Sadly, the authors of that article are not too bright:
“We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.”
Wouldn’t that be obvious to anyone who can think?
I agree. Cities have always grown up around churches and temples. I wonder if the cultivation of grain was at least partly in response to a need to feed ancient visiting pilgrims (for a price, of course).
That supports the view that those living today are the only smart ones that gets it and all those early beings were a bunch of “hayseeds” that actually looked to an outside source as the creator.
Wouldn’t that be obvious to anyone who can think?
It seems obvious when one stops to think about it. People would come together to worship, and needed to be fed.
I can’t think, and your claim doesn’t make any sense. Agriculture led to larger populations and a need to settle disputes over boundaries, water supplies, and raiding by outsiders and neighboring groups. That necessitated recordkeeping. The rise of literature followed the rise of accounting and title deeds. Agriculture brought about food surpluses, and the rise of other crafts not related to agriculture, as well as standing armies to defend territory and food and water supplies.