Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:53:39.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Excavating Theogonies: Anthropomorphic Promiscuity and Sociographic Prudery in the Neolithic and Now

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Ian Hodder
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Where do babies come from? Archaeologists do not need to dig around for an answer to this question as they attempt to understand and explain the empirical data uncovered at Çatalhöyük, other sites in the Neolithic, or elsewhere. They certainly need to search for plausible hypotheses to illuminate the vital kinship structures, pregnancy rituals, birthing practices, and neonatal health care policies of any specific community. However, if the community was composed of Homo sapiens, archaeologists can appropriately assume that infants appeared within the population as a result of the same basic procedures that produce them today, when – well, you know. The inhabitants of Çatalhöyük were anatomically modern humans and naturally reproduced in the same way that we do.

Where do gods come from? In this chapter I will argue that archaeologists (as well as other scientists, philosophers, and theologians) can now also appropriately assume that the reproduction of supernatural agents in Çatalhöyük occurred in much the same way that it does today, at least in small-scale societies. Although we have known where babies come from for several millennia, only within the last few decades have we come to understand more fully why gods appear (and are cared for) in human populations. As with the process of bearing children, one finds an astonishing variety of ways of ritually surrounding and socially manipulating the process of bearing supernatural agents. Beliefs about and behaviors toward the latter are regulated and transmitted differently in the major religious traditions that were forged within complex literate states during the axial age and now dominate the global landscape. Nevertheless, all members of our species share a phylogenetic heritage that includes sets of cognitive and coalitional tendencies, which together help to explain why gods are so easily born(e) across cultures in time and space.

Type
Chapter
Information
Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society
Vital Matters
, pp. 58 - 85
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atran, Scott. 2002. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atran, Scott 2010. Talking to the Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, and the (Un)Making of Terrorists. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Barrett, Justin. 2002. “Dumb gods, petitionary prayer and the cognitive science of religion.” In Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion, eds. Pyysiainen, I. and Anttonen, V.. New York: Continuum, 93–109.Google Scholar
Barrett, Justin. 2004. Why Would Anyone Believe in God?New York: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Bowlby, John. 1969. Attachment. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Explaining Religion: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors. London: Random House.Google Scholar
Boyer, Pascal 2010. The Fracture of an Illusion: Science and the Dissolution of Religion. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bulbulia, Joseph. 2004. “Religious Costs as Adaptations That Signal Altruistic Intention.” Evolution and Cognition 10/1:19–42.Google Scholar
Cauvin, Jacques. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Trans. Watkins, T.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Girard, Rene. 1977. Violence and the Sacred. Trans. Gregory, P.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Girard, Rene. 1986. The Scapegoat. Trans. Freccero, Y.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Stewart. 1980. “A Cognitive Theory of Religion,” Current Anthropology 21/2:181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, Stewart 1993. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc. 2006. Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian. 2006. Catalhoyuk: The Leopard’s Tale. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hodder, Ian and Meskell, Lynn, “The Symbolism of Catalhoyuk in its regional context,” In Religion, Violence and Spirituality at Çatalhöyük, ed. Hodder, Ian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–72.
Kirkpatrick, Lee A. 2005. Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lewis-Williams, David. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Lewis-Williams, David and Peirce, David. 2005. Inside the Neolithic Mind. New York: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
McCauley, Robert N., and Lawson, E. Thomas. 1990. Rethinking Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCauley, Robert N. and Lawson, E. Thomas 2002. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikulincer, Mario and Shaver, Phillip R.. 2007. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, Change. New York. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Pyssiainen, Ilkka. 2009. Supernatural Agents: Why We Believe in Souls, Gods and Buddhas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyssiainen, Ilkka and Anttonen, Veikko, eds. 2002. Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin and Morley, Iain, eds. 2010. Becoming Human: Innovation in Prehistoric Material and Spiritual Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rholes, W. Steven and Simpson, Jeffry A., eds. 2004. Adult Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Implications. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rossano, Matt J. 2010. Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, Mark et al., eds. 2010. Evolution, Culture and the Human Mind. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Shults, F. LeRon. 2010. “Spiritual entanglement: Transforming religious symbols at Çatalhöyük.” In Religion, Violence and Spirituality at Çatalhöyük, ed. Hodder, Ian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,73–98.Google Scholar
Shults, F. LeRon. 2011. “Bearing Gods in Mind and Culture.” Religion, Brain & Behavior 2/2 (2011) 1/2: 154–167).Google Scholar
Shults, F. LeRon. 2012a “The problem of good (and evil): Arguing about axiological conditions in science and religion.” In Science and the World’s Religions, eds. Wildman, Wesley and McNamara, Patrick. New York: Praeger, 39–68.Google Scholar
Shults, F. LeRon. 2012b. “Science and religious supremacy: Toward a naturalist theology of religions.” Science and the World’s Religions, eds. Wildman, Wesley and McNamara, Patrick. New York: Praeger, 73–100.Google Scholar
Shults, F. LeRon. In press. Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRef
Simpson, Jeffry A., and Rhodes, W. Steven, eds. 1998. Attachment Theory and Close Relationships. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sosis, Richard. 2006. “Religious behaviors, badges and bands: signaling theory and the evolution of religion,” In Where God and Science Meet. Vol. I: Evolution, Genes and the Religious Brain, ed. McNamara, Patrick. London: Praeger, 61–86.Google Scholar
Teehan, John. 2010. In the Name of God: the Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremlin, Todd. 2006. Minds and Gods: the Cognitive Foundations of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, Harvey. 2004. Modes of Religiosity. New York: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, Harvey and Hodder, Ian. 2010. “Modes of religiosity at Çatalhöyük.” In Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study. ed. Hodder, Ian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 122–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×