How people decided to start civilization instead of being in primitive tribes? Why change what was a way of life for thousands years.
>>1203923
Sedentary tending of horticulture and later agriculture encouraged city formation.
They grouped around places of worship, like Gobekli Tepe
>>1203936
Wow, you'll even try to attribute religion for the very start of civilization. You really are a one-track motherfucker.
>>1203947
The joke's on Constantine: there were no non-religious sites.
>>1203923
It was a gradual thing, but mostly (not chief, but a large contributing factor) was the development of the practice of the "technology" of agriculture (agrarianism). At some point, we noticed that plants grew from seeds, which when cultivated in appropriate conditions would yield more food. With a plentiful available food source comes the need to protect your efforts, or someone else will easily come take it. Therefore people would claim and establish an area in which they could practice this, defending it to the best of their ability. Once situated, the requirement of spending large amounts of time providing nutrition is lessened, and humans were able to then specialize in secondary and tertiary pursuits, forming a division of labor. That division of labor forms "civilization".
>>1203954
There were, however, temples which took an awful lot of manpower to build, and going on pilgrimages over vasts distances to them was a lot more troublesome than simply staying in the area.
>>1203963
I don't think there's a real argument against spirituality uniting early people, but when you start discussing "building temples which take alot of effort", you're leading into technologies which came into practice long after agriculture.
I'm sure there were sorts of "shrines", but I'm sure they were parts of the natural environment, simply decorated with early art, and yes, maybe some of these specific places led to the impetus of a particular settling in a given location. Shrines, however, did not feed people, even as you must admit, man does not live by faith alone.
>>1203981
Yes, they came into practice long after agriculture, but the Iroquois had agriculture, yet their settlements were much smaller.
I'm sure agriculture was necessary for large settlements, but I'm saying it is a requisite rather than the sole impetus.
>>1203978
>The monopolizing of power and the hereditary transmission of power.
This is a confusion of a "societal structure" with a "civilization". We see evidence of society long, long before humans established towns/cities. Remains of people with mended bodies after catastrophic injuries imply humans took care of one another and worked to a greater purpose, together.
A society is not a proto-civilization. A society is a society.
no one 'decided' to start civilization
>>1203984
Well, the first civilizations, the way we define civilization, were in areas which produced an ample food supply via agrarianism. We don't make this stuff up, it's from evidence long buried in the dirt. Now, I would say it very possible "these places became a sort of holy" or spiritual to these people, as rain/grain/fertility god/goddesses, but that's putting the cart before the horse. If a person, 10k ya decided to just stop and say they got a message from their higher power this is a great place to settle (and I'm sure that happened), they'd be a bit btfo if there wasn't enough food around to keep the settlement alive, and, well, hungry people don't generally just take the shaman's word for it, and if they do, they die anyway and were of little relevance to us today.
>>1203923
Incremental advancements on organization, and technologies which made it possible. i.e. mathematics, somewhat standardized language, easy to access construction resource (which promotes public construction projects), metallurgy (which incentivize division of labor) , etc.
>>1204004
I'm not saying agriculture isn't required for civilization, I'm saying without temples, then agriculture won't lead to cities, every time the village gets bigger than x, the excess will leave. A temple keeps people there.
>>1204012
Prove it.
>>1204012
I think more than "a temple" keep people there. What about the practice of looking out for those with whom one self-identifies by instinct, i.e. family? I'm not trying to take spirituality out of the equation, it's a contributing tool to the societal structure of a civilization, but I really, really think other base issues happen first.
>>1204014
Look at the Iroquois. They had sophisticated agriculture, but no large cities.
>>1204012
Can't you just you know don't build city near a river?
>>1204021
When the population gets too big, the identification with it as your family lessons significantly. You take your immediate family, and leave. Now that there's no religion, people are doing this again today, kids move away.
>>1204025
You can, but that makes irrigation a lot harder.
>>1204022
But there were large cities in short periods of time founded by north American natives. The environment (climate) was just so varied decade to decade, that there became real difficulties in sustaining these large systems.
>>1204031
Cahokia rivaled some of the largest cities on earth at its zenith, but places like it (and we don't feel it was unique) "failed to launch" when heavy drought or some other environmental factor made the whole idea not so appealing.
>>1204031
>Monks Mound is the largest structure and central focus of the city
>>1204049
Yes but there were other factors. Look at the positioning, at the nexus of many significant trade routes (rivers). Look at the wide availability of particularly favorable soil for crops.
There are, and have been, just as (more?) spiritual localities which were not the foundation or basis for settlement. As a matter of fact, to their contention, putting up a bunch of teepees or wigwams would have been anathema to practitioners.
No, I think you have a cart-before-the-horse thing going on.
>>1204061
The position of Monks Mound is a hub, according to archaeologists. A temple is the linchpin of an ancient city.
>>1204080
and its construction began around 900CE, when there's evidence of organized settlement 300 years prior.
>>1204022
That isn't proof.
>>1204099
I'm sure there was. I'm saying the temple was instrumental in that settlement become a city.
>>1204160
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
>>1204027
You're just making shit up. Yes people leave where they grow up but they don't go into isolation, they remain in civilization in a different city because of the benefits society provides versus living in the woods
>>1204220
In a different settlement, perhaps founding one. No settlement necessarily becomes large enough to be called a city, without a religious nucleus. If your religion says you have to go to a special place to make a sacrifice or something every so often, you aren't going to want to be any further from that place than you have to be.
>>1203978
>The monopolizing of power and the hereditary transmission of power.
You can do that without civilization. See Steppe Nomads, Africans, and us islandfolk here in Southeast Asia.
Not to mention it implies MONARCHIES R D ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT when IRL its usually various social leaders.
