Why did doctrinal religions first appear in the Northern Subtropical Zone?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 May 2023
Doctrinal religions that involve recognised gods, more formal theologies, moral codes, dedicated religious spaces and professional priesthoods emerged in two phases during the Neolithic. Almost all of these appeared in a narrow latitudinal band (the northern Subtropical Zone). I suggest that these developments were the result of a need to facilitate community bonding in response to scalar stresses that developed as community sizes increased dramatically beyond those typical of hunter–gatherer societies. Conditions for population growth (as indexed by rainfall patterns and the difference between pathogen load and the length of the growing season) were uniquely optimised in this zone, creating an environment of ecological release in which populations could grow unusually rapidly. The relationship between latitude, religion and language in contemporary societies suggests that the peculiar characteristics of the northern (but not the southern) Subtropical Zone were especially favourable for the evolution of large scale religions as a way of enforcing community cohesion.
Methods Since phase-1 doctrinal religions pre-date writing and their origins are inevitably difficult to identify archaeologically, I use the geographical distribution of the point of origin of the phase-2 Axial Age religions as a more reliable guide to where at least these doctrinal religions first developed. Historically, they date from a period that is only about five millennia after the earliest evidence for doctrinal religions, making them an historically reasonable proxy. Whitehouse et al. (Reference Whitehouse, François, Savage, Hoyer, Feeney, Cioni and Turchin2023) list a number of religions identified by beliefs in MHG (Moralising High Gods). I excluded any that were secondary (e.g. Judaism in Yemen) and any phase-1 doctrinal religions (e.g. the Akan). I supplemented this by a literature search for ethnographic monotheistic religions associated with contemporary tribal groupings. These yielded only a very small number of additional cases (Atenism in XVIIIth Dynasty Egypt; Shangdi and Mohism in Shang Dynasty China; and the Cushitic and Nilotic tribes of eastern Africa). I have included Jainism and Buddhism on the grounds that, although neither recognises a formal God, both conceptualise a form of ‘Universal Force’ that regulates the human universe. On these grounds, one might legitimately include Confucianism and Daoism (both of which date from the third millennium BP) since, although they do not recognise gods as such, they articulate formal moral codes that derive from a higher principle (Tian, or the rather mystical ‘Gateway to Heaven’ in the case of Confucianism; the Dao, or ultimate principle underlying the universe, in the case of Taoism) within which those who have lived a ‘good life’ become united or immersed. This has led to both being considered as meaningful religions, but also as social philosophies.
The monotheistic Cushitic tribes originated in the central Nile Valley, perhaps in the vicinity of Khartoum (latitude 15° N), some time around 7000 BP, and moved into highland Ethiopia and the deserts to the south and east over the following millennia. Although many of the tribes converted to Coptic Christianity or Islam during the first millennium in the Horn of Africa, those who migrated further south (e.g. the Oromo, El Molo and Rendille) continue to worship the ancestral Cushitic sky-god Waaq (believed to derive from the pre-Abrahamic religion of Nubia; Blench, Reference Blench1999; Hassen, Reference Hassen2015; Shriner et al., Reference Shriner, Tekola-Ayele, Adeyemo and Rotimi2016). The Nilo-Hamitic tribes also derived from the Central Nile Valley, albeit sometime after the Cushitic tribes, and migrated down into East Africa at various stages between the third and first millennium BP. Like the Cushitic tribes, they also worship a singular sky-god (variously named Engai by the Maasai, Nyasaye by the Luo, Asis by the Kalenjin). However, in addition, some also sacrifice to spirits (usually ancestors) that are able to intervene in human affairs.
Towards an explanation for the Axial Age religions The upward trajectory in settlement size first identified in the early Holocene (see above) continued through the succeeding millennia. By the start of the Bronze Age at 3300 BP, cities like Memphis (in Lower Egypt) and Ebla (in Syria) numbered 30,000–40,000 inhabitants. This period is associated with the rise of the Bronze Age civilisations of the Middle East (the Eblaite, Akkadian, Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egypt, and Minoan empires), India (the Harappan Indus Valley civilisation) and China (the pre-Xia empires of the Yellow and Yangste River region) (Inoue et al., Reference Inoue, Álvarez, Anderson, Owen, Álvarez, Lawrence and Chase-Dunn2015).
____________________________________
The author proposes answers to the title question in his discussion section of the article at the link
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the Eurocentrism 101 article correctly points out, scholars, especially Euro scholars, have a tendency to put human culture and civilization into rigid successive "stages" of development, and try to identify and assign "stages" everywhere, even where they don't exist.
This author seems to have their stages all figured out.
As a youth I read in a book that animistic religions are the lowest on the totem pole of religious development, while monotheism represents the highest stage of development of religion. But if that's the model of natural progress of religion in human culture, a case could be made that nontheistic religions like Buddhism are the nest step, beyond monotheism. But perhaps this religious hierarchy was really just meant to mirror the racial hierarchies of scientific racism, so Euro/'Caucasian' monotheism had to be placed on top as the pinnacle of religious development.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Swenet is correct. The thinking is part of the Darwinist-Marxist-Hegelian and ultimately Illuminist Neo-Platonic 'Process Philosophy', that assumes a priori certain factors to certain places and time periods alone and then chains of transmission.
Apparently the author fails to realize that *ALL* religions are doctrinal as all religions have a system of worship based on certain beliefs on the deity/deities and what are the proper rites of worship. Funny how the author mentions Engai of the Maasai but not Juok of the Shilluk and other Nilotes or that their religion stems from some Hamitic invasion. LOL
What about the thousands of tribal peoples in tropical or subequatorial tropics who held doctrinal beliefs??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I remember watching a TTC lecture on Marx and being turned off by his almost compulsively thought out predictions and insistence on specific requirements to bringing about his ideas (which also involved stages of development that would be attained first specifically by his chosen white/German race, yet it ended up being the Russians and Chinese). It seemed he was living almost entirely in his head and behind his desk, yet interpreted these ideas as "scientific" rather than just personal thoughts that were in need of further evidence and proof of concept.
Will look into process philosophy.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As likely as it appears to me that religions reflect the culture and lifestyle of their followers (as well as the reverse), I wouldn't rank religions on a hierarchy of "advancement" like the book Swenet read. Nor have I ever bought that Abrahamic monotheism was more "advanced" than polytheism or what anthropologists have called animism. That idea has obvious roots in Abrahamic and especially European Christian chauvinism rather than actual analysis of these belief systems.
Some Native American religions for example have one "creator" figure that also permeates the entire universe as a sort of spiritual essence, a bit like the Force in Star Wars. This is the being that often gets labeled as the "Great Spirit" in pop-culture depictions of Native peoples (an alternate term is "Great Mystery"). Anthropological convention would label that concept as a form of animism or maybe pantheism, but the idea of a singular creative force animating everything sounds almost monotheistic to me, especially compared with the pantheon of different god squabbling with one another that you see in ancient Greek religion. Yet I suspect those old-school Western anthropologists who would rank religions according to a hierarchy of development wouldn't consider Native American forms of monotheism to be more "advanced" than classical Greek polytheism, despite monotheism supposedly ranking as higher than polytheism in their hierarchy.
As for the OP's thesis, it looks to me like it's trying to correlate the qualities of different religions with social organization. Again, I'm fine with the idea of culture influencing religion as well as the reverse. What I find pointless is their invocation of latitude as a factor in those religions' developments. It may be the case that many of the celebrated cradles of agriculture and urbanization are located in the northern subtropics, but if your argument is that changes in social organization affected how religions evolved, then the latitude is pretty much superfluous.
By the way, a lot of those aforementioned "cradles of civilization" actually developed alongside rivers in arid regions, the sort of environment where a lot of people would gather in a limited area to form cities. Hot deserts are particularly likely to occur in the "horse latitudes" which lie sandwiched between the easterly trade winds of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and the westerly winds of the temperate latitudes. That's probably where the so-called "northern subtropical zone" factors into these cultures' development. On the other hand, most Chinese agriculture that I know about developed in the temperate north of the country along the Huang He River, not the humid subtropical south (although the latter might have been where Asian rice as a crop originated), whereas Papuans in equatorial New Guinea developed an agricultural system of their own that gave us bananas. So there are regions that developed agriculture that are not located in the horse latitudes.
posted
I think its hilarious that people equate Monotheism as the highest order of developed religion, based on what evidence exactly?
If anything, the so called "Pagan" religions were much more Cosmopolitan, and often contained the "Mystery" or Initiate approach that was reserved for the adept. You can see in many mythology stories where various gods and heros and serving a duel meaning, the obvious approach to the masses..I.E ...Prometheus stealing fire and giving it to Humans...and the Secret mean...Prometheus meaning Forethought...the striving of knowledge, technology, and Humanity, there's also his connection to the flood myths and the potter's clay etc.
Abrahamic Monotheism, in this case Xtianity had a "Secret" approach aka Gnostism, it was quickly branded heretical, and Sufism/Kabalah is seen the same way even though there are modern practitioners...
Now the approach is literal evangelical fundamentalism, where you have people who believe in a flat earth or 6k y/o earth...or in the case of Islam think that Slavery is ordained by god...Not all mind you but more than it should be from "The highest stage" or religion....JS
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Unless one has explored theology in general, I doubt it's possible for people to even understand religion. I think that's more the perspective of where the author was coming from. Chauvinism and just ignorance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The view of Animism is why people never call out the blatant contradiction of Zionism. By Zionist logic animist regardless of ethnicity have the right to return to their homeland anywhere and everywhere.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I remember watching a TTC lecture on Marx and being turned off by his almost compulsively thought out predictions and insistence on specific requirements to bringing about his ideas (which also involved stages of development that would be attained first specifically by his chosen white/German race, yet it ended up being the Russians and Chinese). It seemed he was living almost entirely in his head and behind his desk, yet interpreted these ideas as "scientific" rather than just personal thoughts that were in need of further evidence and proof of concept.
Such a mentality is the result of process philosophy. Marx adopted it from his mentor Ludwig von Westphalen who got it from Hegel etc. The philosophy itself is actually ancient and comes from a strain of Neo-Platonism that originally comes from the Pre-Socratics.
quote:Will look into process philosophy.
I suggest you look into Anaximander the pre-Socratic philosopher who was (as far as all historical accounts go) the actualoriginator of the 'theory of evolution'. He was the first to document similarities between species and therefore common origins. But he also applied 'process philosophy' to suggest that difference arose from changes over time. This is the dirty secret of Western/modern 'science', that a lot of its ideas do not come from the scientific method of proof through testing but rather ancient philosophies! These philosophies then get imposed on everyone through academia.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: As likely as it appears to me that religions reflect the culture and lifestyle of their followers (as well as the reverse), I wouldn't rank religions on a hierarchy of "advancement" like the book Swenet read. Nor have I ever bought that Abrahamic monotheism was more "advanced" than polytheism or what anthropologists have called animism. That idea has obvious roots in Abrahamic and especially European Christian chauvinism rather than actual analysis of these belief systems.
Some Native American religions for example have one "creator" figure that also permeates the entire universe as a sort of spiritual essence, a bit like the Force in Star Wars. This is the being that often gets labeled as the "Great Spirit" in pop-culture depictions of Native peoples (an alternate term is "Great Mystery"). Anthropological convention would label that concept as a form of animism or maybe pantheism, but the idea of a singular creative force animating everything sounds almost monotheistic to me, especially compared with the pantheon of different god squabbling with one another that you see in ancient Greek religion. Yet I suspect those old-school Western anthropologists who would rank religions according to a hierarchy of development wouldn't consider Native American forms of monotheism to be more "advanced" than classical Greek polytheism, despite monotheism supposedly ranking as higher than polytheism in their hierarchy.
As for the OP's thesis, it looks to me like it's trying to correlate the qualities of different religions with social organization. Again, I'm fine with the idea of culture influencing religion as well as the reverse. What I find pointless is their invocation of latitude as a factor in those religions' developments. It may be the case that many of the celebrated cradles of agriculture and urbanization are located in the northern subtropics, but if your argument is that changes in social organization affected how religions evolved, then the latitude is pretty much superfluous.
By the way, a lot of those aforementioned "cradles of civilization" actually developed alongside rivers in arid regions, the sort of environment where a lot of people would gather in a limited area to form cities. Hot deserts are particularly likely to occur in the "horse latitudes" which lie sandwiched between the easterly trade winds of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and the westerly winds of the temperate latitudes. That's probably where the so-called "northern subtropical zone" factors into these cultures' development. On the other hand, most Chinese agriculture that I know about developed in the temperate north of the country along the Huang He River, not the humid subtropical south (although the latter might have been where Asian rice as a crop originated), whereas Papuans in equatorial New Guinea developed an agricultural system of their own that gave us bananas. So there are regions that developed agriculture that are not located in the horse latitudes.
Actually the earliest known agriculture in northeast Asia was millet. Rice agriculture arose even earlier somewhere in a general region between the Yangtze River Valley and the Mekong River Valley. In fact, many Asian scholars are saying the first agriculturalists were likely Austroasian speakers or some group associated with that language phylum. Rice-culture traveled north eventually for the most part replacing millet as the staple crop.
[Edit] Archaeology is now just starting to push back the date of rice agriculture in West Africa.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually the earliest known agriculture in northeast Asia was millet. Rice agriculture arose even earlier somewhere in a general region between the Yangtze River Valley and the Mekong River Valley. In fact many Asian scholars are saying the first agriculturalists were like Austroasian speakers or some group associated with that language group. Rice-culture traveled north eventually for the most part replacing millet as the staple crop.
The earliest known evidence of millet domestication comes from the Sudan, and archaeology is now just starting to push back the date of rice agriculture in West Africa.
That further goes to show that latitude by itself isn't what prompts the development of agriculture, let alone urbanization.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I think its hilarious that people equate Monotheism as the highest order of developed religion, based on what evidence exactly?
If anything, the so called "Pagan" religions were much more Cosmopolitan, and often contained the "Mystery" or Initiate approach that was reserved for the adept. You can see in many mythology stories where various gods and heros and serving a duel meaning, the obvious approach to the masses..I.E ...Prometheus stealing fire and giving it to Humans...and the Secret mean...Prometheus meaning Forethought...the striving of knowledge, technology, and Humanity, there's also his connection to the flood myths and the potter's clay etc.
Abrahamic Monotheism, in this case Xtianity had a "Secret" approach aka Gnostism, it was quickly branded heretical, and Sufism/Kabalah is seen the same way even though there are modern practitioners...
Now the approach is literal evangelical fundamentalism, where you have people who believe in a flat earth or 6k y/o earth...or in the case of Islam think that Slavery is ordained by god...Not all mind you but more than it should be from "The highest stage" or religion....JS
'Monotheism' or the belief in single god alone is actually a somewhat recent development. I guess it would depend on what one means by 'god'. If by god or deity, one meant a supernal entity of power then even Judaism in the Old Testament never denied the existence of such beings other than the creator. The idea from Abrahamic religions is that the only god we are to worship is the Creator or Supreme Being, not that other gods didn't exist. This is why the 1st Commandment states 'Though shalt have no other gods before me' and not that other gods don't exist. Even in the New Testament the Apostles were clear that the gods of the nations existed but that they were devils stealing the glory of the true God. So as Dr. Ehret once said, it is more accurate to describe the early Israelites as henotheistic than purely monotheistic which is what the religion of Islam preaches when it says there is no god but God.
As for mysticism, esoterism and initiation into certain rites was long a part of many religions including Semitic religions which includes Judaism hence the roots of Kabbalah and even Christianity hence Hesychasm and Charismatica, not to mention the Islamic Sufi which later followed.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I remember watching a TTC lecture on Marx and being turned off by his almost compulsively thought out predictions and insistence on specific requirements to bringing about his ideas (which also involved stages of development that would be attained first specifically by his chosen white/German race, yet it ended up being the Russians and Chinese). It seemed he was living almost entirely in his head and behind his desk, yet interpreted these ideas as "scientific" rather than just personal thoughts that were in need of further evidence and proof of concept.[/qb]
Such a mentality is the result of process philosophy. Marx adopted it from his mentor Ludwig von Westphalen who got it from Hegel etc. The philosophy itself is actually ancient and comes from a strain of Neo-Platonism that originally comes from the Pre-Socratics.
quote:Will look into process philosophy.
I suggest you look into Anaximander the pre-Socratic philosopher who was (as far as all historical accounts go) the actualoriginator of the 'theory of evolution'. He was the first to document similarities between species and therefore common origins. But he also applied 'process philosophy' to suggest that difference arose from changes over time. This is the dirty secret of Western/modern 'science', that a lot of its ideas do not come from the scientific method of proof through testing but rather ancient philosophies! These philosophies then get imposed on everyone through academia.
Interesting. I'm on it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually the earliest known agriculture in northeast Asia was millet. Rice agriculture arose even earlier somewhere in a general region between the Yangtze River Valley and the Mekong River Valley. In fact many Asian scholars are saying the first agriculturalists were like Austroasian speakers or some group associated with that language group. Rice-culture traveled north eventually for the most part replacing millet as the staple crop.
The earliest known evidence of millet domestication comes from the Sudan, and archaeology is now just starting to push back the date of rice agriculture in West Africa.
That further goes to show that latitude by itself isn't what prompts the development of agriculture, let alone urbanization.
Correction. The earliest known evidence of millet domestication was in northern China (10,000 BCE). What I said about Sudan actually pertains to sorghum domestication (7,500 BCE). But rice domestication in Asia is older than millet. The earliest evidence for rice cultivation in Asia was found in the middle and lower Yangzi River Valley (11,000–12,000 BCE).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic