# https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNmAL3F4mXE # by @TheArchaeologistsLaborator6591 2024-12-27 @JorgeStolfi 1 month ago "Geopolymer" is a word that has the same resonance in archaeology as "alien technology". But indeed, heating limestone (CaCO3) at 950 C (a temperature that can be reached in a wood bonfire) turns it into quicklime (CaO). Quicklime then reacts with water to make "slaked lime" (Ca(OH)2). Slaked lime is plastic like clay, and can be molded into shapes like pots and statuettes, or used (mixed with sand or ground limestone) as "lime mortar" for masonry walls, covering walls and floors etc. Like clay, slaked lime is very fragile when dried. Firing makes clay harder, but it destroys slaked lime. However, over months or years, slaked lime hardens as it absorbs carbon dioxide from air and turns into calcium carbonate again. Although much softer than Portland cement, aged lime mortar is hard enough for the above uses. Indeed, it may be difficult to distinguish it from natural limestone: one may need a geologist and/or a microscopic examination. So those pots could in theory be made from lime mortar. But that is unlikely as it would take months or years after molding before they became hard enough to use, and they would still be much more fragile than fired clay pots. And, no, aged lime mortar is not a "geopolymer". Many minerals are indeed polymers, but calcium carbonate is not. 2024-12-26 @JorgeStolfi 1 month ago Is there any real evidence of belief in "gods" - supernatural beings - in the Neolithic? Note that rituals and amulets do not imply such beliefs. I would define a ritual as any action that is performed for its symbolic value, rather than its actual physical effect. Thus choosing a new king is not a ritual, but crowning him is. Playing soccer is not a ritual, but giving a cup to the winning team is. Moving into a new building is not a ritual, but cutting the ribbon is. Burying a corpse is not a ritual, but placing goods in the burial is, as well as placing flowers and a tombstone over its tomb. This definition seems "scientific" enough for archaeology, since it usually can be deduced with some confidence whether an action had a concrete effect or not -- without having to guess the thoughts and beliefs of the people, which cannot be "scientific" deductions. But note that none of those rituals implies any belief in supernatural entities or "cosmic" moral imperatives -- that is, they are not "religious" at all. Then there are actions which we know have no effect, but which the doers believe they have. This category includes superstitions, old and new. Like, breaking a mirror gives bad luck, carrying a rabbit's foot gives good luck, throwing a coin into a well or spotting a shooting star will grant a wish, etc. The people doing these things expect actual effects from them, only they are wrong about how the world works. But note again that most of these superstitions do not imply belief in any supernatural entities. So I ask again, is there evidence that people in the Neolithic believed in supernatural entities? We know from documentary evidence that people did have such beliefs in the Bronze Age, but by then there were priestly classes and "religious enterprises" that fostered those beliefs for their own interest. Maybe that is when and why those beliefs first took hold in the people's minds? thearchaeologistslaborator6591 1 month ago These are excellent points and, to address your main question, I'd have to say, no. there isn't. Cauvin and Schmidt both argued strenuously that the imagery of the early Neolithic had something to do with deities. Personally, I don't buy it. Even though that is one option, it strikes me as more likely that much of this imagery has to do with something like totemism. Animism is another possibility, with animals and even inanimate objects being considered as persons. In short, we do not yet know what is the significance of the imagery at these sites, and people - both archaeologists and non-archaeologists - have just been speculating. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2024-12-26 @JorgeStolfi 1 month ago The only difference between professional archaeologists and youtube ones is that where the latter say "alien technology", the former say "ritual". Otherwise, both are prone to making wild "deductions" from scanty or missing evidence. First, given the thousands of years of occupation and very likely changes in climate and local ecology, one cannot assume that any of those stones is still in the same location when it first was laid down, or ended up being used for the same purpose it was first shaped and placed. In fact, it is obvious that many pillars and bench slabs were reused and re-positioned. I would even guess that several of the large pillars were placed in those "rooms" only after these were half-filled with soil. The stone "frames" that are interpreted as "doors" or pillar bases seem quite inadequate for either purpose, and thus were probably re-purposed too. Second, those "rooms" -- dug deep into the basement chalk, with random-shaped pits and narrow connecting "doors" -- make little sense either as living spaces or "ritual community spaces". They make much more sense as cisterns excavated over ancient springs first, then extended or modified to store rainwater. Indeed the availability of water may have been the reason why people settled in those places. Only much later, after the springs dried out, would those old cisterns have been reused as living spaces. @thearchaeologistslaborator6591 1 month ago I take your point, but you should not paint all archaeologists with the same brush. For example, I'm a professional archaeologist, but I have been very critical of claims that these Neolithic buildings were specialized ritual buildings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2024-12-27 @thearchaeologistslaborator6591 1 month ago Interesting. But I don't think any of them actually go all the way through the walls. 2024-12-27 @JorgeStolfi 1 month ago @thearchaeologistslaborator6591 But perhaps they were blocked some time after they were made? In the "water works" interpretation of those sites, they would have been originally passages for water, which were blocked when springs dried up or the rainwater was diverted elsewhere, and the "cistern" was reused as habitation...