Well, I am also no expert on ancient civs or their technology. However, as a logician of fair quality, I can say that this theory doesn't seem to follow real well.
Originally Posted by Article
To carve, erect and bury rings of seven-ton stone pillars would have required hundreds of workers, all needing to be fed and housed. Hence the eventual emergence of settled communities in the area around 10,000 years ago. "This shows sociocultural changes come first, agriculture comes later," says Stanford University archaeologist Ian Hodder.
Huh? I suppose that is a possibility, but no where in that paragraph or anywhere else in the article is a well demonstrated model showing us this implication. The quote actually seems to contradict itself... saying more for the weakness of his argument than I ever could.
I would argue that we have sold the Ancient's technological skills far too short. It is at least as supported by evidence than Hodder's conclusion. 100% intuition.... which is fine for me, as I am not a scientist.