Europes Oldest Civilization Discovered

[Guest]

They don't have to be atheists

granted, i just thought it was the best word to use to convey my meaning. though i am sure that the majority of all early civilizations had some form of religion, it would be nice to see the focus on the people and their culture without religion being the only emphasis.

even i get tired of religion being named as the only reason fpor why something took place. there are more reasons than religious ones why a person does something.

[Beagle]

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-5-2005-72654.asp

The Saxony state government's Heritage Department has been directing the archaeological investigations taking place in Dresden. According to the senior archaeologist in charge of the project, Harald Staeuble, "Our excavations have revealed the degree of monumental vision and sophistication used by these early farming communities to create Europe's first truly large scale earthwork complexes."

I couldn't find much, but at least we know the name of the head guy.

[eratoh]

here is a pdf with a liitle info [and pics] on one of those sites in Slovakia
http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/EuLandscape ... ovakia.pdf

from this source
http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/EuLandscapes/news.htm

[Minimalist]

The drawing at the end looks like a fortification. Redundant moats and a palisade with only a couple of entrance/exit points that have to be fully defended. There is certainly nothing inherently 'religious' about it.

BTW, this link seems to work better.

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/EuLandscape ... ovakia.pdf

[Beagle]

I agree. No temple in that drawing. You raise a good question Minimalist. It seems like a "team" of archaeologists from three European countries agree that they are temples though.

I wonder if any of them can be e-mailed? I'll dig around & maybe one of our European friends here can help.

[Guest]

Yep, think fortification is a good interpretation. I would imagine these people had more need for defence than religion 7000 years ago.
Ah wait; maybe it was an "R & R" centre for pyramid technicians from Visoko?

[Guest]

I agree. No temple in that drawing. You raise a good question Minimalist. It seems like a "team" of archaeologists from three European countries agree that they are temples though.

well even teams of archaeologiss can be wrong.

i get tired how everything is automatically labeled religious as my theory is that the ancient societies were a lot like today's. some cultures were religious while others may have had temples but it wasn't important enough for all to go.

i feel this trend to over-religionize everything interferes with the truth about the past. we are not even sure how they would have run their governments, so how would we know if the religious practice was mandatory or optional?

how do we know that a drawing on the wall isn't just because someone had artistic ability. it bothers me how quickly something like this is labeled and then all other discoveries are interpretated after that fashion.

i can agree that it looks like a fortification not a temple.

[Beagle]

http://www.archaeology.org/online/featu ... index.html


[/quote]

Around 5500 B.C., a people known as the Danubians migrated from central Europe into the Parisian basin, their westernmost settlement. They brought with them agriculture and animal husbandry and met the indigenous Mesolithic people who lived by hunting and gathering. The mixing of these two peoples gave birth to the Cerny culture.[quote][/quote]


This article speaks of a culture in France during the same time period. The central europeans had migrated there. This author says that the large "temple" structures were cemetaries or a place where the dead were honored.

[Minimalist]

To expand on arch's last point: There is some theory in anthropology about how certain artifacts/buildings will always have a similar look because of the function they are designed to serve. Thus, an oar will always have a thin part to hold and a wide part to move the water. No matter how they are decorated or adorned an oar must have those features or it will not propel a boat. Similarly, a stairway should be useful for getting people from one level to another regardless of ornamentation and it should be recognizable as a stairway for that reason.

So when arch says that "it looks like a fortification not a temple" the truth is that temples can look like a lot of things but FORTIFICATIONS are identifiable because of their function. No one ever built a fortress surrounded by a white picket fence! We had another discussion about the different needs of building a fence to keep herd animals in and predators out and defensive walls to keep attackers out.

I'm kind of wondering if what we have here is a bit of circular reasoning. The building of fortifications does not occur until people have settled in to a place that they want or need to defend. Nomadic groups don't build walls....they simply move away from trouble. However, if these archaeologists had a pre-conceived notion that there was no culture in Europe at this time which was advanced enough to have a warrior hierarchy and settled towns then perhaps in order to sustain that theory they had to overlook the obvious design and come up with an alternative answer....no matter how absurd it appears on the surface.

I also agree with arch that stone age tribes living today in New Guinea or the Amazon do not seem to have much more than animist belief systems. In order to get a religious hierarchy which needs "temples" to their gods you need a somewhat advanced culture.

[Beagle]

It's unfortunate for science that an archaeologist would "shoot from the hip", but they have and still do. I am pretty certain that these circular earthworks, if found in Ireland or Scotland - would be called Celtic forts.

But I'm intrigued with the so called inner santum description of these structures because I've been studying many similarities of religious practice that hint at an original baseline belief.

For instance, the first practice of circumcision was found in Egypt and Greece instead of Israel as most folks believe. In fact, if one looks at it carefully much of the early Jewish religion came from Egypt (my opinion).

According to current scientific thought warfare was endemic to all human societies by 5,000 ya. Any culture that didn't defend itself would probably not last two hundred years.

[Guest]

Think Minimalist has a good point about pre-conceived notions. I can't help wondering how much Anthropological theory is just a backward projection of our own modern expectations though? I mean, we assume that what we call "Stone Age" peoples in New Guinea et al are living in the same way that their forebears did, but says who? For all we know, they could be the NG version of Luddites; the main group of this people were more advanced (but not to the point of building pyramids! I mean relatively, compared to now) and this section decided to go back to basics and a simple life for whatever reason best known to themselves. No idea what happened to the main group, but maybe this lot survived through isolation? I don't think it's an entirely bizarre notion; many western groups did the same as recently as the 1960s.
Then again, maybe I'm back-projecting my own modern beliefs!
Beagle,
Rest assured; any similar 5000 year old structure found in Britain isn't likely to be called a Celtic fort. Well, not by anyone sensible anyway!
There was a conference on Prehistoric warfare in Europe a couple of years back, think it was in Britain (?) somewhere. I never managed to make it myself, but I think it would have been fascinating.

[Beagle]

Rk - certainly agree with the gist of your post. However,being entirely of Scots-Irish descent I have looked at and have studied many celtic forts (usually called hill forts). Not that my ancestry makes me any kind of authority.

However, I was only talking about Scotland and Ireland.

As always, if you know something about this that I don't please enlighten me.

[Beagle]

RK - another thought. I only meant that structures of that shape would be called Celtic forts. Of course there were no Celts in the UK 5kya.

[Guest]

Beagle,
No worries- I knew what you meant! As you know, the Celts covered the whole British Isles, but were isolated in the "Celtic fringe" of Wales, Scotland and Ireland by the Angle, Saxon and Jute newcomers. Those in Cornwall migrated over the Channel to kin-groups in Brittany, which is when the term "Great Britain" came to be used for the main island, and "Little Britain" for Brittany.
We don't have any firm evidence for when the Celts arrived in the British Isles, except for Bede's story of the Egyptian Princess & the Scythians, which we can safely put down to wishful thinking. The first evidence of the Celts in Europe comes around 1000BC-ish, with accounts of traders visiting Britain centuries later. Interestingly, none of these accounts refers to "Celts", but I would assume that they would have settled in the British Isles by this point.
As you know, most hillforts in Britain -or at least in England- can only be dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, all resistance having been squashed by the Romans after that. Those in Scotland mostly date to the Late Roman Iron Age, with many being re-used in the Dark Ages.
Those in Ireland are a bit of a puzzle; not only is there no archaeological evidence of a Celtic invasion, there's no evidence of the Romans doing anything more than occasionally visit for trading purposes. Add to that the Vikings building Longphoirt at coastal settlements after 795 AD, refortification due to tribal warfare through to the Norman invasions (and after), and there's a whole mish-mash of forts.
Guess we'll have to wait until someone finds the Celtic equivalent of the Rosetta Stone to tell us the whole story....

[Beagle]

Thanks. I guess we're way off topic talking about the Celts and their forts.
This is worthy of its own separate post.

However, without citing any authority, I am pretty certain that the Celts migrated in c1700BC from the continent. Most people think Spain. Of course that would pre-date the Moorish invasions by nearly a thousand years.

And the Celts occupied and ventured all the way to northern China in a much earlier time. Of the many tribes and dialects of the Celts, the only language that survives is that of the Gaels.

I probably will learn a few things from you on this subject RK. I've got a shelf full of books on it. I'll post it some time (or you can).

You should see me in my kilt!