4,000 years ago, climate change caused massive civilization collapse

**Please Do not just post external content, without any original content. Also please only post short sections of articles, no more than 3 paragraphs ( small ones) and then link tot he original source. Large quotes are destructive to the flow of the thread.

**Please Do not just post external content, without any original content. Also please only post short sections of articles, no more than 3 paragraphs ( small ones) and then link tot he original source. Large quotes are destructive to the flow of the thread.

Universities in Florida and Oregon have marine and coastal archeology programs. Everybody knows there is good stuff under water, some of the best sites. It costs a lot of money to excavate under water. It's probably 30 to 40 times more costly per cubic meter of excavation. Since social science, and anthropology in particular, are under fire as being a waste of money that could be spent on business schools there just isn't a lot of resources for archeology these days. Most dirt gets turned by volunteers.

reply to post by tauristercus

Actually yes, it WAS as simple as that.

Here's a link to the Physics department at Balikesir University, Turkey where students measured the earth's axial tilt (and were out by only 0.7 degree) using nothing more than 3 nails, a wooden board and a plastic protractor.

Yes, that's a nice way to determine the axial tilt, and it is simple but that method is not the source of Dodwell's data, is it? It has nothing to do with the data in his chart.

Tell me, which of your ancient sources provided direct measurement of axial tilt? Karnak? Nope and that data is based on assumptions about the construction of site. Wrong assumptions. What about Stonehenge? It seems to have the same problem.

What about the more recent data points? It seems those are not based on direct measurements of the axial tilt either. Are they? They were based on determinations of the occurrence of the Solstice. The ancients didn't measure the axial tilt and they didn't use angles either (as you well know). They simply marked the date on which the shadow of the gnomon was shortest. Once again, until standardized measuring devices came into use the measurements of shadow length were not reliable.

So there was an improvement in Chinese technology around the time of the 6th century and that is apparent in the consistency of the measurements after then. At that point the variation from the calculated obliquity varies by amounts of less than 1/10º (.083º). With an 8 foot gnomon that is a difference in shadow length of less than 1/5". A difference in timing of a few minutes and/or leveling errors can easily account for such a small difference.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the thread Slayer.

One thing is for sure man, where possible has always set up shop near water / costal areas for many reasons. This I believe is a generally accepted fact.

Coastal floodings can occur without much warning, again nothing new ie Sumatra 2004, Japan 2011 to mention so recent events.

Our understanding of past earthquakes is minimal and difficult to gauge impact but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't at the heart of this particular scenario.

However the more I am reading into meteor impacts, especially the moment prior to impact, things get very very very bad very quickly. Depending on the size, angle of entry, composition and speed, instant incineration of large areas is possible followed by impact ejecta and if near costal, well tsunami, sulfuric acid rain etc

Just thought though.

Originally posted by Erectus
Universities in Florida and Oregon have marine and coastal archeology programs. Everybody knows there is good stuff under water, some of the best sites. It costs a lot of money to excavate under water. It's probably 30 to 40 times more costly per cubic meter of excavation. Since social science, and anthropology in particular, are under fire as being a waste of money that could be spent on business schools there just isn't a lot of resources for archeology these days. Most dirt gets turned by volunteers.

I totally agree that is why we aren't making too much progress in this arena. As a result, I think they continue to use a flawed premise by necessity. We see these inland, river valley civilizations all start about 5-6000 years ago in geographically isolated areas (from each other that is). This always stuck me as a little dis-congruent if we viewed civilization as being a series of linear steps... it just shouldn't spring into existence in separate locations (Mesopotamia 6k years ago, China 5k years ago, Indus about 5.3k years ago-- Egypt around 5.4k). There should be delusion from one central location. Think of this in terms of our current world civilization which originated in Europe and propagated itself around the world in 500 years.

And before anyone starts quibbling about this “River Valley Culture” defusing around the world in the same fashion in the same time frame, our current civilization spread at this speed due to sea faring cultures. If this was the case 5500 years ago, why would we see a rise of inland civilizations and not those on a coast?

If that wasn’t enough, you would see more of a similarity in language and writing style between these cultures if one source culture seeded the others.

The collapse of these cultures is just as interesting as the rise-- and probably had the same root cause—but in reverse, more hostile environmental conditions and limited resources.

I do think the mediterrean basin flood as the flood of Noah and considering that time period they had no knowledge of the North American and South American continents.

The great flood was a legend in a regional "climate change event" that changed the course of modern history.

Originally posted by neo96
I do think the mediterrean basin flood as the flood of Noah and considering that time period they had no knowledge of the North American and South American continents.

The great flood was a legend in a regional "climate change event" that changed the course of modern history.

The only problem there is that this occurred approximately 5 million years ago. If we extend the flood myths back that far... we run into the issue of who was there to see it, as even Homo Erectus hasn't been around more then 2 million years.

This being connected to an event during a later period or even the shared common experience of flooding in the river valleys is far more likely.

The local climate changed, people had to adapt (which they didn't...they didn't have proper irrigation systems) or move. They chose to move eastward.

But yeah, the climate has a drastic impact on people. Speak to the people in the Maldives today

On a side note, this local change isn't comparable to today's change...mostly because of the scope of change.

Originally posted by slip2break

Originally posted by Erectus
Universities in Florida and Oregon have marine and coastal archeology programs. Everybody knows there is good stuff under water, some of the best sites. It costs a lot of money to excavate under water. It's probably 30 to 40 times more costly per cubic meter of excavation. Since social science, and anthropology in particular, are under fire as being a waste of money that could be spent on business schools there just isn't a lot of resources for archeology these days. Most dirt gets turned by volunteers.

I totally agree that is why we aren't making too much progress in this arena. As a result, I think they continue to use a flawed premise by necessity. We see these inland, river valley civilizations all start about 5-6000 years ago in geographically isolated areas (from each other that is). This always stuck me as a little dis-congruent if we viewed civilization as being a series of linear steps... it just shouldn't spring into existence in separate locations (Mesopotamia 6k years ago, China 5k years ago, Indus about 5.3k years ago-- Egypt around 5.4k). There should be delusion from one central location. Think of this in terms of our current world civilization which originated in Europe and propagated itself around the world in 500 years.

And before anyone starts quibbling about this “River Valley Culture” defusing around the world in the same fashion in the same time frame, our current civilization spread at this speed due to sea faring cultures. If this was the case 5500 years ago, why would we see a rise of inland civilizations and not those on a coast?

If that wasn’t enough, you would see more of a similarity in language and writing style between these cultures if one source culture seeded the others.

The collapse of these cultures is just as interesting as the rise-- and probably had the same root cause—but in reverse, more hostile environmental conditions and limited resources.

You've actually touched on a debate that was held in anthropology 50 years ago. Originally it had been assumed that civilization diffused from an original center. After all, several of the earliest civilizations sprang up in relative proximity to one another around the near (middle) East. This is a part of diffusionist theory, which is a great theory, but simply isn't universal in nature.

The fact is that agriculture, as well as pastoralism, independently sprang up all over the world generally all within 1,500 years or so of each other. There are many other examples of similar development in far removed places.

This leads to the currently popular notion (which I subscribe to) that says that given similar circumstances humans will develop their environmental sphere along similar lines. In other words there is no reason that two wholly isolated peoples will not be expected to each discover that seeds can be planted and harvested. There is no reason to think that the chiefdom model of government will not independently develop into the state.

And I think that what we all mean by civilization is the state. Only the state can assign massive resources to the development of pyramids and great walls, to civil works. The development into the state from the chiefdom is a natural progression given certain environments. In some environments it is not a natural progression and it has not occurred. Examples include the Inuit and many other tribal cultures.

The state develops only out of an excess of food and labor. The state develops only after agriculture is advanced enough to allow a percentage of the population to pursue other tasks.

reply to post by Harte


ya ya i know, was postiing and running from work so maybe didnt read well. Meaning the ochre chartouches with his name support the dating to Khufus time.

I have an impossible time believing anything can spring up in widely divergent areas with different situations around the same time. There are way too many assumptions that have to turn out to be true in order for this to occur. The biggest is that humanity was uniform at the time both generically and socially at the time. . The concept of uniformity in and of itself would appear too statistically improbable based upon how wide spread humanity had become by 4000 BC. If this wasn't enough we have the cultural and probable genetic influences of Neanderthal in the west and Denisovans in the east which had to throw this uniformity out of wack in some way shape and form.

Occum's razor advises to choose the hypothesis which leans on the fewest amount of assumptions. A single point of origin for this cultural advancement leans on fewer than the scenarios which would be required for it to occur everywhere at once. To suggest otherwise is paramount to suggesting that homo sapien's as a species arose as a distinct species from a common ancestor in different locations all at once.

Just because there is consensus on flawed logic doesn't make it right. I think the development of this theory of this spontaneous generation of culture in widely separate areas all at once without at least explaining it as diffusion from a central source is akin to everyone just deciding to drink the cool aid because the people reviewing doctoral thesis's were all doing so.

Originally posted by slip2break
I have an impossible time believing anything can spring up in widely divergent areas with different situations around the same time. There are way too many assumptions that have to turn out to be true in order for this to occur. The biggest is that humanity was uniform at the time both generically and socially at the time.

Can you clarify as to what you think the reason behind this is, if you think Humans couldn't do it themselves?

Independent discovery occurred with calculus and hundreds of other recent innovations. Metal working was independently practiced in the new and old worlds. Agriculture certainly was independently discovered all over. This is well established. For one reason seed seemed to never accompany the knowledge that supposedly was spread around.

If you consent that populations independently made the governmental leap from egalitarian bands to big men, then on to chiefdoms why is the next step from chiefdom to state so hard to believe?

There are many differences that have impacted paths of development. It is a curiosity however, that wherever environmental factors were similar we find similar outcomes. There is nothing hard to believe about people coming to similar conclusions and outcomes in similar conditions.

Similar conditions would include areas that support grain cultivation. Another might be areas that do not. Another yet might be areas with thin resources ( resulting in nomadic bands...think the Sahara even today). Another might be areas that are rich in seafood. Are we to believe that the boat or sail were invented by just one person and that it diffused all over the world?

As for the similar time frames we don't really have that big of a window. Basically since the Younger-Dryas we have had roughly 10,000 years to develop from bands of nomadic hunter gatherers into something remarkably different. It takes time to embrace the cultivation of crops and more time to domesticate such crops into something that are truly life changing. Corn, in its' natural form (teosinte) is a puny little thing, not very useful. I see nothing all that spectacular about diverse peoples all coming up with agriculture a few thousand years after the Younger- Dryas. It just took time to develop.

There are plenty of different conditions and circumstances to explain differing outcomes. That doesn't mean there are not similar conditions and circumstances also in play. I haven't even touched upon supporting arguments revolving around thought processes and how human minds often work in similar patterns to solve problems.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yea, sorry about that- I was editing it and accidentally deleted half of it and published before I could catch it, and as it was kinda late I just said "Oh well" and went to bed lol.

What I was saying, though, was for you to check out the videos I posted awhile back- and there's actually three, in the "The Great Pyramid" series, the first being "The Lost Legend of Enoch", and then "Message from the Stars" and "Gateway to the Galaxy" - they're very informative and shed some light on some misconceptions.

If anything, I think you would be one to enjoy them, considering your threads and your enthusiasm with the Ancients

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by slip2break
I have an impossible time believing anything can spring up in widely divergent areas with different situations around the same time. There are way too many assumptions that have to turn out to be true in order for this to occur. The biggest is that humanity was uniform at the time both generically and socially at the time.

Can you clarify as to what you think the reason behind this is, if you think Humans couldn't do it themselves?

edit on 2-6-2012 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

Of course I believe human did it themselves... I just don't believe that these isolated bands did it in a vacuum. We're not talking about a discovery like how rubbing two stick together can lead to fire... this can occur in a vacuum through trial and error. We're talking about complex agricultural systems that share many similarities- but that just don't spontaneously spring into existence while a group of hunter and gather's is waiting out a storm in a cave.

I find it way more probable that this culture spread from Mesopotamia to the other valley's in the 700 to 1000 years before they kicked off. Though I find this theory sorely lacking, it is more likely.

I believe that quite a few novel innovations do in fact occur in one spot at one time and then spread outward. Your boat powered by wind is a great example of what I mean by this. In how many places did this develop independently? Just a quick search online seems to indicate that this is a Mediterranean innovation which probably originated in Egypt and then spread through out the Mediterranean from there. There is no evidence of this innovation in China until at least two thousand years later. Little to no indications that the people of the Indus region went anywhere by boat.

Originally posted by Erectus
Independent discovery occurred with calculus and hundreds of other recent innovations. Metal working was independently practiced in the new and old worlds. Agriculture certainly was independently discovered all over. This is well established. For one reason seed seemed to never accompany the knowledge that supposedly was spread around.

edit on 2-6-2012 by Erectus because: (no reason given)

Just to throw something else out there!

I have a preference to stay home. I may go on a holiday but have only left my own country once.

My sister travels all over the globe whenever she can afford to. She always has. She has the travel bug.

In modern times we look upon the very bright, the very wise as people that are eccentric, we call them names such as nerds.

In times past these people were celebrated. The wise man was venerated and listened to.

Imagine a small group of travelers including the wise and curios. Imagine a small band on horseback with whatever the latest weapons were. Now imagine many such bands traveling for a time and stopping to teach and learn here and there. They trade wisdom for food and amenities being feasted upon arrival and staying for some time, perhaps taking gifts along the way.

In the time periods stipulated, such groups traveling by land or coastal ship could easily have spread all manner of knowledge. They would have been listened to and their teachings would have been heeded. All it needed was a few people with the travel bug. These people are every where and always have been.

P

Undoubtedly many inventions and discoveries spread by diffusion. Diffusion may well account for much of the similarities we find in ancient Mesopotamia and the surrounding environs.

While I used the sail as an off hand example I am fairly certain that sails are believed to have been independently developed in different regions. There are many types of sails from very early in history.

Independent discovery is not deniable at its' fundamental level. What is left is the matter of degree to which one subscribes to it.

The new world developed along remarkably similar lines as the old despite separation of innovation circa17,000 years ago. Even the astronomy was similar. Of course there is real and reasonable evidence to suggest that there was limited contact between the Americas and Polynesians (among others). This begs the question however, if contact was made and knowledge exchanged why not seeds? Seeds just didn't seem to migrate during the early times like they did after 3-4000BC anywhere in the world outside of indigent regions.

The new world never seems to have developed the use of iron. This is a case where independent discovery did not occur (just because it can occur certainly doesn't mean it will every time). If contact explains the other facets of civilization in the new world then why did the use of iron not make the jump along with the knowledge of cultivation and ideals of the state or astronomy, or mathematics, or the bow and arrow, Wheat never made it here and corn never made it out of the Americas, nor potatoes, nor squash, nor beans.

In my absence this thread took off. I'll need to do some reading to catch up.

Independent discovery is not deniable. It is just rather unlikely. You brought up calculus and advanced math before... and even there, from just a brief overview on Wiki, it's development is well documented, One advancement leading to another there being no documented evidence of it arising independently somewhere else.. Yes, man can look at three sticks on the ground... and independently come up with a counting system which leads him to be able to create an abstraction 3, to represent the number of sticks in his head.

I have no problem with finding evidence of counting sticks, scratches on a wall, separated by time and geography, seemingly have been developed independently. I have no need to look further and say, hey where did this knowledge originate. But to have four civilizations develop in very similar circumstances separated by large geography and short amount of time, leaves me wanting some sort of narrative to explain why it makes sense for man to have gone from hunting and gathering nomads to river valley dwelling home bodies all over the place all at once.

One more thing... I think you're missing one small component of what I am saying that makes all the difference. I might not even argue that these sorts of advancement couldn't occur in two places simultaneously; though very improbable. What I am saying is that we find this occurring in four different locations- and not at the same specific time-- but spread out over 1000 years; this really does seem to indicate some amount of spreading of knowledge from one site or another.