of an observer of a second person

is also, possibly, a lot of things.

But one piece of hard evidence is the forced perspective present in nearly ALL sculpture attempts from that time period.

[guillaumeb]

58. Agreed.

And thank you again for the link to a very interesting argument.

As to the intent of the artists, we can only speculate.

[edhopper]

42. And here we have evidence again

that religion is an evolutionary artifact, inate in humans.
But again, zero evidence that anything they believe in is real.

[guillaumeb]

44. If religion is innate in humans,

and many here would argue against that, perhaps that characteristic is a trace of the Creator's intent. Perhaps it is a reminder that existence and the Creator cannot be separated.

[MineralMan]

46. Perhaps this; perhaps that. Before long, you'll

perhaps have an entire belief system made up of perhapses.

[guillaumeb]

47. And your own belief system?

Based solely on your own assumptions.

[MineralMan]

48. What belief system is that?

I know many things. I'm inclined to trust some people when they tell me about things I do not quite understand. I believe what I know, and tend to think what people I trust tell me is correct.

I do not have a "belief system." I leave that to the theists, who believe things for which there is no evidence. I can't do that.

[guillaumeb]

50. You believe that you know, and you have faith that your knowledge allows you

to make certain assertions.

[edhopper]

49. The untold number of

contradictory and implausible Gods and supernatural beliefs over the eons would argue against that,

And even more so against your Christian God.

Or your creator doesn't really want people to know anything about anything.

[guillaumeb]

51. Perhaps what you see as contradictory the Creator sees

as many imperfect views of a being that we cannot truly comprehend.

The fable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates my point.

[edhopper]

52. At least in the fable, there was an actual elephant.

More like five blind men in a room describing what they imagine is outside the room.

[guillaumeb]

53. How do you know it was an elephant? eom

[edhopper]

54. that is the fable

that you mentioned.

are you trying to make a point/