Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

11,000-Year-Old Temple Found In Turkey 307

Ralph Spoilsport writes "In Southeast Turkey, the archaeologist Klaus Schmidt has discovered an 11,000-year-old temple. Established civilization theory suggests that agriculture created cities, and cities created monuments. This discovery suggests just the opposite — people got together to build a huge monument to their religion, and in order to sustain it, communities were formed and agriculture (already in development) quickly followed on to sustain the population. Truly a startling find with significant implications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

11,000-Year-Old Temple Found In Turkey

Comments Filter:
  • ...turkey found in 11,000-year-old temple sounds much more delicious.
    • I thought "WOW! That must be a really big turkey!
      • Happy Thanksgiving!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by fbjon ( 692006 )
        I thought that, although I'm not aware of all the details of the US Thanksgiving custom, this is not the right stuffing. Besides, the temporal bone is hardly a delicacy.
    • A 11,000 year old turkey found in a temple?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by SanguineV ( 1197225 )
      It may be delicious, but it clearly violates the 5 second rule [].
    • sounds more probable

      both for reasons of its greater chance of being left alone and untouched, in regards to the original inhabitants and later tomb raiders, and also for its greater chance of surviving physically, intact and inert for millenia

      • by zobier ( 585066 )

        It's funny because I don't think I actually know anyone who likes fruitcakes.
        Someone must though otherwise there wouldn't be any.

        • by fbjon ( 692006 )
          I like fruitcake. At least in small doses.
        • It's actually a long-standing hoax among people who know how to make fruitcake. You see, if you make fruitcake with quality dried fruit, (not the chemicalized gooey shit in plastic tubs that comes pre-mixed) spice it well, and let it age in the fridge wrapped in a cotton wrapper soaked in liquor (spiced rum ftw) it's pretty friggin fantastic. It's those people, talking about fantastic fruitcakes, which indirectly convince the ignorant suckers to make it. Not knowing what they're doing, they choose the crap from the store which tastes like shit.

          Of course, I'm violating the unwritten rule of those who-know-how-to-make-it: Don't tell people - it's better they think all fruitcakes are shit. More for us.
          • Awesome! A fellow fruitcake lover! I agree--a sweet, moist cake that's spiced well and thoroughly liquored up is a treat worthy of the gods.
            • by d3ac0n ( 715594 )

              DAMN YOU!

              Now I want some fruitcake. I was hoping I could hold out until at least a week from Christmas, but now I MUST HAVE ONE!! GAAAHH!

              (Yes, I love quality fruitcake too.)

            • Wow and I thought I was alone in my love of fruitcake. Christmas is a great time as it seems like people enjoy making it but not eating it. Strange, but who am I to argue with it :)

          • I read this article in the Times a year ago and it still makes me hungry to think of it: A Fruitcake Soaked in Tropical Sun [], covering the tradition of "black cake, a spicy, fragrant fruitcake steeped in dark rum and tradition that is a Christmas classic throughout the English-speaking Caribbean." I foresee a trip over to brooklyn sometime in my near future. ;)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by richien6 ( 1406455 )
      *Replying up here so people can see it*
      You know I'm getting very sick of all these crap "Turkey.. OH WOW YUMMY!" jokes that everyone seems to find SO funny.
      I'm half Turkish in fact, and what a lot of people here probably don't know is that the Ottoman Empire was one of the largest Empires in its time (chances are I am wrong--I'm open to criticism)
      So before you make some witty comment about stuffing a Turkey, please think of something more "insightful" to say than that.
      And think about it, an 11,000 y
    • Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!

      I saw the cthulhu tag and got carried away, sorry :P

  • Problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2008 @01:30AM (#25743249)
    The bible says the earth is 6000 years old so it CANT be 11,000 years old! Simple math people!
    • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spandex_panda ( 1168381 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @01:39AM (#25743311)
      Mod parent funny! This guy at my uni is quite smart, but has studied the wrong things and he can argue very thoroughly things like "there were dinosaurs roaming north America less than 500 years ago because they found red blood cells in bones..."

      I personally can't stand religion messing with science, they are mutually exclusive fields IMHO. You're not gonna convince me that there is no 11,000 year old turkey because the bible says the earth is too young!!!

      • Re:Problem (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Digitus1337 ( 671442 ) <> on Thursday November 13, 2008 @01:55AM (#25743383) Homepage
        I'm not sure who to attribute it to, but one of the QOTDs on the bottom (Quote of the Moments, maybe? they change more often than daily, but I digress) said something along the lines of, "Science and religion are not incompatible, but science and faith are."
        • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

          by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel@bcgr e e n . com> on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:36AM (#25743631) Homepage Journal
          It's not science and faith, it's science and myths that are incompatible.

          There's nothing in the bible that says how long one of God's days are (in human years), so there's no definitive date for the age of the earth in the bible -- just the age of 'men'.

          That having been said, I would argue that, you could still accept the 6000 year old 'birth' date of adam and reconcile that with a 11,000 year old temple, if you declare that pre-adam homo-sapiens simply weren't officially 'men' from the bible's perspective (Pre-release betas, so to speak)

          OK: so it's science and blind faith in myths that are incompatible.

          • Re:Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lysergic.acid ( 845423 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @04:01AM (#25744057) Homepage

            nah, it's rational thought and faith that are incompatible. myths aren't incompatible with science/rational thought as long as you recognize what they are. you can be a rational person and adhere to scientific principles while appreciating cultural myths, folklore, and legends.

            i mean, you can be an atheist and still appreciate the beauty of Greek mythology. you don't have to actually believe in Hellenic polytheism to appreciate the literary value and rich cultural tapestry that's woven into Greek mythology. likewise, you can study and appreciate the myths of other ancient cultures without abandoning logic and reason.

            but religion by definition requires blind faith, and that's why it's incompatible with rational thought.

            • by dch24 ( 904899 )
              You argue that any bit of faith makes a person blind, but you've taken that as a premise to your argument: "religion by definition requires blind faith." What definition are you going by? Religion is a very complex subject, but appealing to Wikipedia [] just to simplify things still leaves you with this:

              A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Relig

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              I find many who do believe in it are capable of both believing, in say, the Germanic Gods and embracing the associated philosophy and way of life, and still think rationally.

              Science and metaphysics aren't mutually exclusive, I mean take the Germanic creation myth for example: with the void of Ginnundagap, the fires of Muspelheim collided with the frost of Niffelheim, thereby creating Ymnir (matter?), from whom the nine worlds were crafted. It's not particularly scientific, but it doesn't differ much from t

            • by Kamots ( 321174 )


              I'd suggest that you rephrase your claim to: non-agnostic beliefs regarding untestable realms of inquiry are incompatable with rational thought.

              There are questions to which the answer is inherently impossible to prove or disprove. My belief is that, "does an indetectable, all-powerful being exist?" is one of those. If you disagree I'd be interested in how you'd disprove the assertation of "yes it does" or disprove "no it doesn't"...

              When dealing with these kinds of questions... please, explain to me

          • No, science is incompatible with any kind of faith in any kind of myth.
          • There's nothing in the bible that says how long one of God's days are (in human years)

            If a day in the bible is not a day, then the bible could just as well be an introduction to object oriented programming in Lisp.

            Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would God tell us something lasted a day if it lasted several years. I guess Gods Ways are inconceivable..

            • Doesn't make much sense to me. Why would God tell us something lasted a day if it lasted several years.

              Bad translation, maybe?

              After all, the text in Hebrew is nominally the original text, but we can't say for sure that it's not a translation of a much earlier original in a different language. God presumably actually spoke his own language-- Goddish?-- and had to translate it for the human listeners anyway.

              What? Oh-- that was a rhetorical question?

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by mk2mark ( 1144731 )
              It also says that Jesus is a rock, and that he was good shepherd.

              The thing about languages that are processed by transistors is that they tend to be literal, unlike languages we use. On the other hand, languages we use are ambiguous and as such, open to interpretation.

              The bible is not a science book, and we don't get a definitive methodological account of creation. More importantly, people that believe it's true don't believe it's true because it proves itself scientifically.

              Speaking for myself, the
          • Then what about that whole god rested on the 7th day bit? By your logic, weekends should be thousands of years long! I'm starting to like this whole bible thingy now!
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by db32 ( 862117 )
            THANK YOU! My perspective on this has always been that man wrote the Bible. Regardless of whether it was inspired by God or not, it was man that did the writing. So...even assuming that there is some God that told some individual what to write for the whole Genesis business you have to look at it from a different angle. Have you ever tried explaining molecular biology, advanced physics, and geology to a 3 yr old? It wasn't even until recently that we even had a workable idea on the geologic processes t
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Science and religion are not incompatible, but science and faith are

          That applies only to religions that insist that their mythical stories be taken as fact. Not all religions do that. Try not to be so exclusive -- Christianity is not the only religion out there. Making sweeping generalizations like that makes you (and the others in this thread who did the same) look prejudiced.

          • Science is belief based on evidence (and other things). It's empirical. Faith is belief without evidence or despite contradictory evidence.

            Empirical belief systems like science are polar opposites to faith. That is not prejudice. That is the definition of the terms.

        • Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, if you delimit their domains: faith for things metaphysical, un(dis)provable either way ; science for all the mundane, observable / measurable things. That's the Discordian way.

    • Not a problem, this was god's pre-earth space temple and he created Turkey so he would have a place to put it.

    • The bible must say to divide by stupidity. 4.5 billion/stupidity=6,000

  • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:03AM (#25743429) Journal

    "Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."

    We've known about the rings at Stonehenge for how long? What do we know about them? Not much.

    The simple fact is that we are still discovering evidence of what man did before inventing writing of any sort. I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right.

    Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me. There has to be more history in the dirt than we know about. Chances of us finding it... meh!

    I don't think that the curve of knowledge acquisition of the last 500 years is a linear projection of the millions of years before them. I think this whole gain in knowledge is rather logarithmic in nature. Meaning that the first several thousand centuries passed without writing, without lasting evidence to show we had been there. Stonehenge, the Sphinx... how many others? They all stand there with no written account of who or why they were erected. We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete).

    Point is, this should not be surprising. What should be is that it has taken this long to find it, never mind any other corroborating evidence of early man's efforts to create. What the temple could mean in terms of sociology or religion is pittance compared to what it means to evolution IMO. The technology and effort used to create it means a lot. Guesses about agriculture and social groupings are just that. I have a sneaking suspicion that socially, mankind evolved from pack/clan culture early on. There are so many similarities to that, but we just don't see it in modern society, or ignore it. sheeple anyone? They need a pack leader, right?

    Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found. We, as a species, need it to fully recognize where we came from, for that is how you understand what direction to go. Just an opinion.

    • by Xiroth ( 917768 )

      that what science knows now is all there is to know

      Coming from a scientific background...*shudder* I can't think of anything worse. Thank god the universe still has an incredible amount still to explore.

      • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:47AM (#25743693) Journal

        I agree with you! I basically write code for a living right now, and every day I learn something new. It's invigorating. I cannot imagine that learning new things about the as yet unknown or our past is not invigorating for mankind. I look back at old code I have written and think... wow, I know a lot more now.

        Interestingly, I don't believe this kind of thinking is new. 1000 years before the library at Alexandria there must have been people who thought the same thoughts. It follows that 10,000 years before that people had the same thoughts. All the way back past learning how to use fire or the wheel. Where we might be in 50, 100, or 500 years is an incredible thought. The people who built this temple must have done it with the latest technology and skills available... meaning that there were many skills and technologies prior that were not as good. From their perspective, it would seem no different than an architect working on a new building today.

        Our knowledge and skill really took off flying when we created ways to store knowledge and share it easily. The easier it is to share knowledge, the greater mankind becomes. My vote for invention of the last 1000 year? The internet, for all the reasons stated. Now, you as a 'scientist' can share your ideas with all of us, and we with you. One thought in the bathtub can lead to great moments in science. (unless you are in the porn industry... but that is another matter).

        When I was in school, the paper encyclopedia was all there was, or a library. Now I can consult libraries all over the world... and never leave my house. Awesome. I hope that this discovery being blasted across the planet spurs on ideas and knowledge linking that was not possible before it's publication. Sort of the butterfly effect of knowledge acquisition.

        I wish to know more about our past and origins and will patiently wait for those good folks who do such things to discover clues. I wait feeling assured that my wait is not in vain, that there will be answers, and that no one will find the garden of Eden. Discoveries like this can only light the way toward that enlightenment. I want to know about all the mysteries as though they were birthday gifts to me. Why are the Nasca lines there? Why did the migration of early man leave us separated? (I secretly doubt this is true) I want to know the true origins of mankind. I would also like to meet an alien. If not in person, by some communication method. I'm not afraid of what can be, or was. I just want to know. Simply knowing all these things and more is reason enough to have lived.

        Enough blathering, on with the discoveries :-)

        • First of all, I would like to emphasize that your diligence and assiduous acquisition of knowledge is, of course, a good thing. But simply providing information is not enough: a great amount of knowledge requires structure in thought and a well founded critical mind. Sometimes, just a few simple axioms can open a new world; axioms that did not need high-speed internet, but would change profoundly the way we think of science and discovery (eg. David Humes principle of induction, or the Peano Axiomas).

    • by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @03:34AM (#25743917) Journal

      So you're saying that in ancient times, hundreds of years before the dawn of history, there lived an ancient race, the Druids. No-one knows who they were, or what they were doing, but their legacy remains, hewn into the living rock of Stonehenge.

      • Where are they now ? The Little People of stone 'enge and what would they say to us if they were here, tonight ?

      • by chthon ( 580889 )

        Druids are specific to the Celts only, who only appeared around 700BC. At that moment, the time of megalith building was already long gone.

      • Nope. Stonehenge was built approx 5000 years ago. At the time, farming was more or less established in England, and hunter-gatherers pretty much gone. The Druids, if there were any, lived about 2,000 years ago, by which time Stonehenge had been abandoned for over 500 years.

        I say "If there were any" because the only evidence for Druids is Julius Caesar's writings, which were there to justify his invasion of England, and are probably no more accurate than reports of "Weapons of Mass Destruction". We know pe
    • by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @04:10AM (#25744107) Journal
      "I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right."

      I'm continually amazed how often people claim this, I cannot think of one person I have met in my 50yrs that has held this idea but there are countless people who claim it is common.

      What's more the assertion itself implies that somewhere "out there" is a correct answer that we can all accept with 100% unchanging certainty. That concept is the contrary to science both in philosophy and implementation, science simply provides the best answer (as demonstrated by centuries of usefull spin-off's). IMHO the pace of knowledge acquisition over the last 50yrs has exploded due mainly to more accessible education and a massive reduction of influence from religion. On the longer term mankinds colective body of knowledge goes up and down, but it does have a fairly consistent upward trend and is definitely related to events in society.

      "Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me."

      Then I suggest you argue with Dawkins or Gould.

      "Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found."

      I am glad to see you support the work even though you personally think it's meaningless, it implies a trust in science on your part that I admire. Having said that, it's only meaningless to those who don't understand what those "guesses" about the relationship between agriculture/religion/buildings are based on. Turkey (via many lines of evidence) is where both agriculture and buildings originated ~10,000yrs ago, an 11,000yo temple (anywhere in the world) is therefore meaningfull to people who are intrested in the origins and spread of civilization (not that nomadic tribes are uncivilised, just that they have an alterantive definition-re: modern day Mongolia). But yes, there is still a lot we don't know outside of Europe - perhaps Turkey wasn't the birthplace of civilization but right now at this point in time that idea is far more speculative than any of the ideas in TFA.

      "We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete)."

      Again simply because we don't know everything does not mean we know nothing. Some people actually know quite a bit about the various methods (note the plural) used to build pyramids. Normally they were made from limestone and/or granite blocks, some were given a coating of lime to make the sides smooth and white. Over the millenia most (if not all) the lime coating has been scavanged to cover the walls of nearby towns/cities.

      As for "concrete blocks", it's an interesting idea backed up by a couple of material analysists and (to me anyway) the limestone covering demonstrates they knew about "concrete" but these guys are still very far from providing the evidence needed to ADD it to accepted idea's, let alone the "extrodinary evidence" that would be needed to show ALL pyramids were built with the concrete method.
      • by rho ( 6063 )

        Then I suggest you argue with Dawkins or Gould.

        Arguing with the latter would be a very neat trick and would really honk off the former.

    • by dargaud ( 518470 )

      I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found.

      A lot has been found already, with incredible surprises: the site does not seem to have a city nearby. It's 20km away from where wild wheat comes from. The stones are very different from any other megalithic culture. The site was _purposefuly_ covered with dirt (for our own enjoyment?).

      I've been following this discovery for a while and it's certainly the most extraordinary archaeological find of our generation.

  • That's a leap (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:05AM (#25743453) Journal

    How do you jump from finding one very old temple to deciding that the motivation for all civilization starting and people getting together being religion?

    Sounds to me like someone with religion is trying to justify their bad habit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No, sounds to me like someone's trying to drum up funding for the next dig.

      "With my last expedition, I revolutionized our thought about religion. What will I do next time? With a modest grant and my immeasurable innate skill, its only a matter of time before my brilliance is further pored out to the undeserving human wretches. That my greatest gift to humanity is to nourish the those worthy of drinking of my genius, and drowning those unworthy. Thank you for your support."
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How do you jump from finding one very old temple to deciding that the motivation for all civilization starting and people getting together being religion?

      It need not be religion. Consider the following observations:
      - ancient Man changed from a nomadic people to stationary societies (settlements)
      - the oldest known settlements in mesopotamia (present-day Turkey) are from around 10,000BC
      - 10,000BC is also considered to be the onset of agriculture

      Based on those findings, it was presumed that agriculture was the catalyst that enabled us to stop roaming. Now, we add another fact:
      - a temple was built in mesopotamia around 11,000BC

      This can have different implication

    • Well, it actually gets me thinking. If all civilization started in that strip starting from Turkey to the southern tip of Messopotamia, and it was all because of religion, man, they must have had some good religion. Why are we worshipping this wus who got nailed by a couple of Romans, then? Let's go back to a religion so strong that it singlehandedly created agriculture and started humanity on the road to civilization.

      E.g., Innana, daughter of Sin. Has a nice ring to it, and her cult was in the general area

  • Wikipedia entry (Score:5, Informative)

    by S3D ( 745318 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:14AM (#25743505)
    Wikipedia entry [] on the subject is more clear and concise. Also it's not exactly a news - wiki entry dates from four years ago.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Also it's not exactly a news - wiki entry dates from four years ago.

      We'll just see about that! I bet you also weren't aware that the number of 11,000 year old Temples found in Turkey have tripled in the last six months!

      • by Kagura ( 843695 )
        Funny Colbert. It was the reason the Elephant [] page was locked on Wikipedia for so long. Colbert asked his viewers to go on the page and edit it to say that the numbers of elephants have tripled in the last six months.
    • So they have a building, with no evidence of people living there so it must be a temple?

      And they have radiocarbon dated the soil and "pedogenic carbonate" coatings on the pillars, these are a) assumed to be from the time it was in use/abandoned b) correct carbon dates ....

      They have, besides the buildings, and carbon in the soil, nothing else to date... and stone is notoriously hard to date accurately?

      I would like better evidence of a build date than they have ...

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:20AM (#25743539)
    Since large communities and cities are not possible without agriculture, I highly doubt that agriculture sprang up after communities and cities.

    Asserting that it did work that way (as the OP does), is like asserting that gasoline was developed to fuel all those gasoline engines that were already lying around.
    • by Grant_Watson ( 312705 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:36AM (#25743633)

      Since large communities and cities are not possible without agriculture, I highly doubt that agriculture sprang up after communities and cities.

      I think the OP was trying to argue that the growth of cities and monuments drove the development of agriculture, rather than simply being a nifty aftereffect.

      • Actually, if you think about it, it doesn't even f-ing make any sense:

        1. You can't have a city _before_ you have a stable source of food that doesn't move around.

        2. Agriculture depended on a mutation in a species of grass, that made it have bigger grains. It first started with wild Rye, actually, but the mutation of emmer wheat was what really kicked things into gear. It's a tetraploid plant, meaning that at some point it acquired _two_ sets of chromosomes, and that mutation survived.

        You can't cause a mutat

  • well yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:37AM (#25743641) Homepage Journal

    when i play the aztecs, i can usually get my obelisk built before my starting worker even finishes his first few roads, nevermind that i haven't even discovered agriculture yet. of course, this is because the aztecs have mysticism as a starting tech, and assumes i'm not cranking out warriors to combat barbarian threats so...

    wait, we're talking reality?


    • when i play the aztecs, i can usually get my obelisk built before my starting worker even finishes his first few roads, nevermind that i haven't even discovered agriculture yet. of course, this is because the aztecs have mysticism as a starting tech, and assumes i'm not cranking out warriors to combat barbarian threats so...

      Expanding your capital's culture isn't so important at the very beginning, unless there's a really juicy resource outside your initial nine squares. Better to produce an extra scout or

      • i don't ever play the aztecs, and i don't ever build obelisks ;-)

        i usuing play mali, and if my capital city is particularly high in production early, after a few warriors/ workers and a settler, i'll start stonehenge

        this is actually more often than not, since as mali i already have mining and mysticism to start, so i probably have a mine or two already going in hills nearby, which means my production is usually pretty good if my population is up

  • by Amiralul ( 1164423 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @02:50AM (#25743711) Homepage
    So Germans found some cooper wires deep in the ground near Berlin and concluded that their ancestors used electricity way before anyone else, circa 1,000 years ago. Later on, the British found near London some glass way deeper than previous German team and concluded than optical cable was used on British 2,000 years ago. Turkish people kept digging and digging and found nothing. They concluded that their ancestors from 11,000 years ago have used wireless.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zobier ( 585066 )

      You jest, but primitive peoples - at least in Oceana and Polynesia - have been using wireless communication for aeons.

  • The summary seems to make it a lot more revolutionary than I think it is. It's not like the temple represents definite evidence that the current way of thinking is /wrong/. I'm not an anthropologist, but it seems to me like you could make a monument and then a city to support it as well as the other way around; there's no reason it has to be one way or another.

    I'm sure that for every Stonehenge in the middle of nowhere, there's a Colosseum in the middle of a city.
  • by sleeponthemic ( 1253494 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @03:18AM (#25743867) Homepage
    Jesus did. With falsely pre-aged faith testing blocks.
  • by crossmr ( 957846 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @03:45AM (#25743979) Journal

    you've been to my grandma's house at thanksgiving...

  • The tower of Babel. Moved when the continents split up during the days of Peleg.

  • All politics aside this --> [] -- is why I hate the Taliban... that and their abuse of women.

    Had this discovery occurred in a land where the Taliban had influence, it likely would not have lasted very long after discovery.

  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Thursday November 13, 2008 @05:09AM (#25744329)
    Why do archaeologists always declare that old buildings are temples? It could have been a Sandwich Shop or a Greasy Spoon for all we know.
    • I suppose that the big "table" lookin' thing over there could be a sacrificial altar, or it could just as easily be the sandwich counter. Hard to tell after a couple millenia of neglect. The big pit o' mayonnaise would've turned foul by now, too.

      Did the archaeologist find a gold statue on a counterweighted pedestal? Was he chased from the Sandwich Shop by a giant stone ball? You have to admit though, "Temple of Doom" is much catchier than "Sandwich Shop of Great Intestinal Discomfort."
  • American Thing... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I am also an archaeologist, so I'd like to think I know a little about such things. What I don't get is why Americans, and it generally is the Americans, who have to bring God and the bible into every frigging discussion about history. I've never heard Germans, French or Brits rant and rave about their silly little book. Not even in countries like Italy or Poland, about as devoutly Catholic as nations get, do we hit the brick wall of blind ignorance. But Americans? Sadly there's always one (or more often mo

  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <> on Thursday November 13, 2008 @10:54AM (#25746605)

    So some silver-tongued geezer persuades a bunch of nubile young lovelies that they'll suffer eternal damnation unless they polish his wood. After he finally croaks in the middle of his ninth threesome of the week, a bunch of less-talented pick-up artists find that no amount of funeral preparation can wipe the grin off the old goat's face. They assume this is proof that he's still getting his wand waxed in the afterlife, and build a monument to a god they now regard as eminently worthy of worship.

    And it all goes from there. I gotta write me a prayer book.

  • This begs the question: Was agriculture a product of maintaining religion? Perhaps religion is the reason we have hierarchy.

Air is water with holes in it.