How old is civilization?, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 09:34 AM by Harte
Originally posted by hinky
I enjoyed the mention of the Indus valley and the French Cave paintings. Both of these examples show a level of habitation beyond hunter/gatherer.

Thinking of only of the mideast as the cradle of civilization is a thought process that is hard to overcome by many educated people. Even the Clovis people of North America date back some 13,000 - 14,000 years. Do you honestly think some people in Iraq decided to take a walk one day?

How many generations do you think this trip encompassed? Would the people have stayed in hunting/gathering mode the whole time, or would settlements be established in the "better" areas. This get to the core of the wood based argument mentioned in Central Europe. (Good idea on that one - Hanslune)

As I said, people must agree on the definition of civilization before they can argue for or against the existence of one.

You seem to feel that civilization is what comes after hunter-gatherer, but I do not agree.

There is no reason to call the Clovis People a civilization.

Cave paintings appear to be shamanistic in nature and not expressions of what we refer to as "art," which requires leisure. Cave paintings were done (apparently) as a ritual for a particular purpose, as almost all examples are drawn right on top of previous drawings.

Originally posted by hinkyAs for the Indus Valley. Only in the very recent past have serious science been performed. I think many people will be very surprised at the outcome of this research. There are more than several archaeological sites under more than several feet of water in the Indian Ocean. Sea levels had to much lower for this to happen. Now we are clearly outside the norms for accepted time frames of a mideast cradle of civilization.

Not so. The flooded constructions in India were not flooded by glacial meltwaters associated with the last ice age. The tectonic plate holding India (Indo-Australian plate, IIRC,) is being subducted in some areas. IOW, the water didn't rise, the ground sank.

One site has become flooded within the past few hundred years, in fact, but I don't remember which.

Originally posted by hinky
I don't really know if modern science will accept these changes within my lifetime. I do think my kids will see ancient history rewritten to a certain extent.


No question. This has happened in my lifetime already, and will probably happen in everyone's lifetime.

Harte

[edit on 4/9/2008 by Harte]


reply posted on 9-4-2008 @ 04:19 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by gingern



Well, first, the Piri Reis map is from the 17th century and is supposedly based off earlier turkish documents, circa about the 1500's. It certainly doesn't fall under "ancient civilizations" by any degree. It's claim to fame is that it supposedly shows Antarctica, not its age.

its other claim to fame is being drawn by what might have been the worst cartographer history has ever seen, but that's beside the point.


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 02:01 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


I suspect it is probably as simple as "a culture that is able to support social classes".

This makes very good sense. I posted somthing very similar on the first page of this thread in response to grover's request for a definition: Civilization: potty-training for adults


reply posted on 10-4-2008 @ 02:19 AM by C.C.Benjamin
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to
post by C.C.Benjamin


I suspect it is probably as simple as "a culture that is able to support social classes".

This makes very good sense. I posted somthing very similar on the first page of this thread in response to grover's request for a definition: Civilization: potty-training for adults



Thank you, and I love the title of that post.

Dictionary.com describes it as thus (along with many other peripheral definitions):

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.


This would imply that separate social classes are required for a society to be classed as a civilization.


reply posted on 11-9-2008 @ 01:21 PM by kidflash2008
reply to post by BroonStone



One of the major problems about finding ancient items is that many cultures before us have used and cannibalized what was needed to build or use for their society. If they needed blocks to build and knew of an older abandoned settlement, they would take the blocks to use.
Another problem is many old civilizations are buried under many feet of dirt. One would have to know exactly where to look to find where a civilization may be. Also catastrophic happenings like earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc take their toll to. Until more evidence is found, it is really difficult to pinpoint when and where civilization began. I am one who thinks it is much older than believed, and that is my theory. It does not have any real evidence to back it up, but who knows what will be found in the future.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 16 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 6 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 18 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags