Several people have been commenting on how the archaeologists "know" that the raised structures were altars. Well, they don't. Not for sure, anyway. Here is an

Several people have been commenting on how the archaeologists "know" that the raised structures were altars. Well, they don't. Not for sure, anyway. Here is an excerpt from a paper describing the find: "Three different interpretations have been proposed: as ‘altars’, as ‘hearths’ and as ‘platforms’ [...]. The notion of ‘altars’ presupposes some ritual function and would be supported by differential concentrations of figurines, or other so-called ritual objects. However, there is no such concentration of ritual finds. The expected evidence to support the notion of ‘hearths’ would be the identification of burnt fired clay fragments, allied to concentrations of charcoal and/or ash close to the features. The absence of burning near these features diminishes the likelihood that they were ‘hearths’. Nonetheless, short-term, low-temperature fires in the middle of a raised seating area for ritual participants may well have left few traces of ash or charcoal. The term ‘raised area’ is a more neutral term, indicating a proper concern with a feature that is raised from the ground-surface of the me- ga-structure, on which people could have sat or ritual objects could have been placed for short-term performances - objects which were then removed to other contexts [...]" Once again, the popular press slightly twists science to present a "more interesting read"... (Source: http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/110 http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/110)