|
25 Dec 07 - 11:10 AM (#2222363) Subject: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA Human history is greatly fragmented and not well documented. Some eras we know a good amount about, e.g. Europe 300 years ago, while others we know surprisingly little about, e.g. America from 1900-1913. But the impression we come away with is that the human race kind of awakened one day about 13,000 years ago when we were living in caves and wearing animal skins and made things like knives, spears, axes and scrapers out of wood, rock and bone. We tend to cling to it in the face of the evidence that says that it ain't so. I simply cannot shake the belief that a global, sophisticated culture existed at some point in our ancient past of which only remnants today survive. Doesn't it seem strange that the earth is dotted with places where amazing astronomical observatories graven in stone are to found? Who were these people that must have expended unbelievable man-hours to designing and building these things? When you look at all the ancient stone calendars and observatories there are in the U.K. alone, you have to conclude that these prehistoric people, whoever they were, were able to do things we're not giving them credit for in this day and age. Avebury, Stonehenge, Maes Howe, Castlerigg, Callanish, Loughcrew, Newgrange, Ballochroy boggle the mind of the ones who believe that ancient man was a mere hunter or farmer wearing skins huddled around a fire. Newgrange in Ireland dates back to 3200 BCE—older than Stonehenge. A 300-ft in diameter circular mound 36 feet high, one of the oldest roofed structures known to man. It has a passage that exactly aligns to the midwinter sun of 5000 years ago, it still works although there has been a slight drift due to precession. In France, there is the Gavrinis mound from 3500 BCE. Its stone passageway aligns to midwinter sunrise and the southernmost lunar standstill, which happens every 18.6 years—called the Metonic Cycle. The stones of the passageway are carved in intricate, beautiful patterns of waves, concentric circles, chevrons and such. People who have seen it firsthand say effect induces awe and astonishment—almost a psychedic "everything-melting" experience. Gavrinis stones Another French site is Er Grah in Brittany where a 66-ft, 342-ton rock once stood. It has since fallen and broken into four pieces. No one knows when or how it fell. The stone is of hard granite that must be quarried no closer than 2.5 miles away. It was the tallest of all the marker stones of the neolithic world. Being set in the Bay of Quiberon, the rock was tall enough to be seen by everyone on the bay and so served as a navigational marker. Whether it had any other purpose is open to question since Quiberon has quite a number of sites consisting of tunnels, mounds and menhirs (single upright monoliths) seemingly scattered about haphazardly. Outside of Europe, we find their traces. The Hashihaka of Nara, Japan is a huge heyhole-shaped mound or kofun although no one knows who is buried in it due to extremely limited archaeological investigation. The official reason is that the govt doesn't want the mound torn up and decimated. The unofficial reason is that the rightwinger nationalists—the uyoku—are afraid the mound will turn out to have been built by Koreans whom they insist had no influence in early Japan despite pottery from that period unearthed in Japan is virtually identical to that of the older Korean culture and the fact that "nara" means "motherland" in Korean as well as haniwa (figurines) found at the mounds that appear identical to Korean artifacts. The kofun is 886 feet long and 89 feet high. Today it is entirely covered by trees and is quite lovely. Hashihaka 1 Hashihaka 2 It was once surrounded by a moat called a shugo but now only small lakes remain on two sides. One lake contains what is undoubtedly a manmade islet or hillock called a baicho. If one stands on the baicho and faces the kofun on the winter solstice, one will see the sunrise auspiciously marked over the top of the mound by a projection. The summer solstice sunrise is marked by standing on a platform on the kofun called Tukuridashi and looking over the round part of the mound (called a koen) to a large hill in the distance which exactly marks it. Hashihaka was built about 300-700 CE and is by no means the only kofun in the area. Nara and environs are dotted with 31 of them, all of them keyhole-shaped. There are 25 kofun at Osaka and at least 35 scattered throughout three of the four main islands (excluding Hokkaido). Although assumed to be a burial mound, the kofun have never yielded up a single mummy or skeleton nor have any burial chambers ever been found. Some of the most remarkable mounds to be found anywhere belong to the ancient Cahokia complex. Cahokia was supposedly built by the Mississippian Indians starting around 700 CE. It covered 6 square miles in southern Illinois and contained at least 120 mounds of three distinctive types. Archeologist have found a great deal of evidence of astronomical alignments at Cahokia. The equinoctial and solstice sunrises could be observed in the layout of the mounds. In Arizona stands a four-story structure called Casa Grande built by the Hohokam people although little is known about them. Evidence would indicate they were quite sophisticated. They had engineered excellent irrigation canals allowing them to farm on the desert around 300 BCE. All that remains of them today is Casa Grande built of sunbaked caliche mud, it still stands as a 35-ft high structure with a 60-ft by 40-ft base and 11 rooms. It required over 600 roof beams of juniper, fir and pine which had to be cut and transported no less than 50 miles. It has a square hole that aligns to the southernmost major lunar standstill and a round window that aligns to the midsummer sunset. The building appears to be intricately linked to the growing and harvesting of corn—an extremely important staple to Indians of the area. The layout of the rooms suggests that Casa Grande represented the zenith, nadir and world center along with the four directions expressed in three dimensions. The large metal structure over Casa Grande is a shield against erosion. The first white men to encounter Casa Grande were the Jesuit missionaries in 1694 by which time it had been deserted for over 160 years. Casa Grande |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:16 AM (#2222365) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA In Chaco Canyon in New Mexico evidence of an advanced culture here is not only undeniable, it is bewildering. The floor of the canyon is dotted with nine "Great Houses" (which in Spanish is Casa Grande), villages with buildings over a story, pueblo building with nice terraces containing courtyards, kivas, storage areas and ceremonial chambers. One of the Great Houses was Pueblo Bonito, the largest prehistoric ruin in the United States which covers three acres and has over 800 rooms. There are smaller such Great Houses scattered throughout the canyon—at least 150 of them. All are in ruins having been built between 900-1115. These buildings lie next to perfectly straight roads 30 feet wide and stretching for 50 miles or more passing through gateways in the Great Houses, crossing one another at points along the canyon floor and sometimes running parallel to each other for many miles. Since the people thought to inhabit these settlements, the Anasazi, appear to have occupied 26,000 square miles of canyon floor but did not have horses or wheels, the purpose of such roads remains a complete mystery. One of the most stunning discoveries in Chaco Canyon occurred on a beautiful 430-ft high sandstone outcrop called Fajada Butte. Fajada Butte Near the top of Fajada Butte sit three large stone slabs leaning against a sandstone wall creating a sort of lean-to effect. All three slabs leaned at the same angle but were not touching. The slabs were about 10 inches apart. On the wall under the slabs were a pair of spiral petroglyphs carved into the rock--one spiral rather larger than the other. They were obviously artificial but their purpose was unknown until 1977 when an artist named Anna Sophaer was inspecting the site on the summer solstice and, at about midday, noticed a sliver of light shaped like a dagger blade passing down through the exact center of the large spiral for the next 18 minutes or so. The slabs formed an opening at the top that allowed sunlight to pass through this way. Sophaer was intrigued because this seemed too much to chalk up to coincidence. She told others but the scientific circles blew her off. But some people returned to Fajada Butte on the solstices and equinoxes to see if there was something to Sophaer's observation. After all, the structure must have served some purpose. To their astonishment, they noticed two daggers of sunlight flanking the larger spiral on the winter solstice at midday. On the equinoxes, a dagger passed through the small and large spirals simultaneously. There was no doubt about it, the slabs were actually an observatory. The observatory was nicknamed the Sun Dagger. Further investigation revealed the Sun Dagger also a moon dagger that marked the major lunar standstills. The cycle of standstills is 18.6 years from maximum to maximum. By using the sunrise at positions where the moon would rise during a major standstill, the large spiral was observed to be cut exactly in half by a shadow. The large spiral is 19 grooves in diameter and half a cycle—from maximum to minimum--occurs every 9.3 years after a major standstill. This was marked on the spiral by moonlight exactly grazing the edge of the 10th groove from the center (this was proven using lasers as no one could afford to wait 9 years). The spiral tracked the entire 18.6 year Metonic Cycle!! Sophaer had proven the slabs had been cut and set in place to function as an observatory. People flocked to Fajada Butte in such numbers that they wore a path in the sandstone leading to the slabs and researchers feared anymore erosion would cause the slabs to shift. A law was passed restricting access to the slabs to qualified researchers only. But alas, a rain exacerbated the tread worn into the sandstone and the slabs shifted as predicted forever ruining the alignment only 10 years after its discovery. But nonetheless, a great deal of research has been done on the sun dagger to prove that it was beyond all doubt an ingenious stone age observatory. Sun Dagger Equally mysterious are the Michigan copper mines. We today have no idea who mined the copper in Michigan starting from about 5000 BCE. But we know they opened many copper pits in the thousands across upper Michigan. We know they used mauls to chip out the ore. They made copper tools with some of their copper but what did they do with the bulk of it? We estimate today that these people mined about 1.5 billion pounds of copper. The level of mining sophistication would have required 10,000 men to spend about 1000 years developing that technology. Lake Superior copper had turns up in old Indian implements from Michigan to South America but still the bulk of the copper must have gone overseas simply because there is no trace of it in the Americas. Indeed, there are archaeologists who claim Lake Superior copper can be found in tools and artifacts from all over the ancient world before the times of Christ. Who transported it, where and how? Even stranger, why did these mysterious copper miners leave behind no traces whatsoever of their culture other than the tools they used to mine? No petroglyphs or rock art, pottery, figurines, hunting implements, dwellings or burial mounds have ever been found. Only their stone mauls and copper axes used to chip out ore and separate it from the copper have been found along with copper knives, arrowheads and spearheads. Moreover, they appear to have dropped their tools and walked off the face of the earth. Their mauls are found at mining pits left as though the miners had set them down and gone home for the day, ready to resume work in the morning but that morning did not come. No one knows why or even when this happened although it would seem that 1200 BCE would be the cut-off point. The Michigan mounds are also mysterious because the local Indian tribes do not claim them. Their legends say that their ancestors had taken the land from an "evil" people who mined copper and built the mounds (archaeology shows that the mounds were not built by the people who mined the copper). According to a Detroit news article, the Ottawa Indians call the mound-builders "yam-ko-desh" or "prairie people." Michigan had at least 1100 mounds at one time. Artwork recovered from one mound showed an unmistakable elephant being used as a beast of burden. From one mound in Sanilac County in Michigan's thumb area, Professor W. B. Hinsdale of the University of Michigan discovered the following skull fragment while surveying the mounds in 1925: Skull fragment The caption beneath above photo reads: "This skull found in a Michigan burial mound reportedly suggests that the early inhabitants of the state were performing brain surgery well before the birth of Christ." http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=167&category=life Some of the images on the Ica stones of Peru depict brain surgery at a time when no one on earth supposedly possessed the knowledge. While many dismiss the stones as a hoax, this skull fragment appears to bear out what some of the stones depict. And we know for a fact that the Mesoamerican tribes had extensive dentistry techniques including the drilling and filling of cavities, the performing of root canals, the making of crowns, the manufacture of plates and partial plates (made from the palates of wolves or jaguars) and could even replace a single tooth by pulling the bad one and anchoring the wooden replacement, shaped exactly like the original tooth, into the bone. Mesoamerican dentistry goes back at least 4500 years. It wasn't always pretty and didn't always seem to work out well for the patient, such is the case today as well, but most of the time the work was surprisingly good and rather advanced even by today's standards. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:27 AM (#2222368) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA Then we have pyramids all over the earth. Not only Egypt and Mexico but India and the South Seas as well. There is a beautiful pyramid located at Candi Sukuh in Java and stone walls that appear to be the ruins of pyramids at the island of Mu'a. The pyramid at Candi Sukuh is said to be Hindu and the bas-relief art depicts men and dwarves with huge, erect penises. The pyramids of Egypt are laid out in replication with certain stars. In fact, the pyramid complex at Giza is laid out in imitation of the three stars in the belt of Orion and the Great Pyramid of Cheops is itself an astronomical observatory. 3 Kings How is it that these great stones used in these ancient pyramids across the globe are simply stacked together without a shred of mortar to hold them together? The same holds true for structures as Tiahuanaco in Bolvia and Macchu Picchu in the Andes and the stonewalls on Mu'a. How were these great stones cut and transported? The Gate of the Sun at Tiahuanaco is carved out of a single block of stone and weighs 15 tons. Gate of the Sun Who made it? It would appear to be Mayan Indians or some tribe closely related to them. The proof is in the man pictured on the Gate of the Sun. He is quite clearly a Mayan priest. He has been called a weeping little ancient astronaut but he's not dressed for space travel. He is wearing a Mayan priest's headdress. He is not stubby and dwarfy—he is kneeling. He is not weeping but paints his cheeks with dots that, on the Gate, look like they were probably inlaid with stones at one time. If they were meant to represent tears, then we can only surmise what this priest is weeping about. Perhaps he was betrayed. Then he sounds like the Essenes' Teacher of Righteousness or Jesus according to Hebrews. Such an austere looking thing in such an austere terrain (the air is quite thin). Think of what the temple it was originally attached to must have looked like. Off the coast of Okinawa lie the submerged ruins of some type of a huge multi-tiered platform carved from black stone. Yonaguni Platform When first discovered quite accidentally by a diver in 1995, scientists and researchers dismissed the structure as a natural formation caused by erosion due to rising and falling sea levels. Indeed some natural formations can look very artificial. Part of the reason for believing the platform natural was that it was solid with no inner passageways or doors leading inside the structure. But the discovery of an arched entranceway and stone spheres substantially larger than a human being in one part of the complex (mysterious stone spheres are found all over Costa Rica also) and three holes in the structure that line up perfectly straight have forced science to accept the structure as manmade. Who built it, when and why is not known. There is speculation that the builders may have also built Japan's Nakagusuku Castle. Although it is generally credited with having been constructed early in the 15th century by one Lord Gosamaru, the truth is that no one is sure when it was built and that it might be from the first millennium BCE and has simply been occupied by various warlords many centuries later. Some feel the workmanship of the platform and the castle are the same. Nakagusuku Castle Who cut and moved the stones to build the temple in Baalbek, Lebanon? The stone below was left unused and may weigh 2000 tons! Baalbek ruins Baalbek 2 The Baalbek ruins are enormous and no one really knows whose culture it is that made them. It's demonstrably ancient and these people thought BIG! Take a look at these ruins. Drink it in really good. The smaller stacked stones on top are Roman (the Romans, btw, made no claim to having built the original ruins). They used the ruins as a fortress. They are big stones themselves and yet see how small they are compared to the ruins they are stacked on. One can see also that the upper wall is quite a bit newer than the ruins themselves meaning they are ancient and were ancient by the time the Romans built on them. Notice too how the original builders built a bulwark of smaller stacked stones and then placed the enormous blocks ON TOP of them somehow not crushing the smaller stones stacked beneath. Then look down between the two trees at the bottom of the photo. Look hard and you will see a man standing there. See him? THAT is how HUGE the Baalbek ruins are!! Some of its stones weigh 1500 tons!! Baalbek 3 Baalbek 4 And Baalbek isn't the only place in the Middle East to boast of great stone ruins. In northeast Pakistan in the Indus River Valley stand the 5000-year-old ruins of Harappa and another 400 miles to the south that is equally old called Mohenjo-daro. Although these aren't so much stone ruins as fire-baked brick ruins. The streets are huge as are their granaries. The people farmed a great deal and were very dependent on it. They were surrounded by wildlife and marshes but were prone to flooding. Mohenjo-daro was rebuilt at least six times due to floods. These are the earliest known civilizations to plan and layout their cities. We know this because they rebuilt identically each time indicating that they followed a set lay-out. They domesticated many animals including cats, dogs, goats, sheep, buffalo and camels. The cities had a highly impressive and advanced system of huge public baths, latrines, plumbing and sewers. They had a written script. They appeared to have no religion or at least no temples or churches of any kind. Their cities appear to be extremely utilitarian—the useful was the good and what most has the right to exist is the most useful to society. Evidently, religion didn't rank too highly in their scheme of things. But they made exquisite jewelry and obviously had trade going in far-off places. We have not begun to decipher their writings. We know nothing of their history, beliefs, customs, language, science, etc. We don't even know what happened to them. For some reason, these cities were abandoned between 1800 BCE and 1700 BCE. Many artifacts and parts of the cities are still being excavated and will for years to come. We have not scratched the surface with these ancient Indus River Valley civilizations. Indus1 Indus 2 Indus 3 Indus 4 Indus 5 Indus 6 |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:28 AM (#2222369) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA All over the earth at one time, there were all those huge stone edifices that seemed to involve ritual and the heavens. People had the ability to cut and shape enormous stones and then stack them somehow and fit them so close together that a piece of paper cannot be fit between edgewise and they've stood for thousands of years without mortar to hold them together. The newer ones still function as well as they did when they were new. Others are so ancient that they no longer apply. There seemed to be a global stone-working culture heavily into astronomy. They had techniques for cutting and moving enormous stones that we don't have today. They had to be experts at surveying land. Even so, how anyone could create something like the Sun Dagger is mind-boggling. Surveying itself requires mathematical knowledge not to mention employing a type of masonry that requires knowing how large to cut each stone and how to shape it. Many of the stones fit into the walls are not regularly shaped but cut and notched seemingly without pattern (often shaped in such a way that the center gravity should have caused the stone to split) and yet mesh tightly and perfectly with the surrounding stones where no two are cut alike and with nothing to hold them together and yet these walls still stand today come flood, severe sun-baking drought or earthquake. They were quite obviously built to last. How did they transport these enormous stones sometimes 200 miles or more then stack them to precision fit? Clearly, they had some kind of lifting techniques we lack today. After all, we really don't know how Edward Leedskalnin built his Coral Castle down in sunny Florida. He appears to have carved and moved 1100 tons of coral rock by himself. A man just over 5 foot tall and weighing 100 lbs who charged a dime for admission appears to have built an incredible habitat and did it by himself as far as anyone knows and did it in no more than 28 years—driven by nothing more than his love for a girl in his home country who never saw nor visited it in her life. No one is sure how he fashioned a nine-ton gate that is balanced so perfectly that it will turn easily if pressed with a finger. Several of the sculptures at Coral Castle have astronomical significance as well. Incredibly, he not only designed and built it but after completing it he MOVED it to another location. Again, no one knows how. He was seen transporting some of the stones with a tractor but he was never seen loading or unloading the stones. No one in the area reported being hired by Leedskalnin to assist in rebuilding Coral Castle, no one saw any other workmen assisting him. He simply somehow reassembled it all over again. Did he somehow figure out something the rest of us have long forgotten and will we ever again rediscover it? |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:36 AM (#2222370) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bill D I guess it depends on your definition of 'advanced'. Yes, some early cultures made fascinating carvings, mounds and experimented with surgery 'of sorts'....but if they HAD a truly advanced civilization, we'd expect to find more that stone carvings and skulls with holes. There is NO real hard evidence of large scale semi-technological civilizations way back beyond 20,000 years ago...merely fascinating examples of what some cultures were drawing on rocks 5,000 to 20,000 years ago. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:49 AM (#2222375) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos You should read up as well, if you have not already, on the medical and astronomical center established at Monte Alban in the hills above Oaxaca. A |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:52 AM (#2222376) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: mack/misophist Most of this is beyond my expertise. However. The links between prehistoric Japan and Korea are very strong. For cultural and political reasons, the Japanese discourage research on this topic. The earliest variety of Japanese rice seems to have originated in Korea and the bones of it's farmers show links to Korea. Given enough time, no culture or race is isolated or 'pure'. There are always outside influences. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 12:05 PM (#2222381) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Tweed Hmmm..are we really able to call ourselves civilized? I think it hasn't really come to pass. Too many stupid and barbarous things still happening out there in the world and mostly done by "civilized" folks. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM (#2222388) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: bobad Man's creativity and ingenuity is unbounded. There are numerous contemporary examples of what can be accomplished by one individual given time, energy and inclination: Simon Rodia's Watts Towers Nit Wit Ridge Hole N' The Rock The Damanhurian Temple There most likely was a time in evolutionary history when the balance between humans and food source was such that living was relatively easy and afforded humans much time to express their interpretations of the natural world in creative ways. The above links demonstrate what one person is capable of making by using nothing but time, creativity and simple tools, it is not difficult to project what whole communities of people could produce from the same motivators. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 12:44 PM (#2222390) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: alanabit I have always liked Mahatma Ghandi's response to the question, "What do you think of Western civilisation?" "I think it would be a good idea." |
|
25 Dec 07 - 12:49 PM (#2222391) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Tweed Hawr!! Good one. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 01:21 PM (#2222399) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Brendy Mao was asked the question as to what the effects were of The French Revolution. Apparently he sai "It's too early to tell" A nice bit of reading, there, 282RA. Thanks B. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM (#2222416) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Jim Carroll "How old is civilization?" Depends on where you are - in the US it appears to have arrived and departed. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Dec 07 - 02:07 PM (#2222424) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Tweed Yaz, and like the preacher in dylan's Hezekiah Jones said, "There's a lotta good ways for a man to be wicked!" |
|
25 Dec 07 - 02:11 PM (#2222427) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos I demur. Despite its rough and limbic aspects there is a core consciousness in the American mind that does not sleep in its quest for better solutions to the equations of civilized existence and better broad survival across the spectrum of life. You may be disabused of this idea if you spend too much time watching television or reading cheap papers. But the ground truth is that the deep hidden waters still run. A |
|
25 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM (#2222435) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bert Somewhat over eleven thousand years. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 03:53 PM (#2222450) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) So much depends on one's definition of 'civilization.' The word, in the sense of culture and technology, wasn't coined until about 1770. Webster's Collegiate definition 1a. A relatively high level of cultural and technological development: specif: the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained. In the eastern Asia region, written records made as long as 4000 years ago have been preserved. I don't know when the written records started, but perhaps a good deal earlier than this- I would have to read some of the up-to date studies. Some of the cultures enumerated by 282RA would qualify as civilizations under the definition given above since they kept written records- many of the civilizations of the Middle East and Asia, north Africa, the Maya, Aztec, etc. of Central America. Others may have kept written records which have been lost. The ancestral pueblo Indians (Anasazi) certainly kept records of important seasonal changes in the stars and planets- astronomical observations- that helped to determine planting times, etc. The Anasazi of present-day Arizona-New Mexico left these records in the disposition of stone buildings, etc., whose alignment is accurate. 25000 square miles (282RA above) may seem like a large area to city-dwelling Europeans, but in the American southwest and elsewhere it is small, only about 150x150 miles. Even carrying goods, 150 miles could be covered in a week. Turquoise from the vicinity of Santa Fe was transported in quantity to the Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico, obsidian from the Pacific northwest was used in the southwest, etc. Parrot feathers and Pacific Coast shells were known to the Anasazi. There were tribes that specialized in trading; e. g., one that wintered in Texas traded to the far northwest in summer. Even superficial anthropological studies indicate certain goods were transported long distances. The Anasazi kept records mostly orally, but should they be considered uncivilized because they did not develop an extensive written language? This is why anthropologists speak more of 'cultures' and do not firmly delimit 'civilizations.' Are factories needed to lead a cultured, civilized life? Certainly not. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 04:03 PM (#2222454) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: McGrath of Harlow "...others we know surprisingly little about, e.g. America from 1900-1913." Oh, I don't know. I'm sure some Americans know a fair about about that period. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 04:17 PM (#2222458) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth I believe humanity has great potential, but as to being civilized, we're still working on it. And we have a long way to go yet. We need to work a whole lot harder on it because lots of folks are just sloughing off. Less vision that the average kumquat. Don Firth |
|
25 Dec 07 - 05:12 PM (#2222479) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST It's not so hard to believe in the sophistication of our remote ancestors when you consider that most of their artifacts were probably made of wood, and the wood simply hasn't survived; it rotted. We only know about the artifacts that were made out of stone, metal, or pottery. If you wanted to make, say, an astrolabe or sextant, it would be much easier to make one out of wood than metal. Writing, too: we assume that writing was invented around 3000 BCE because we have stone and/or pottery tablets dating from then. But if the earliest writing was on wood, it could have been much earlier. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 05:22 PM (#2222484) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Dave the Gnome Three and two thirds weeks. D. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 09:26 PM (#2222543) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Sandra in Sydney thanks for posting those links & stories. I'd heard of some of them but others are new. And to answer your question, I dunno as it depends on the definition of civilization. Early British settlers in Australia believed the Aboriginal inhabitants were not civilized as they had no buildings or agriculture, in fact that's why the British came to Botany Bay. It was Terra Nullius (empty land!) - no one (civilized) lived there so it was the perfect place for a new settlement. This view has been upset in recent years. Google search on Terra Nullius Strangely enough explorers later found some agriculture (in Western Australia) & 8000 year old stone buildings (in Victoria) 8000 year old stone buildings Overview of Australian Archaeology Book provides revisionist view of Australian prehistory sandra |
|
25 Dec 07 - 09:36 PM (#2222548) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA Who mapped the world first and when? Certainly our accepted histories in this area are a bit selective, shall we say. Below is the famous Piri Reis map showing the Patagonia area of South America on the left while Western Africa is clearly discernible on the right. Piri Reis Map Regardless, the map is a genuine puzzle for Westerners because it clearly depicts two things that shouldn't be there: the Straits of Magellan and a part of Antarctica. Magellan supposedly discovered the straits in 1520 relying on his copy of the Piri Reis map. The trouble is, this map was drawn up in 1513 and it is a copy of a much older map—now lost. Westerners should be asking how Spain discovered the straits using a map upon which the straits were already depicted. Magellan didn't discover the Straits--he verified them. But nary a word of this in our history books. The next image is the Fine map drawn by Oronteus Finaeus in 1531 which depicts Antarctica. Antarctica wasn't officially discovered until 1819!! Oronteus Finnaeus Map Now some skeptics dismiss the Fine map by saying that older maps often depicted a "counter-land" in the bottoms of their maps which they labeled "Antarcticus." But this "land" was nothing more than an affectation of cartographers to offset all the land north of the equator by drawing in a non-existent land to give the map more visual balance. It mattered little since no one knew much of what lay south of the equator at that time anyway. Having looked at maps with a counter-land on it, I would agree that many of these maps were merely showing some cartographer's fancy regardless of why he did it. Below, a Ptolemaic map showing the counter-land Counterland I think the difference here is obvious. The counter-land is clearly not what Oronteus Finaeus was depicting with his map in 1531. He is showing Antarctica as a land mass and it looks surprising like our modern data. Moreover, the counter-land was always shown as nothing more than a huge snow-covered mass taking up the entire bottom of an atlas but Finaeus shows the mass correctly oriented with the approach of the southern tip of South America unmistakably visible. No other map of the counter-land comes close to being this accurate. While Menzies might have chalked it up to the 1421 Chinese expedition, this is unlikely since Antarctica was covered with ice by that time. Fine's map shows the land mass as essentially bereft of ice—the last time this happened was about 6000 years ago. If Fine was only showing counter-land why would he give it its own projection as though it were a real land mass? That makes no sense since the counter-land was clearly only for aesthetic décor. I have a friend who is adamant skeptic. He dismisses the Fine map as the counter-land in spite of my objections but he stands on shaky ground concerning the Piri Reis map (he thinks the dates of the map and Magellan's discovery are reversed, which is absurd on the face of it) but even he admits flat out that he cannot explain the following map drawn up in 1507 by Martin Waldseemuller: Waldseemuller 1507 Map The problem with this map is that it depicts the Isthmus of Panama six years before Balboa supposedly discovered in 1513. Indeed, the map depicts the Pacific off the Western coast of the Americas before any Western explorer could have seen it. The large map is not what I'm talking about. The isthmus is seen in the small atlas in the upper right center and is drawn with shocking accuracy: Waldseemuller blow-up By comparison, take a look at Sebastian Münster's 1544 map of the New World showing a far less accurate rendering despite the passage of 37 years a subsequent voyages that should have refined our knowledge rather than obscure it even more (the large island he labels "Zipangu" off the western coast of the Americas is Japan who had only had their first contact with Westerners the year before). Munster Map Obviously, Münster's map was based almost entirely on what the explorer's had discovered up to that time. So what was Waldseemuller's map based on? This map issue also applies even more to celestial ones. Who drew the first maps of the heavens and when? Who fashioned the first constellation images? Were these maps too passed down secretly the way the terrestrial maps were that were copied by Magellan and Waldseemuller? There are a lot of things that need to be explained about our history: · In Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, he makes reference to Mars having two moons with the inner one orbiting Mars twice in a Martian day. This was 150 years before astronomers discovered that Mars did indeed have two moons with the inner one orbiting Mars twice in a Martian day. This is something not predicted by celestial mechanics and so Swift could not have independently calculated it himself. So where did Swift get this information that seems far too accurate to have been guesswork? · Why did Europeans not study the Crab nebula nova of 1054? The Chinese did. The Japanese did. The Anasazi even drew it on the ceilings of caves. What did Europeans write of the nova? Not a blessed word. Nothing. They wrote nothing of an earlier nova in 1006 that the Chinese had written about. In fact, the Chinese were writing about novas as early as 185 CE. Europeans wouldn't mention novas until 1572 when Tycho Brahe witnessed one. Kepler witnessed another in 1604. But why did European astronomers ignore the 1054 nova? There is only one explanation: Europeans were not yet writing histories or journals or engaging in anything resembling a scientific method in the 11th century. It causes us to question exactly when the Dark Ages occurred, when Charlemagne actually ruled, when literacy came about in Europe. Apparently, much later than we thought. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 10:10 PM (#2222550) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bert ...we're still working on it... Ah! well said Don. I was taught at school that the word 'Civilisation' meant living in a city. Google Jericho (not the bloody TV series). As for mentions of The New World in earlier times, the orb of Plato shows The Antipodes about where South America is and Ptolemy's Geography mentions an estuary right where the St Lawrence Seaway is. So the New world was known, but forgotten. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 10:38 PM (#2222560) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Sorcha I find all this stuff fascinating in the extreme but I have no answers, theories or anything else. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Chariots of the Gods tho. |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:42 PM (#2222574) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bert You're right Sorkie, Chariots of the Gods is a load of old codswallop. If there had been a visitation from outer space in the past then if we found anything then it would have been the fixings, The nuts and bolts or the rivets that held things together |
|
25 Dec 07 - 11:46 PM (#2222575) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA The Kangnido map of Korea from 1402, although supposedly drawn up from the notes and logs of a 1386 expedition. Painted on silk, the map depicts China, Korea, Japan, India, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and part of Europe. A product of the Mongol Empire, the map is now preserved at Ryukoku University in Japan although no one is sure when the map arrived in Japan. According to Menzies, if the map is corrected for longitude, it is quite accurate. While not an example of an advanced culture from the past with mysteriously accurate data, it does demonstrate that other nations were exploring the globe quite avidly before Europeans were yet capable of it. Kangnido Map |
|
26 Dec 07 - 04:01 AM (#2222593) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Jim Carroll "You may be disabused of this idea if you spend too much time watching television or reading cheap papers." Don't have to; just watch the news regularly. "Special rendition", "collateral damage", unrestricted imprisonment without trial, - you've even re-invented the language to excuse your behaviour. I'm afraid I go along with Norman Mailer when he suggested that the US was now a fascist country. Jim Carroll |
|
26 Dec 07 - 04:55 AM (#2222604) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST,albert There is a very good book called Timewalking which I have somewhere about the house which goes into a great deal of detail about the settlement of the Earth by our forefathers.I can't recall it's author but it is well worth looking out. One of the points which I think is made in the book is that for at least a quarter of a million years early man accumulated the knowledge about his surroundings,the natural world,foodstuffs,geography and technical and social skills that were necessary for the more settled lifestyles that were to follow. albert |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:07 AM (#2222606) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) So much imagination! The Piri Reis map is well dissected in the article by Dutch, Univ. Wisconsin, Green Bay: Piri Reis pseudoscience It shows nothing credible below the bulge of Brazil. All of the claims by 282RA have been discredited, hence the lack of mention in the history books. The Waldseemuller map's depiction of a separation of the Americas from Asia was based on "Mundus Novus," attrib. Vespucci, published, among others, by the Waldseemuller group. This book showed that the Americas could not be connected to Asia. Again, much imagination has to be brought into play to arrive at the fanciful reading of the map by 282RA. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 07:55 AM (#2222649) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton I think we have a general view that civilised means we are kind and decent, or some such thing. I think it originally meant societies with public buildings and public life. The really occurs sometimes after farming had for some people replaced hunting and gathering. When farming generated enough excess to enable trading buildings and organisation were needed that is what was meant by "civilisation" - civic life. 282RA mixes a lot of more or less established facts with a lot of speculation and not much evidence. It's a shame really because the growing story of what some of us have been up to since we left Africa is the most important and exciting story I have ever read. The Ascent of Man (I Know) by Jacob Brownoski is a great starter but each year or so more and more date about DNA, language, artifacts etc tell the story of how we spread across the planet and what we did as we went. Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamnod and Out of Eden (The Peopling of the world) by Stephen Oppenheimer are excellent recent summaries of our journey. Stone Age cultures certainly created some amazing things but they are us, they are not some less developed ape like creature. When extraordinary claims are made extraordinary evidence is needed if the claims are to be accepted. So far the picture is being revealed by the careful accumulation of evidence from artifacts, language and DNA and it raelly is amazing. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 10:49 AM (#2222709) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST,282RA The Piri Reis map does not Brazil at all! It shows Patagonia in Argentina! It is out of scale but it is not the issue. Your article sets up a straw man. But the author himself is unaware of what the map shows. As for the rest of your post, you resort to the tiresome "read this book and it will explain" garbage. No. YOU explain it. What does Jared Diamond's book have to do with this discussion? I have read that one. If you want to say that this or that is wrong then explain how it is wrong. Don't say it's wrong and say, "Just read this book." If you have a case to make then make it. Right now your case is: "You're wrong because I say so." Please explain specifically what is wrong and why. We can prove everything is wrong with sweeping generalities. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 11:05 AM (#2222715) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Link Re Piri Reis, corrected. A |
|
26 Dec 07 - 12:05 PM (#2222740) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA First of all, the link given is an anti-ancient astronaut rant. That's fine. I don't believe in ancient astronauts (or aliens or UFOs, I don't even believe there is humanoid life on any other planet because the odds are greatly against it). Secondly, the link is a refutation of claims of a Cairo projection--none of which I care about. But the article also seem unaware that the map only shows a portion of South America called Patagonia. In the link below, the projecting hump jutting out into the Atlantic is the same hump seen on the Piri Reis map. Patagonia That it is out of scale with Africa is not an issue and has nothing to do with my post. What I am saying is that there can be no doubt that what is being shown is Patagonia and that what we see at the bottom are the Straits of Megellan and part of Antarctica--there's nothing else it could be. Neither the Straits nor the Antarctic continent was known by Europeans or anyone else that we know of at that time. I'm NOT saying the map is perfect. Christ, it's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and so on. It would be accurate by only a miracle. But it was all they had at that time. The subtle racism of the article is also apparent. The author is surprised that the map is Turkish. Everyone knows Turks are Muslims and Muslims are stupid compared to Europeans therefore the map is not believable. A very low blow. Besides, no one is saying Turks made the original. We don't know who made the original and that is my whole point. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 12:10 PM (#2222743) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>The Waldseemuller map's depiction of a separation of the Americas from Asia was based on "Mundus Novus," attrib. Vespucci, published, among others, by the Waldseemuller group. This book showed that the Americas could not be connected to Asia. Again, much imagination has to be brought into play to arrive at the fanciful reading of the map by 282RA.<< What is it that you think I am saying?? You've explained nothing here. I said Waldseemuller had to have gotten his info from others since the Isthmus of Panama and the Pacific off the western coast of the Americas was unknown to Europe until 1513 when Balboa discovered it. Your response is to say, "He got it from Vespucci" as though that explains anything. HOW DID VESPUCCI KNOW?? "This book showed that the Americas could not be connected to Asia." WHERE DID THEY GET THE INFORMATION?? That wasn't known until 1513!! Get it now? |
|
26 Dec 07 - 12:22 PM (#2222746) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>282RA mixes a lot of more or less established facts with a lot of speculation and not much evidence. It's a shame really because the growing story of what some of us have been up to since we left Africa is the most important and exciting story I have ever read.<< >>When extraordinary claims are made extraordinary evidence is needed if the claims are to be accepted. So far the picture is being revealed by the careful accumulation of evidence from artifacts, language and DNA and it raelly is amazing.<< WHAT "extraordinary claims" did I make? Specifically, WHAT are you taking issue with? How do you expect a detailed response if you say, "282RA makes too many wild claims without much evidence therefore he's wrong, just read these books." WHAT do you specifically disagree with?? And, more importantly, WHY? I caught this same flak on the post about the Ica stones. One poster's reasoned response was, "Hardly a year goes by when some idiot doesn't drag this up even though it's been disproven." The implication is that 282RA is an obvious idiot because he dares to question that the stones were disproven. Part of the reason just might be because THEY WERE NEVER DISPROVEN! The scientific community doesn't accept them as genuine because the subject matter is fantastic and because scientific analysis is inconclusive. THAT I can accept. That von Daniken got fooled by a provably fake one and therefore pronounced them all to be fakes is not evidence of anything and yet that was thrown in my face as inarguable evidence of fakery using as evidence a man they otherwise wouldn't give tyhe time of day to. I don't mind debating this, in fact, I enjoy it because it's funny to watch debunkers squirm. So the debunkers' response is to level utterly general, non-specific allegations of disagreement with what I'm saying for the purpose then eliminating any chance of my coming back with specific responses. You're supposed to be skeptics. You could at least put on an act of objectivity. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 12:42 PM (#2222758) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton 282 RA, I think the point I tried to make was that study of who we are, where we have been and what we have done is a detailed part of academic study. Study based on the collection and analysis of evidence from many sources which is published and open to peer review. Peer Review enables all those with an interest and expertise to examine and challenge hypotheses as they are generated. When somebody suggests that people had maps that show Antarctica, and that it was hot, we are entitled to some pretty detailed and strong evidence because all the other evidence points to a 19C first discovery of an Antarctica covered in ice. Your evidence is neither detailed nor strong. Cheers Les |
|
26 Dec 07 - 01:02 PM (#2222766) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: wysiwyg How old is civilization? Clearly, not old enough. I think the more pressing question is, "How old is civilization going to GET?" ~S~ |
|
26 Dec 07 - 01:19 PM (#2222773) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos 282RA: I don't think it shows Patagonia very well. It appears to assert that the coast of South America blends into the landmass of Antarctica -- or else that there is some unknown, assumed massif at the bottom of the world for balance. In the link which I corrected, above, the analysis of why the map is not a good one seems to be quite detailed and specific. A |
|
26 Dec 07 - 01:53 PM (#2222785) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bonzo3legs What pray is BCE? surely you mean BC. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 01:58 PM (#2222790) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton True enough but Before the Common Era is common usage |
|
26 Dec 07 - 02:28 PM (#2222812) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Thanks, Amos, for helping the computer-feeble with the link to the Piri Reis map. The development of 'western civilization' is outlined in Stearns, "World Civilizations: The Global Experience," online: Stearns World Civilizations It lacks an up-to-date survey of Asian cultures. The Chinese were farming some 8000 years ago; by 6000 years ago characters for a written language were created. Bronze smelting in China is dated back to some 4000 years ago. Records of the Shang Dynasty date back to 1600 years BC. A good beginning site for ancient archaeology, with many links, is: |
|
26 Dec 07 - 02:33 PM (#2222815) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos I think Q wanted to say, "A good beginning site for ancient archaeology, with many links, is: Asian archaeology . A |
|
26 Dec 07 - 02:36 PM (#2222816) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) How did this get cut off? The Mudcat bogey, perhaps? Asian archaeology Many useful links here to interesting subjects on different civilizations. The history of world cultures is a fascinating subject that does not need to be embellished with speculative fantasies. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 02:38 PM (#2222818) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) You beat me to it, Amos. Thanks again. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 02:49 PM (#2222823) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Q: The flaw was an incomplete quotes pair. A |
|
26 Dec 07 - 04:39 PM (#2222872) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>I think the point I tried to make was that study of who we are, where we have been and what we have done is a detailed part of academic study. Study based on the collection and analysis of evidence from many sources which is published and open to peer review. Peer Review enables all those with an interest and expertise to examine and challenge hypotheses as they are generated.<< I'm not writing a frigging Ph.D. thesis, for god's sake. I'm pointing out some anomalies in our histories that aren't explained very well or aren't explained at all. >>When somebody suggests that people had maps that show Antarctica, and that it was hot, we are entitled to some pretty detailed and strong evidence because all the other evidence points to a 19C first discovery of an Antarctica covered in ice.<< I mentioned two maps: one which looks like part of Antarctica is showing and other that is Antarctica and it has its own projection and looks surprisingly like the actual Antarctica which is pretty good considering they had no idea if anything was really there. The Fine map is clearly not depicting a counterland since counterlands were only for decor. Therefore, it is a perfectly fair question to ask how Fine came by the information from which he made his map and where he got it from. Your answer appears to be that he was just funning around but it certainly doesn't look to me like he was funning around. Nor is the Fine map the only one to show Antarctica bereft of ice. The Buache map does also and it also shows Antarctica as fragmented which it actually is according to geological data. These maps DESERVE some consideration. Your scientific method consists of "Nobody could have done it so it isn't so." There's something more to it than that. >>Your evidence is neither detailed nor strong.<< You seem to think I'm presenting some air-tight case that can't be argued with when, in fact, I am presenting items that don't fit comfortably into our histories and bear serious investigation into their origins. If you dont find it compelling, that's fine. But your reasons are amazingly dismissive: "It couldn't happen because it doesn't fit our histories so it didn't happen and your evidence that it did is flimsy." It's not much evidence surely but it is enough to merit a serious investigation. The data for those maps came from somewhere and it wasn't a contemporary source, so what is it? Not that people like you could ever be expected to conduct a porper investigation into it since you've obviously already made up your mind. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 04:59 PM (#2222879) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>I don't think it shows Patagonia very well.<< Quite the contrary, it shows Patagonia amazingly well considering how corrupted it is. If not, then perhaps you could tell me what it is showing. Don't say the coast of Brazil. It looks FAR more like Patagonia than the coast of Brazil. >>It appears to assert that the coast of South America blends into the landmass of Antarctica -- or else that there is some unknown, assumed massif at the bottom of the world for balance.<< It's not blended in. It's showing what looks to be pack ice. The Sandwich Islands appear there too although they are not at the right longitude but, again, this map is a copy of a copy, etc, so obviously mistakes will get made. After all, we don't know what kind of chronometers if any that the original voyagers had. You seem to dismiss it because it's not perfect. Christ, Megellan USED a copy of it to find the straits (which demonstrates that it IS showing those straits). Obviously, it worked well enough. The question is, who did the original and when? >>In the link which I corrected, above, the analysis of why the map is not a good one seems to be quite detailed and specific.<< It's detailed but it's a waste of time. The map depicts Patagonia and it is being shown way out of scale with Africa. What more proof do you need that it's not an accurate map?? Slam dunk. But then I'm just an embellishing fool, so what do I know? |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:05 PM (#2222882) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>The Chinese were farming some 8000 years ago; by 6000 years ago characters for a written language were created. Bronze smelting in China is dated back to some 4000 years ago. Records of the Shang Dynasty date back to 1600 years BC.<< But they couldn't have been making maps or anything. That would be nothing more than speculative embellishment. They left that to the white man because obviously they weren't smart enough to do it themselves. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:16 PM (#2222888) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Captain Ginger Amos, if all your countrymen were like you then there would be considerable cause for hope. However... |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:34 PM (#2222896) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Enough, already. If one wants tales, 1001 Nights is more entertaining. Chinese not smart? First seismograph, gunpowder, magnetic compass, movable type, abacus, porcelain, paper, paper money, whiskey, chess, etc., etc. And maps exist from the Han Dynasty onwards. |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:50 PM (#2222902) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA The Buache map of 1739: http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i181/merrypranxter/buache.jpg Here is what an About.com article had to say: "Buache's map of 1739 is a combination of three basic factors. European explorers and geographers had been convinced for many years that a great southern continent existed, and representations are present on many maps; it would have been unusual not to find one on Buache's. Secondly, the 1739 map illustrates a procedure that Bauche followed for much of his life - charting and understanding the first-hand reports of sailors. Finally, the map reveals the early stage of one of Buache's conclusions. In 1763 the Gentleman's Magazine, a journal famous in the 18th century, published 'Geographical and Physical Observations, including a Theory of the Antarctic Regions, and the frozen Sea which they are supposed to contain, according to the Hypothesis of the celebrated M. Buache'. In this he explained his ideas, that in order to produce huge icebergs the Southern pole must contain a frozen sea, fed by vast mountain ranges and rivers. The large central basin shown on his 1739 map is a precursor to this idea." Let's read that second sentence again: "European explorers and geographers had been convinced for many years that a great southern continent existed, and representations are present on many maps; it would have been unusual not to find one on Buache's." So the contention that earlier maps did not show a true Antarctica but merely a counterland are not true. Now Buache's map may not contain anything mysterious in the sense that we are using it in this thread and perhaps the Piri Reis map doesn't either but the next sentence reads: "Secondly, the 1739 map illustrates a procedure that Bauche [sic] followed for much of his life - charting and understanding the first-hand reports of sailors." So sailors had seen glimpses of Antarctica prior to 1819. So, then, the question remains concerning the Piri Reis map. Even if it was produced the way Buache produced his map, what sailors did the cartographer talk to and when? |
|
26 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM (#2222903) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: 282RA >>Chinese not smart? First seismograph, gunpowder, magnetic compass, movable type, abacus, porcelain, paper, paper money, whiskey, chess, etc., etc. And maps exist from the Han Dynasty onwards.<< Obviously, you're wrong. Only the white man could have sailed the globe and made maps of it. Everyone else is too stupid. If that were not true, we'd have to revise our histories and everybody knows that we already know everything about our history that there is to know. Isn't that right? |
|
26 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM (#2222944) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Richard Bridge Civilisation died in the 70s. Its corpse was mutilated by Thatcher, Reagan, and the current unspeakable Bush. This desecration was glorified by Blair and Brown. |
|
27 Dec 07 - 05:59 AM (#2223096) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton two arguments seem to be going on here: 1. Who is has been civilised in the sense of fair and just - well not the ruling classes of Europe as the rushed off and shared out the world for explotation 2. Some old maps may show that somebody new about the world before some others. Is that about it 282AR? |
|
27 Dec 07 - 09:16 AM (#2223160) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: The Fooles Troupe Civilisation is claimed to be many thousands of years old, but I can assure you that it is still only skin deep. Evidence: 1) any pub after a dozen beers... |
|
27 Dec 07 - 09:20 AM (#2223163) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: The Fooles Troupe 2) any long running Mudcat BS thread... |
|
27 Dec 07 - 03:15 PM (#2223326) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Foolestroupe nailed it , post 27 Dec 07- 09:16AM Dictionaries give two meanings to civilized; one relating to technology, which seemed to be the intent of this thread, and the other: the refinement of thought, manners, taste, the exercise of restraint and tolerance; to acquire the customs and amenities of a civil community. This the earlier meaning, beloved of dreamers. Perhaps in a few thousand more years and with further evolution, but at its present developmental level the Human Species does not have the genetic construction necessary for overall civility, tolerance or cooperation. |
|
27 Dec 07 - 04:25 PM (#2223367) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth And now it's a matter of hoping that we don't wipe ourselves out with the technological aspects of civilization before we manage to achieve "the refinement of thought, manners, taste, the exercise of restraint and tolerance; to acquire the customs and amenities of a civil community." I fear that humanity is walking on very thin ice—and some folks are stomping! Don Firth |
|
27 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM (#2223421) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Gurney First define civilisation. Most posts are about exploration or organisation. Might as well try to define folk music. I'm with Les in Chorlton. |
|
27 Dec 07 - 07:05 PM (#2223443) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton Thanks Gurney, please join us in the Beech on Beech Road 2nd Jan for a singaround of mostly but not exclusively traditional songs? Les |
|
27 Dec 07 - 07:40 PM (#2223457) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Donuel 10,000 year old stone civilizations are evident on every continent save for Antarctica. However I do believe that maps of Antarctica without its ice did exist 500 years ago. Most mounded cities were built to defend against floods. 70,000 year old beach civilizations of modern man sang acapella around campfires as we do today. I believe there were highly cultured civilations 23,000 years ago but their technology was limited to heat driven engineering using stone and wood such as heat driven ram pumps which are extraordinarily clever. I see no evidence of metal alloys or whimsical notions of magic Atlantean power crystals 15,000 years ago but I am willing to suspend disbelief if Niven or Asimov used it as a ploot device. |
|
27 Dec 07 - 08:40 PM (#2223483) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Charley Noble And most likely the great Chinese fleets explored the entire world, not just the Indian Ocean and the coast of East Africa. What amazing vessels they had! It's rather a shame that the sponsoring Emperor died and whoever succeeded him had no interest in the world outside of mainland China. Well, it's a shame if you believe that the world would be a better place today if China had established a world empire in 1400. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
27 Dec 07 - 09:35 PM (#2223503) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Too bad Admiral Cheng Ho's sailors didn't leave a few songs behind- maybe they had a few chanteys. And think of all of the 'social interaction' when they went ashore at Zanzibar. Son of a gun! |
|
28 Dec 07 - 04:03 AM (#2223575) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton Where does this come from: However I do believe that maps of Antarctica without its ice did exist 500 years ago. Can someone say when Antarctica last had no ice? Surely it was a long time before people of any kind were about. |
|
28 Dec 07 - 01:12 PM (#2223784) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Maps of Antarctica without ice are imaginings. This website points out some of the difficulties encountered when one tries to interpret the map of 'Terra Australis' as drawn by Orontius Finaeus (Oronce Fine). Orontius Finaeus Antarctica became fully covered with ice some 25 million years ago, during the Miocene Era. The ice melted and advanced several times during the Pliocene Era (2-7 million years ago). Homo sapiens appeared sometime between 50-200 thousand years ago; the continent remained ice-covered during that time span. Look up 'Antarctica Geological Time Line' in Google if you are interested. This website provides an introduction. |
|
28 Dec 07 - 03:55 PM (#2223902) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee I think you can start figuring the age of civilization tomorrow, around 10 a.m. |
|
28 Dec 07 - 10:04 PM (#2224086) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Donuel ooooooooold maps http://www.sacred-texts.com/piri/index.htm |
|
28 Dec 07 - 10:25 PM (#2224095) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee The fact that folks could draw maps and even may well have voyaged to places like NA and SA, the Antarctic, the Bering Strait, and various islands is hardly surprising. We have to face it: neither Columbus nor the Vikings "discovered" anything -- folks were already there and even had some pretty good "civilizations" going (e.g. Chaco, Cahokia Mounds, the Olmec). What I suspect, but cannot find proof of, is that the Anasazi and the Cahokian cultures engaged in trade. I would find it surprising if they did not, given the trade routes which have been proven to exist in Pre-Columbian NA. |
|
29 Dec 07 - 12:46 AM (#2224128) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) As noted above, the Anasazi were the ancestral pueblo Indians. They traded with the Aztecs, and even mined turquoise for them, especially from the Cerrillos area of northern New Mexico. The great drought of c. 1100-1200 that affected their sites (Chaco, etc.) forced them to move to the Rio Grande valley and elsewhere. A rather peculiar theory traces the growth and development at Chaco to its monopoly of the Cerrillos turquoise and the trade with Mesoamerica, and its fall to the development of other sources. This theory ignores the role of drought and severe fluctuations in rainfall. Obsidian was widely traded in North America; spectrographically identified specimens from Oregon have been found in New Mexico and elsewhere; Central American obsidian has been found in New Mexico-Arizona. Macaw feathers were found in Anasazi sites. I would not doubt some contact with Cahokian and other more eastern cultures, but my knowledge of the recent archaeological literature is miniscule. Little known are tribes who specialized in trade, like the one from Texas described by Kelly, that could cover at least a third of the United States in a season (Washington state to Texas Gulf coast). There is absolutely no evidence, archaeological or cultural, of any extra-continental contact by or with American cultures prior to the failed Icelandic-Viking attempt at settlement. The Aleuts may have been late-comers, reaching Alaska from Asia by following coastal waters, but timing uncertain. |
|
29 Dec 07 - 09:39 AM (#2224255) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger And Kennewick Man came from...? |
|
29 Dec 07 - 10:05 AM (#2224276) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee Now, it's only my suspicion, but I kinda suspect that folks drifted around. From a North polar perspective there are quite a few islands (many inhabited) between NA and Europe -- it wouldn't have been difficult to journey from one to the other even before the Vikings. Journeying down a coastline in a boat is easier than walking.... Mitochondrial DNA analysis might help here, as would underwater examination of now-flooded potential coastal campsites (which is being done). |
|
29 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM (#2224438) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth Kennewick Man Found on the banks of the Columbia River in Columbia Park, just north of the city of Kennewick, south of Richland/Hanford. I've been there, indeed, during a hydroplane race on the Columbia River while I was working for a radio station in the area, for about a year, 1972-73. Kennewick Man's remains currently reside in the Burke Museum on the University of Washington campus (a ten minute drive from where I live). Kennewick Man lived around 9,300 years ago, and DNA testing has shown that he was Caucasian, not "Indian" (Native American), which means that he (or his ancestors) were not of the same stock as those who came across the Bering Sea land or ice bridge as, it is assumed, the ancestors of Native Americans did. It has also been recently established that, although the "Clovis Point" cultures probably did cross the Bering Sea, not all of them did. Clovis Points (stone spear and arrow points) have also been found in Europe very early on, and anthropologists are currently attempting to reconstruct how Europeans may have come to the Americas. Epic sea voyages in small boats? Crossing the Arctic Sea ice? Many people, upon seeing the reconstruction of Kennewick Man's face, have remarked on his resemblance to Captain Jean-Luc Picard. I doubt, however, that Kennewick Man was necessarily a space voyager. Don Firth |
|
29 Dec 07 - 02:07 PM (#2224449) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth Geographical correction: Columbia Park is not actually north of Kennewick, it is west-northwest of Kennewick. The hydroplane races ("The Atomic Cup") were held WNW of the 240/395 bridge across the Columbia River. Columbia Park is the location of the pits, and it provides the best vantage point (except for sitting at home in front of your own television set) for watching the races. It was a couple of spectators at one of these races who discovered a skull, and that's when the whole thing started. Don Firth |
|
29 Dec 07 - 02:29 PM (#2224467) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Kennewick man is not yet completely investigated, but the 'Caucasian' interpretation is rejected. This paper from the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) explains how a native group is thwarting studies. Kennewick man controversy I understand that the remains have not yet been released for additional study and are still the subject of Court actions. Without further peer and controlled laboratory studies, the studies linked below are the best available. The conclusions of one investigative team, Powell and Rose, 1999, Chapter 2 of the National Park Service summary of results, are: The age assigned is accepted (see results of the radiologic team). There is no study of native Americans showing changes from c. 9000 years ago to c. 1000 years ago, so the relationship postulated by the tribes (and the radiologic team) cannot be verified. The bones suggest relations to the earliest Americans studied (remains from the Great Basin), the Ainu, and southeast Asian remains. There is nothing to suggest relationships to 'caucasoids' from Europe. No reliable DNA results were obtained (Chapter 5)- fossilization and contamination defeat current procedures. The National Parks Service Archaeology Program on the remains: Kennewick Man |
|
29 Dec 07 - 02:37 PM (#2224472) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Try again on the AAAS paper: http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/per14.htm Kennewick controversy |
|
29 Dec 07 - 03:38 PM (#2224518) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth Thank you for the up-date, Q. I was going on the initial reports that came out. Just for kicks, I may head up to the Burke Museun and chat with the folks a bit. Don Firth |
|
29 Dec 07 - 04:58 PM (#2224557) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth AH! But it turns out that the AAAS up-date linked to was from 1998, and the National Park Service from 2004. So I went hunting. The most recent information I have been able to find out about Kennewick Man is that the judgment that he was Caucasian was based mainly on resemblance. The attempted DNA analysis was inconclusive, and that being allowed to extract conclusively examinable DNA samples from the remains (if, indeed, possible) is one of the legal controversies. Current theories do not totally reject the idea that he might be Caucasian, but now include the suggestions that he may be Polynesian or related to the Ainu. There also seems to be a certain smell of politics involved in the legal hassles. Native American tribes are seemingly not fond of the idea that they may not have been the first settlers of the area, and would rather take the remains away from the scientists before thorough study and simply re-bury them. I haven't heard the latest legal decisions yet, if any. I may just check with the museum to see what they can tell me. Don Firth |
|
29 Dec 07 - 05:30 PM (#2224580) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Native Americans could be descendants of the Great Basin - Kennewick types- 9000 years with no connecting links could encompass physical change. Kennewick is not the only one of its type. It's been a while since I read anything on Great Basin remains, which seem to be similar. I put the AAAS paper in because the tribes have been making more noises. NAGPRA notes indicated more court representations last year, but I have passed them on to my daughter. No idea of status as of today since the notes are printed some 6 months or more after the fact. Put NAGPRA into google and some late information may come up. The Great Basin tribes may complicate research on remains from the Great Basin area. See Nagpra Great Basin The problem is that most tribes look on all early remains within the U. S. and Hawai'i as their ancestral property, and pay little attention to scientific investigations of the remains. |
|
29 Dec 07 - 06:42 PM (#2224607) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee Arlington Springs Woman dates from 13,000 - 13,500 BP. |
|
29 Dec 07 - 08:11 PM (#2224645) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Arlington, Kennewick, Great Basin, etc. finds are valuable in that they help in the quest for the first peopling of the Americas. They provide no help to the identification of early civilizations. Australian artifacts dated to 50,000 years ago, and their location, suggest migration by boat. The Siberia-Alaska corridor is just one of the routes by which people could come to the Americas. |
|
30 Dec 07 - 03:17 PM (#2225046) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee The more I think about this question the more I want to say, "It should be old enough to know better, but it ain't." |
|
30 Dec 07 - 11:37 PM (#2225279) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger I thought I saw a program on public television where some folks found remains similar to Kennewich Man in Ohio. |
|
31 Dec 07 - 12:15 PM (#2225593) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST,Tunesmith It's amazing that anyone takes the claims of the native Americans seriously! Can you imagine anyone of Celtic origin - or whatever - laying claim to a 9000 year old skeleton dug up somewhere in the UK? |
|
31 Dec 07 - 12:18 PM (#2225596) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger I think it has something to do with provisions of treaties that were enacted, and the broken, and then broken, and then broken, and.... Until the few rights that are left to the natives become very dear and perhaps overly protected. |
|
31 Dec 07 - 01:30 PM (#2225652) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton True enough Riginslinger. I think the other problem is how the secular world reacts to religious demands. I think we generally accept them if they don't matter much and the faith inquestion is a bit powerful. So male circumcision is accepted but, and quiet rightly, female circumcision is not. |
|
31 Dec 07 - 02:02 PM (#2225674) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST,Slag Great post, great thread 282RA (Right Ascension?). The right question Q, how do you define civilization? Aside from all the regionally motivated quips, civilization is as old as mankind and seems to have its roots in innate mammal/animal behaviors, i.e. cooperation for survival. It may even go back as far as specie recognition! What an infinitely marvelous thing Life is! The degree of sophistication so early on in human development indicates a transforming point shift that became modern man. That alteration in nature has not yet seen its fulfillment and what it ultimately means is still before us. Will it end in disaster? Or a gradual shift to a new evolution? Can't say. Arthur Clarke and other writers of the Sci Fi genre have dealt with this theme for many years. Good thread. I hope to study this further when I return to my own machine. |
|
31 Dec 07 - 02:40 PM (#2225697) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton Ok it's 31 December here in Manchester so I'd go for: 1. Public buildings for public use, the original meaning. 2. Everyone counts as one and none for more than one, a continued negotiated democracy and social justice and wealth shared on the basis of work. All to be achieved: 1. In 2008 2. When this pub closes! Have a good one Les in Chorlton |
|
01 Jan 08 - 11:46 AM (#2226177) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Folk Form # 1 Well, England, as we know it, was formed between 500 to 700 AD. So, I guess civilization is about 1300 years old. I am glad I haqve sorted this out. |
|
01 Jan 08 - 02:45 PM (#2226293) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) The Romans introduced civilization to England. Did they take it back with them when they left? Heading for cover |
|
01 Jan 08 - 04:22 PM (#2226345) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger It's hard to know. There reported to have left civilization in Ireland, and look what's developed there. |
|
02 Jan 08 - 04:42 AM (#2226557) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton I think "Civilisation" was a live and well in Britain when the Romans arrived. Didn't they build roads so they could ship wealth back to Rome? |
|
02 Jan 08 - 03:17 PM (#2226894) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth Dick Cheney spotted Civilization tip-toeing down a hall in the White House, and he grabbed it by the scruff of the neck and locked it in a closet. Don Firth |
|
02 Jan 08 - 03:26 PM (#2226905) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos "By far the oldest possibly accurate historical reference on Earth prior to our present century is found in two Stelae at Quirigua: Stela D Stela F According to Morley, Brainerd, and Sharer, on page 559 of The Ancient Maya, 4th ed, Stanford (1983), Stela D describes a date of 400,000,000 years ago, which is about when North America and Europe began to collide with Gondwanaland (including Africa) to form Pangaea (and the Appalachian Mountains), while Stela F describes a date of 90,000,000 years ago, which is about when the breakup of Pangaea had advanced to the point at which the North Atlantic Ocean was formed. Much more recently, during the last Ice Age, Mesoamerica was a good place to live. The earliest known civilization in Mesoamerica was the Olmec. " See further exposition and images of the Stelae on this page. A |
|
02 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM (#2226918) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Also from the above web site: In Nature 405 (4 MAY 2000) 65-69, Walter et al report: "... the 'out of Africa' hypothesis contends that modern humans evolved in Africa between 200 and 100 kyr ago, migrating to Eurasia at some later time ... the discovery of early Middle Stone Age artefacts in an emerged reef terrace on the Red Sea coast of Eritrea, which we date to the last interglacial (about 125 kyr ago) ... this is the earliest well-dated evidence for human adaptation to a coastal marine environment, heralding an expansion in the range and complexity of human behaviour from one end of Africa to the other. This new, widespread adaptive strategy may, in part, signal the onset of modern human behaviour, which supports an African origin for modern humans by 125 kyr ago. ...". (Image is from News and Views article in Nature 405 (4 MAY 2000) 24-27.) |
|
02 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM (#2226928) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos From another site, the following summary of early civilizations (depending on definition): "Homo habilis , a maker and user of crude stone tools, appeared no earlier than 2.5 million years ago ( the earliest evidence of tool use). Fossils of this species span 750,000 years (at least 500,000 years)! Little physical change took place during this period, suggesting a successful and enduring species. The main features of the transition from Australopithecines to H. habilis are the use of tools and an enlarged braincase (700 cc). Physical features of H. habilis are almost identical to those of A. afarensis , showing that the primitive apelike characteristics served well for the role of this creature in nature for a very long time. H. habilis shows a sulcal pattern in the left frontal lobe, so H. habilis had at least the beginnings of speech. Homo erectus arose in Africa about 1.6 to 1.8 and maybe even 2 million years ago. Fossil remains of H. erectus found in Bed II of the Olduvian Gorge are about 1.2 million years old. With the evolution of H. erectus , their tools became more standardised indicating improved communication and cognition between individuals. Changes in tool design were remarkably slow. This technology reached southwestern Asia by 1.2 million years ago and East Asia by 0.7 to 1 million years ago. By 500,000 years ago the Acheulean technology (click to see image of Acheulean tools. These are hand axes used by H. erectus) ©1 had spread throughout Europe. This technology was never used in Eastern Asia, where other materials, such as bamboo may have been more popular. By 500,000 years ago brain volumes and dentition of Old World H. erectus populations had attained modern levels and by 250,000 years ago the species had disappeared. The earliest Australian stone industries of perhaps 40,000 years ago, are similar to the Southeast Asian technology of the late Pleistocene. Homo erectus heidelbergensis appears to provide the transition between more primitive Homo erectus and Neanderthals and modern humans. The evolution of the former occurred well before that of modern humans from this ancestral species. All hominid remains of the last 100,000 years belong to either H. sapiens neanderthalensis or H. sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals were hunter-gatherers who moved across Europe with the advance and retreat of the Ice Age glaciers. They were adapted to the cold northern climate and flourished during a warmer interglacial period between 200,000 and 30,000 years ago. Fossil remains provide evidence that they moved in small groups possibly occupying areas seasonally and subsisted by hunting big-game such as reindeer. Animal bones found with Neanderthal remains are mostly cold adapted species such as reindeer, arctic fox, lemming and mammoth. Anthropologists classify Neanderthal tools as Mousterian . Early humans also used these tools, such as hand-axes, scrapers, borers, knives and points of stone. They are found beyond the Neanderthal range and associated with non-Neanderthal fossils. Neanderthal tools, evolved little during their history, and they did not use bone, antler or ivory. They may have used wood and regularly used fire. Why they did not make tools from their prey is unexplained. The oldest modern human remains outside Africa, from Qafzeh in the Middle East may be as old as 100,000 years and those from Mount Carmel in Israel, 80,000 years old, but humans only flourished at the time of the extinction of the Neanderthals around 35,000 years ago. Migrants, which colonised the rest of the world, left Africa between 90,000 and 180,000 years ago, and reached China by 68,000 years ago, Australia by at least 50,000 years ago, and Europe by 36,000 years ago. Evidence from Human remains of the Upper Paleolithic (40,000 y.a.) shows that, by this time, humans were skilful hunters. They hunted horses, bison and reindeer. " |
|
02 Jan 08 - 11:37 PM (#2227175) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: GUEST,Cluin "How old is civilization? " I'll click the stopwatch on when we get some. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 07:32 AM (#2227317) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger One can't help but think they'll find more information about Europe. It would seem much easier to get to Europe from Africa than to Austrailia. And what about the Neanderthals? Wouldn't it seem like some humanoid nomads went to Europe much earlier, and then got trapped there by an ice age, or something? Otherwise, one would have to think they orginated and evolved separately in Europe, without any roots back to the original species. That seems like a real stretch to me. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 09:09 AM (#2227358) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Neanderthals occupied Europe throughout the Ice Age, I believe. As did early homo sapiens during the recession. Could be wrong about particulars, though... A |
|
03 Jan 08 - 09:23 AM (#2227371) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee Civilization, said Toynebee (I think it was), is like a large city, replete with art and museums and cathedrals and universities and libraries, which sits beside a riverbed. A trickle of blood constantly flows down the riverbed and sometimes the river overflows. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 10:29 AM (#2227440) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger "As did early homo sapiens during the recession." Is this the Reagan recession we're talking about? I thought he was older than that. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 10:32 AM (#2227444) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos I meant the recession of the ice, but maybe it was as late as the Reagan recession. :D A |
|
03 Jan 08 - 11:05 AM (#2227467) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Big Mick Interesting thread, but some just cannot help but use it to take shots at the US. But there is a nugget of something in their criticisms. The Americas had civilization long before the Europeans, including my ancestors, came and screwed it all up. The original posts did point out some things from my home area that I have always found interesting. In my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan there is an exhibit in the Museum, of the People of the Three Fires (Chippewa, Ottawa, and Pottawottami). There are examples of Pre-Columbian trade items that were excavated from local archeological sites. One of the pieces of beadwork included bits of abalone shell that would have come from the Gulf of Mexico areas, or even the West Coast. This was pointed out to me by the Museum Director at the time, Mr. Weldon Frankfurter. Just as the copper examples cited in the opening suggest a widespread continental trading system, so does this. I am but a layman, and make no claims to being able to explain this, other than to say that Mr. Frankfurter gave it to me of an example of a trade network. This surely would indicate the presence of civilization. We have a series of Indian Mounds along the Grand River which are now protected. Mick |
|
03 Jan 08 - 11:25 AM (#2227487) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton The study of what people did early on is amazing with more and more genuine scientific evidence cropping up all the time. In fact evidence from genes, remains and language is growing much faster than daft ideas from the fringe. "The Americas had civilization long before the Europeans, including my ancestors, came and screwed it all up." I guess people have said this before but their is often an assumption on the part of some Europeans that "Americans" screwed things up, when of course the Screwing up was done essentially by "Europeans" who had gone to America. The "Beachcomber Hypothesis" is very strong. That we left Africa to get to Arabia when the sea was low and traveled along beaches taking food from the seas pretty well all the way to Australia. This is supported by genetic, archaeology and language studies. Clearly various groups went north and east. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 11:49 AM (#2227510) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Little Hawk My guess is that complex civilizations have existed on this planet so long prior to the time most people now think they did, that they would fall down in utter astonishment if they found out about what really has gone before. Maybe as far as 35,000 years back. Maybe 50,000 years back. Maybe even 500,000 years back. But that's just my best guess. It remains sheer conjecture. I very much doubt that people will ever get it all figured out or even half figured out. I think what we know now is just fragments of all that has gone before. Every age has had its ruling set of "informed" authority figures at the top of the society who thought they had it pretty well all figured out. They didn't, they don't now, and they won't in the future, in my opinion....but that's not to say it's not worth continuing to investigate and gather further fragments of information to add to our existing body of knowledge, assumption, and conjecture. It's a very interesting matter, if one keeps an open mind and is prepared to admit one might not know it all. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 11:59 AM (#2227525) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger One can't help buy wonder if what were are finding now was discovered as being something ancient at some point in the past, achived, and then lost again. If there was some way to keep what has been learned for all time, we wouldn't have to keep reinventing the wheel. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 12:34 PM (#2227556) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton Evidence of all sorts is growing day by day. People like us have been around for about 200,000 years. The move from farming to gathering and hunting seems to be crucial. People who gather and hunt don't have many things and so don't leave much behind. Farming is settled and comes in in a number of places in the last 20,000 years but I will have to check that. All the "great" "civilisations" (in terns of public buildings and public life)were built on the wealth from farming. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 02:24 PM (#2227642) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee There IS an invention of humanity's that CAN keep us from re-inventing the wheel, from making the same mistakes over and over and over. It was invented way back BCE. But people ignore it, or find it too much work, to really USE a library. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 03:16 PM (#2227673) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Little Hawk Ah, yes, libraries. Shane has used those to sleep in overnight now and then...when other facilities were temporarily lacking, due to eviction or various legal problems that happened to arise for some reason at the time, and the weather was just too damn cold outside for the usual emergency measures. Life just isn't kind to some people, but the library is there so that those people still have somewhere to go. Shane thanks you, Rapaire. |
|
03 Jan 08 - 04:05 PM (#2227718) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Well, yes and no. WHile there is enough historical information to provide raw data on failures of the past, the ability to weigh importances correctly and trace sequential consequences through time accurately, and overcome fixed ideas and dig up data omitted here and there in order to build a better understanding --- all these important skills may not be on those stacks. Look how long it takes to train a good librarian!! Let alone a full-blown analytical thinker! A |
|
03 Jan 08 - 04:21 PM (#2227736) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Little Hawk "Look how long it takes to train a good librarian!!" Yeah, eh? Like... Fifteen minutes? Or a couple of days? Ha! Just trying to bug you, Rapaire. ;-) |
|
03 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM (#2227755) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos I think you have been forgetting to wear your teapot too often of late, good Hawk... A |
|
03 Jan 08 - 07:00 PM (#2227844) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee Problem is, by the time they're GOOD they're read and quite willing to retire. Never again to put up with a snotty brat who whines "But what do you meeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaan nobody's written up the evolution of the raccoon?" or a snooty broad who shouts "WADDA MEAN I OWE FOUR DOLLARS?! I PAY YOUR SALARY!!" or faculty members who check out materials and NEVER EVER return them or the members of the Great Unwashed who decide to change their status to the Washed in the library's restroom or.... The was, long ago, a time when libraries and librarians (and the literate in general) were accorded high status and were, in fact, often associated with temples. Right.... |
|
03 Jan 08 - 09:48 PM (#2227937) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Don Firth A library should be—in fact, is—a sacred place. One of the greatest tragedies—and atrocities—in history was the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria. We can only estimate what was lost, but we know it was immense. Many of the cultural works and much of the wisdom of the world up to that point. A library is the memory of a society, and much more. They should be regarded as temples. Symptoms of both civilization and lack thereof are often to be found in libraries While many folks are researching, studying, learning, or just enjoying a good read, there's some guy over in the corner peeing in the rubber plant. Don Firth |
|
03 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM (#2227939) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos I think there must be a song in there somewhere, Don. Peeing in the Library's Pot ... it has a certain je ne sais quoi, don't you agree? As to the Templearity of Libraries, I can only concur. For some of the most passionate paeans to libraries ever written, I recommend Ray Bradbury. A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 01:46 AM (#2228009) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Stephen L. Rich How old is civilization? Old enough to know better. Stephen Lee |
|
04 Jan 08 - 04:07 AM (#2228032) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Gurney On the subject of artifacts pointing toward trade: how does that assumption work? Our local museum has plenty of things made in other countries. They used to belong to old soldiers, and the price paid was in blood, because they belonged to other soldiers first. Who didn't become old. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 04:45 AM (#2228044) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton Good point, and trade isn't always between equals |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:01 AM (#2228168) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Big Mick The difference, Arnie, is that these artifacts that I describe were Pre-Columbian. It is a fair assumption, I would think, when one finds Michigan copper in areas far removed from Michigan in the Americas, and also finds objects that are not native to the area, such as abalone shell, that they were traded. Even if it were souvenirs from armed conflict, these are pre-Columbian artifacts. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM (#2228179) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee Exactly, Mick. Michigan copper has, I believe, been found in Chaco sites in the Southwest. Abalone from the West Coast definitely has. The pre-Columbian peoples no more existed in isolated communities than did those in Europe or Asia. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:36 AM (#2228254) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos And even if the artifacts were taken by force it still represents a huge network of interactions about which we have no real recorded history, connecting many tribal sectors of the Americas prior to the Spanish invasion. A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:42 AM (#2228262) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton When things are traded over long distances it could well be that the people at each end do not know of each other. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM (#2228300) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger Was Ronald Reagan neaderthal or cromagnum? |
|
04 Jan 08 - 12:13 PM (#2228335) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Big Mick Les...... do most traders and end users know each other? The point is that one of the hallmarks of civilization is a trading network. For these things to show up in such disparate regions, and the Michigan location is just one of many, then there must have been a network. Refer back to the original question. I don't understand what your contention is. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 12:34 PM (#2228345) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos TRade among neighboring groups is surely one of the hallmarks of civilization, also -- the rising up of something more important that smashing skulls and stealing food from neighbors. A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM (#2228425) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton I think my minor suggestion is that although trading neighbours will know each other, goods could be traded on and on to a point where the final recipients might have no knowledge of the origin of the goods. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM (#2228429) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Amos Sure, they may not. I am not sure if this changes the picture much, though. A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM (#2228482) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Les in Chorlton I guess it depends on what picture you are imagining. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 08:08 PM (#2228677) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Gurney Amos, the point I was making is that stuff moving about is not necessarily a sign of trade, but may be just as likely a sign of raiding. It would be nice to think that there were peaceful guys dealing about the world, trading in polished jet and shell and bronze, but much of history shows more a mindset of 'He got it, me want it, smack!' No way to tell now, of course. I suspect early settlers weren't delicate, self-effacing people, any of them. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 08:14 PM (#2228681) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Big Mick Gurney .... that is the point. For this many examples to show up around the Pre-Columbian world, whether through conflict, trade, or some combination of the two, indicates civilization. I don't believe that the European model of civilization is the first, or only valid one. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:00 PM (#2228704) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee My brother has a housefull of stuff made in various places which has ended up in Central Illinois. He also has some stuff he got in Vietnam, among it an AK-47 rifle, a lamp used in the VC tunnels, and other war "souvenirs." My other brother has a Huk beheading sword he got in the Philipines and a Siberian wolf skin he got in Thailand -- while in the Air Farce. If you excavate their houses you might wonder about, say, the wolf skin or the Montagnard crossbow. But...it proves a connection, in some way, with another culture. As far as I know, neither brother has been in Siberia.... |
|
02 Dec 08 - 09:58 PM (#2506473) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Many years ago, i had a U. of Texas professor in Anthropology who was studying a group of Indian traders. Each year they worked their way back and forth from Oregon-Washington area to the Texas Gulf Coast- wintering along the Gulf. They would trade obsidian, etc. from Oregon south, and shells, etc, north, dealing in all sorts of stuff on the way. I should look for that professor's publication; it should be interesting. There was quite a bit of trade between tha Valley of Mexico at the time of the Aztecs with New Mexico-Arizona pueblo Indians. Much of the turquoise used in the Valley of Mexico came from New Mexico-Arizona mines, much from near Santa Fe. Bright Macaw feathers, shells, etc. were brought north. Just how the trade was carried out is poorly known. These were two trade routes that covered long distances. There were probably others, but I haven't read the recent research (or very much of the old for that matter). |
|
02 Dec 08 - 10:02 PM (#2506477) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee I would very much like to know if there was East-West trade between the Mississipian Mound Builder culture and the Chaco-Anasazi Culture. The time periods overlap. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 05:30 AM (#2506657) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Genie How old is civilization? Maybe a better question is, "When will it start?" |
|
03 Dec 08 - 04:01 PM (#2507110) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: fretless Govs. Huckabee and Palin agree that creation took place at 9 AM on October 23, 4004 BC. Civilization is harder to pin down --maybe 1,000 years or so after that. Just ask the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 04:11 PM (#2507117) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: heric Civilization is 146 years old, having started with John Morton's cabin in the West End of Vancouver. I don't know or worry about the rest of you. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 06:22 PM (#2507204) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Riginslinger "Just ask the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania." That school board was replaced. Now they're just as confused as everybody else. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 06:24 PM (#2507206) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Rapparee You know, I really think that it's old enough to know better. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM (#2507236) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bill D " Now they're just as confused as everybody else." The folks in Kansas, where I grew up, are not confused...they KNOW the word was created only 6000 years ago.... I have not heard how they deal with awkward details like the Iceman, who is 8000 or so. |
|
03 Dec 08 - 08:13 PM (#2507267) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Bobert Tweed got it right a year and half ago... We ain't got there yet, folks, so put the horns down... Maybe this century??? Maybe next... I donno... B~ |
|
03 Jul 18 - 02:36 PM (#3935058) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: keberoxu So why append a post to this thread? Because, on a thread about a present-day refugee crisis, an assertion was made that "Arabs have had a presence in Algeria since 4000 BC ." Am I the only one who wonders what went wrong where in that assertion? We could look at around 4000 BC , south of the Mediterranean, and be reminded that the Nile Valley was just getting the foundation for an empire of Egyptian Pharoahs in place. But then, just because Algeria and the River Nile are both in the northernmost part of the African continent, why confuse the two? Were the Pharaohs of the Nile Valley even remotely interested in what is today Algeria? And why confuse the pharaonic Egyptians with Arabs? Or Arabs with the ancestors of the Berbers/Kabyles/Amazigh? In 4000 BC I do not doubt that Semitic languages existed in some form, and I would be surprised if the Semitic language group, in which both Hebrew and Arabic have their origins, did not have some really ancient preserved examples, whether they be scrolls, tablets, or what have you. I just wonder if Arabs were even Arabs as long ago as 4000 BC, be it in the Saudi peninsula or in the North African Maghreb. Were they, rather, Bedouins? If you know even a surface scratch's worth about Arabic then probably it is more than I know, however I do recall this much: that the actual word "arab" in its language of origin means a human collective that is a non-nomadic settlement, of which each human individual member is either an "araby" or an "arabiyyah" depending upon gender. Suggesting that the individual is a fragment of a greater whole. In the language of origin, you do not call an individual human being an Arab: "arab" means the entire settlement, a collective entity. "Arab" therefore implies that, while its ancestors might have been nomadic Bedouins, the members of an "arab" base their form of civilized society upon staying in one spot and giving up a nomadic existence. In 4000 BC, on the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, were the coastal lands well to the west of the Nile Valley, and their mountains, and their part of the Sahara, inhabited by people whose language was Semitic in origin? Sure there is cave art in North Africa from that far back, however, how do you make its creators out to be Arabs? This is not an aliens-from-outer-space deal here, although it looks as though this thread tended that way at first. Yes, the word "Semitic" comes from "Shem," one of Noah's sons in the Book of Genesis; and yes, what is now called the Afroasiatic language family was hypothesized by a Hebrew-speaking grammarian, in Algeria, in the 9th century AD (Judah ibn Quraysh, commenting on connections between the Berber languages and the Semitic languages), but still ... 4000 BC? Okay, thanks for letting me get that out of my system. |
|
04 Jul 18 - 03:11 AM (#3935112) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: David Carter (UK) Wikipedia is not always right, but not likely to be out by 3000 years. It states that the first mention of the Arabs is in an Assyrian inscription from 853 BCE. They appear to have been a semitic tribe in the Syrian desert. But they didn't really enter Africa until the Islamic conquests of around 630 AD. |
|
04 Jul 18 - 04:57 AM (#3935134) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Iains https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/cs/profiles/Algeria.pdf I would have thought this source reasonably neutral on the question! |
|
04 Jul 18 - 04:55 PM (#3935297) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Charmion I like Gandhi's quip, about how civilization might be a good idea. |
|
04 Jul 18 - 06:14 PM (#3935313) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: robomatic I like the observation, source unknown (because I'm not looking it up): "The United States is the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of civilization!" |
|
04 Jul 18 - 07:07 PM (#3935323) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Donuel It really depends upon your definition of civilization. Is it defined by a large population, diet, architecture, trade, writing? or something else? I am fascinated by the high tech myths of ancient prehistoric India. |
|
04 Jul 18 - 07:34 PM (#3935325) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Raggytash There is a very interesting article in todays Guardian (UK) newspaper,opinions page, which is available on line about a site in South Eastern Turkey. Believed to be about 11,000 years old it pre-dates all known agriculture by millenia. Could someone please provide a link. |
|
04 Jul 18 - 09:23 PM (#3935334) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: keberoxu Your wish is my command. Göbekli Tepe |
|
05 Jul 18 - 02:50 AM (#3935357) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: David Carter (UK) The quote given by robomatic is totally unfair to the pre-Columbian peoples of North America such as the Hopewell culture. |
|
05 Jul 18 - 03:25 AM (#3935371) Subject: RE: BS: How old is civilization? From: Mr Red I like Gandhi's quip, about how civilization might be a good idea. I think he was asked about Western Civilization. But it is still a good quip. Is it defined by a large population, diet, architecture, trade, writing? or something else? Language? But the point I would have made. Like defining Culture, Folk, and Russian interference in Political Elections. We know it exists, at its core, but the outline is fuzzy enough to be unsure how far we can stretch** the definitions. ** excepting with Russia, no stretch is probably far enough. |
