Was there a civilization that existed 13 000 years ago?

"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message
...

"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kirke) wrote in message
...
====================================

WAS THERE A CIVILIZATION
THAT EXISTED 13,000 YEARS AGO?

By definition civilization requires cities, so no, there
was no civilization 11kBCE. There were cultures, some
of them more advanced than others, but no civilizations.
If you disagree point to a city that existed then.

tom


Cities of deer skin huts would leave few traces.

Double-A

AA,

A city of deerskin huts, if it were a city in the true sense, would
leave many, many traces for archaeologists. Even the huts would
probably
leave at least post-hole patterns (unless you are thinking of teepees).
A
city of deerskin huts would leave vast numbers of hearths, probably
storage
pits, refuse dumps, heavy indications of worked stone (flint, etc.), and
many disgarded or lost artifacts.

--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply




Do you really think what is where people hang out today
was where they did say 25 k ago? If you want to find
evidence it will be out at sea and down 400 to 600 feet
under 60 to 80 feet of rock, coral, sand and crap of 20 k years..

We already know from DNA that around 20 k ago the population
of the planet was cut by over 90% (DNA Bottle neck)
http://crimp.lbl.gov/faywu99.pdf

In this world we know far less than we do know...

Paul,

But some things we _do_ know. You assume that any advanced civilization
ca. 25 kya would have been entirely located, in all its elements, on or near
seashores. Yet that isn't the case with, say, Sumer, Egypt, India, or
China. At 25 kya, we have lots of archaeological evidence of human
activity. You are postulating that this long-lost civilization was
different from any Holocene civilization, and that it left no recognizable
traces among the many, many cultures that existed at that time.

Was there no trade? Were there no outposts for gathering resources for
the sea-side cities? Were there no trips of exploration inland? Did the
sea-siders have no need for, interest in, or curiousity about what was
inland from them?

No, if there were an advanced civilization 250 centuries ago, there
would be signs of it. And if you suggest that many such have been found but
misintrepreted or ignored, please give us some specific examples of the
same. My hunch is that those supposed anomolies are only apparent, not
real. Although I'd be very interested in any that can stand scrutiny; the
next would be the first.

--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply

"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message ...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kirke) wrote in message
...
====================================

WAS THERE A CIVILIZATION
THAT EXISTED 13,000 YEARS AGO?

By definition civilization requires cities, so no, there
was no civilization 11kBCE. There were cultures, some
of them more advanced than others, but no civilizations.
If you disagree point to a city that existed then.

tom


Cities of deer skin huts would leave few traces.

Double-A

AA,

A city of deerskin huts, if it were a city in the true sense, would
leave many, many traces for archaeologists. Even the huts would probably
leave at least post-hole patterns (unless you are thinking of teepees). A
city of deerskin huts would leave vast numbers of hearths, probably storage
pits, refuse dumps, heavy indications of worked stone (flint, etc.), and
many disgarded or lost artifacts.


But so may years have gone by. So much dirt, sand, and cosmic dust
has blown in. So many later peoples have built so many villages and
towns on the same sights. And then, some sites might now be under the
ocean, or under arctic ice.

Double-A

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:40:47 -0400, "Paul R. Mays"
wrote:


Only back to the time that the ice would have
wiped the high lands and the ocean then swallows
the lowlands after the melt...

And if they had made stuff from steel, after this time
you would find iron oxide dust scattered over miles
of lands by moving mile thick sheets of ice....



You don't know much about the ice ages, do you?






--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar

"Clave" wrote in message ...
"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kirke) wrote in message
...
====================================

WAS THERE A CIVILIZATION
THAT EXISTED 13,000 YEARS AGO?

By definition civilization requires cities, so no, there
was no civilization 11kBCE. There were cultures, some
of them more advanced than others, but no civilizations.
If you disagree point to a city that existed then.

tom


Cities of deer skin huts would leave few traces.

Double-A

AA,

A city of deerskin huts, if it were a city in the true sense, would
leave many, many traces for archaeologists. Even the huts would probably
leave at least post-hole patterns (unless you are thinking of teepees). A
city of deerskin huts would leave vast numbers of hearths, probably storage
pits, refuse dumps, heavy indications of worked stone (flint, etc.), and
many disgarded or lost artifacts.

A "city" also presupposes that certain civic problems like sanitation, water,
and transportation of goods had been solved, any one of which would necessarily
leave more traces than rotting deerskin.

Sheesh.

Jim

I think the line of demarcation between roaming hunter-gatherers and
civilization is the domestication of food plants. a reliable food
supply means you can have a dense population, meaning division of
labor, the rise of a priest class (that is, early science), artisans,
warriors and other classes. this means you have to have agriculture.

to have agriculture, you have to have domesticate the wild ancestors
of wheat, pulses, etc. domesticated food plants can't survive without
human assistance in fertilization and propogation, and carbon dating
gives a good estimation of when domestication actually took place --
I'm guessing about 7,000 years ago, in mesopotamia, although a google
search will easily give the correct dates.

so unless someone can find evidence of domesticated food plants dating
from the last ice age, the claim that any civilization, much less the
pseudo-sophisticated ones beloved by the
"Atlantis-stole-my-nuclear-reactor-crowd" existed 13,000 years ago is
lame and easily dismissed.

a similar analysis can be done for domesticated animals -- cows, pigs,
goats. the earliest appears no earlier than the time of domestication
of plants.

edconrad is basically an idiot, totally ignorant and embittered that
the only audience he gets is on usenet, and even here, he's a joke.

"Clave" wrote in message ...
"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kirke) wrote in message
...
====================================

WAS THERE A CIVILIZATION
THAT EXISTED 13,000 YEARS AGO?

By definition civilization requires cities, so no, there
was no civilization 11kBCE. There were cultures, some
of them more advanced than others, but no civilizations.
If you disagree point to a city that existed then.

tom


Cities of deer skin huts would leave few traces.

Double-A

AA,

A city of deerskin huts, if it were a city in the true sense, would
leave many, many traces for archaeologists. Even the huts would probably
leave at least post-hole patterns (unless you are thinking of teepees). A
city of deerskin huts would leave vast numbers of hearths, probably storage
pits, refuse dumps, heavy indications of worked stone (flint, etc.), and
many disgarded or lost artifacts.

A "city" also presupposes that certain civic problems like sanitation, water,
and transportation of goods had been solved, any one of which would necessarily
leave more traces than rotting deerskin.

Sheesh.

Jim

What about a stone age city? Civilization can exist in the stone age.
And it's quite possible that at that level of development, any method
they developed for satisfying their needs was overshadowed by the ice
age, and buried or otherwise destroyed.

We don't know yet. And until we have done an exhaustive search, we
can't rightfully say we know.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

On 9 Oct 2003 23:55:18 -0700, (Jack) wrote:


I think the line of demarcation between roaming hunter-gatherers and
civilization is the domestication of food plants. a reliable food
supply means you can have a dense population, meaning division of
labor, the rise of a priest class (that is, early science), artisans,
warriors and other classes. this means you have to have agriculture.

to have agriculture, you have to have domesticate the wild ancestors
of wheat, pulses, etc. domesticated food plants can't survive without
human assistance in fertilization and propogation, and carbon dating
gives a good estimation of when domestication actually took place --
I'm guessing about 7,000 years ago, in mesopotamia, although a google
search will easily give the correct dates.

so unless someone can find evidence of domesticated food plants dating
from the last ice age, the claim that any civilization, much less the
pseudo-sophisticated ones beloved by the
"Atlantis-stole-my-nuclear-reactor-crowd" existed 13,000 years ago is
lame and easily dismissed.

a similar analysis can be done for domesticated animals -- cows, pigs,
goats. the earliest appears no earlier than the time of domestication
of plants.

edconrad is basically an idiot, totally ignorant and embittered that
the only audience he gets is on usenet, and even here, he's a joke.


Come on now Jack. You know that gigantic glaciers roamed all over
the earth scraping every nook and cranny so that no evidence would
be left. The glaciers left all those previous versions of man and
their habitats untouched just to confuse us. Yes sir, them glaciers
were mean on the ancients cities.

Excuse me, I have to go laugh my ass off.




--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com

"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy

"No, the next step, Doktor, is that you start diagnosing illegally and
stupidly online, and get your license revoked."
-viveshwar

"Starblade Darksquall" wrote in message
m...
"Clave" wrote in message
...

...

A "city" also presupposes that certain civic problems like sanitation,
water,
and transportation of goods had been solved, any one of which would
necessarily
leave more traces than rotting deerskin.

Sheesh.

Jim

What about a stone age city? Civilization can exist in the stone age.

Yeah, for sufficiently generous definitions of "civilization" and "city."


And it's quite possible that at that level of development, any method
they developed for satisfying their needs was overshadowed by the ice
age, and buried or otherwise destroyed.

/me hands "Starblade Darksquall" a freshly-fashioned, genuine tin,
Clave-embossed tinfoil hat.

Jim

DrPostman wrote in message . ..
On 9 Oct 2003 23:55:18 -0700, (Jack) wrote:


I think the line of demarcation between roaming hunter-gatherers and
civilization is the domestication of food plants. a reliable food
supply means you can have a dense population, meaning division of
labor, the rise of a priest class (that is, early science), artisans,
warriors and other classes. this means you have to have agriculture.

to have agriculture, you have to have domesticate the wild ancestors
of wheat, pulses, etc. domesticated food plants can't survive without
human assistance in fertilization and propogation, and carbon dating
gives a good estimation of when domestication actually took place --
I'm guessing about 7,000 years ago, in mesopotamia, although a google
search will easily give the correct dates.

so unless someone can find evidence of domesticated food plants dating
from the last ice age, the claim that any civilization, much less the
pseudo-sophisticated ones beloved by the
"Atlantis-stole-my-nuclear-reactor-crowd" existed 13,000 years ago is
lame and easily dismissed.

a similar analysis can be done for domesticated animals -- cows, pigs,
goats. the earliest appears no earlier than the time of domestication
of plants.

edconrad is basically an idiot, totally ignorant and embittered that
the only audience he gets is on usenet, and even here, he's a joke.


Come on now Jack. You know that gigantic glaciers roamed all over
the earth scraping every nook and cranny so that no evidence would
be left. The glaciers left all those previous versions of man and
their habitats untouched just to confuse us. Yes sir, them glaciers
were mean on the ancients cities.

Excuse me, I have to go laugh my ass off.

the same glaciers that flash froze all those mammoths?

(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message om...
"Clave" wrote in message ...
"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
(Tom Kirke) wrote in message
...
====================================

WAS THERE A CIVILIZATION
THAT EXISTED 13,000 YEARS AGO?

By definition civilization requires cities, so no, there
was no civilization 11kBCE. There were cultures, some
of them more advanced than others, but no civilizations.
If you disagree point to a city that existed then.

tom


Cities of deer skin huts would leave few traces.

Double-A

AA,

A city of deerskin huts, if it were a city in the true sense, would
leave many, many traces for archaeologists. Even the huts would probably
leave at least post-hole patterns (unless you are thinking of teepees). A
city of deerskin huts would leave vast numbers of hearths, probably storage
pits, refuse dumps, heavy indications of worked stone (flint, etc.), and
many disgarded or lost artifacts.

A "city" also presupposes that certain civic problems like sanitation, water,
and transportation of goods had been solved, any one of which would necessarily
leave more traces than rotting deerskin.

Sheesh.

Jim

What about a stone age city? Civilization can exist in the stone age.
And it's quite possible that at that level of development, any method
they developed for satisfying their needs was overshadowed by the ice
age, and buried or otherwise destroyed.

We don't know yet. And until we have done an exhaustive search, we
can't rightfully say we know.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

how about you stop drawing speculative analogies from _One Million
Years B.C._ and _The Flintstones_?

your argument consists of "handwaving" away the lack of evidence and
assuming the proposition you want to prove by making bare assed
assertions like "civilization can exist in the stone age" and "any
method they developed for satisfying their needs ...".

the last ice age lasted for millions of years and only ended 13,000
YBP. land that was buried under ice 15,000 years ago was also buried
100,000 and 1,000,000 ago (I know, except for the brief periods when
the ice retreated). (periods of time always subject to correction, of
course)

there are hundreds of stone age sites all over asia and europe, and
ALL of them are consistent with the existence of a low density,
hunter-gatherer economy. some of these are in areas that were
glaciated, so there is no reason why evidence of "cities" if they
existed, would not also be found.

where are the huge middens (trash heaps) that are always found
associated with cities? where are the ruins? where are the roads?
how could a large stable population exist in a hunter-gatherer
economy?

why does genetic and carbon dating evidence of the domestication of
food plants and animals all point to a few places all about the same
time -- about 7,000 years ago?

why is the evidence showing transition from hunter-gatherer to
agricultural lifestyle and the rise of real cities contemporaneous
with the above?

why can't you people sign off the internet and read a few books on
basic science? someone is going to have to teach you the ability to
discern between the immature rants of edconrad and how science really
works, and that any moron like ed can find crap in a ****house and
make any claim about it and find converts among the uneducated.

there is nothing inherenty wrong with being uneducated, because you
can always learn if you're willing to recognize the fonts of stupidity
such as edconrad's ravings and put in the effort it takes to learn.
however, ignoring evidence and being willfully stupid like ed will
only subject you to ridicule.

as for that chuckling you hear, they're not laughing with you.

On 10 Oct 2003 07:42:10 -0700, (Jack) wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell:

why can't you people sign off the internet and read a few books on
basic science?

Now you're just being silly.
--
V.G.

"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.