Was there a civilization that existed 13 000 years ago?

"Jack" wrote in message
om...
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?

No.

On 10 Oct 2003 07:06:28 -0700, (Jack) wrote:


the same glaciers that flash froze all those mammoths?


Devious fiends!




--
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

"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" wrote in message
...
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.
--

perhaps, but there is alot of truth to be had in saying so, basic science doesnt
appear to be everyones strong point here. alot of the things being said are
based on information that was taught in elementary school, which is
predominantly only half-facts and very outdated (and very poor) speculation.

Paul R. Mays wrote:

First its actually a bit older than 13k more like
15 to 20 k

Try this.. Don't consider any point of view
but your own and look at 3 points and come up
with a better idea....

First: DNA Bottle neck.. Mitochondria DNA shows
a almost ELI event about 10 to 15 k ago that left
a small segment to repopulate of possible a few k
people world wide.

What's an ELI event?


Second: Map the positions and mathematical symmetry
of the locations of Easter Island, Plains of Gaza, and
the plains of Nasser (sp) .. I will not tell you what I
think you will find.. you just look and make up your
mind..

Aren't they all at 42.7 degrees latitude or something?

As for why a past civilization being a bit hard to know of it
simple... The ice age... Cities that would have been close to water
ways during the early period of the ice age would be left high
and dry so many would move to the water for all the same reasons we
started most cities along the water..

Then the big melt... Those cities would now be miles out at sea under
400 to 800 feet of water and under 20k years of debris and marine growth..
That makes sense.

A book came out about 1993 that had 900+ pages of odd archaeological evidence,
like fine gold jewelry found in coal 100k years old and stuff like that. Have
you read it? Very interesting. Get the unabridge version.

I think it was called "Unknown Archaeology" or something.


--
Freezone Freeware and Free Delphi Components
http://freezone.darksoft.co.nz http://chuckr.bravepages.com
http://www.bdsg.com/resources

"Thomas McDonald" wrote in message
...
"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



Don't get me wrong.. I generally agree with the
with most of the historical record we use but there are
some issues that give me pause.

As for the not finding evidence that is completely
convincing I can fathom the alteration of the land
masses of today that could explain the lack of
dateable evidence.

There's a good argument that the catastrophic event
that caused the DNA Bottle neck was also the trigger
event of the last Ice Age and rewarm cycle. That was
a super volcano in Indonesia http://zyx.org/TOBA.html
around 75 k ago...

Now If a reasonable civilization were to form after the
event they have 40 to 55 k years to develop a
city based culture. Now that culture has limited
availability to place cities... The northern and southern
hemispheres are Ice covered. The mountains along
the equatorial areas are ice capped and 500 to 800 feet
higher above sea level than today. The coast line and
all river systems are in vastly different locations . Most
land that is usable would be in the low lands with smaller
hamlets and villages scattered to the edges of the ice fields
and even on the ice fields.

Now along about 30 to 20 k ago the ice receded and this
happened very quick which makes me think there was a second
catastrophic event of some type. This melt changed the face
of the planet. We are looking at where man traveled as he
tried to make a comeback after his numbers were cut by the
melt period , the places he would have lived before in numbers
would be well under water. And since we are still finding
lost cities that are only a few k old on dry land close to where
people been building for 2000 years leads to understanding why
evidence for a 15k civilization is a bit sparse... but not a totally
absence..

I suggest you read
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/index.php
http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php



Now .. Am I convinced that there was a great civilization
that was totally wiped around 20 k ago... nope.. but there's
really a lot of evidence that says there was....

"Chuck S." wrote in message
...
Paul R. Mays wrote:

First its actually a bit older than 13k more like
15 to 20 k

Try this.. Don't consider any point of view
but your own and look at 3 points and come up
with a better idea....

First: DNA Bottle neck.. Mitochondria DNA shows
a almost ELI event about 10 to 15 k ago that left
a small segment to repopulate of possible a few k
people world wide.

What's an ELI event?

Extinction Level Event

Opps.. My Bad...

ELE....




Second: Map the positions and mathematical symmetry
of the locations of Easter Island, Plains of Gaza, and
the plains of Nasser (sp) .. I will not tell you what I
think you will find.. you just look and make up your
mind..

Aren't they all at 42.7 degrees latitude or something?

close and at equal deg of seperations on the planet..



As for why a past civilization being a bit hard to know of it
simple... The ice age... Cities that would have been close to water
ways during the early period of the ice age would be left high
and dry so many would move to the water for all the same reasons we
started most cities along the water..

Then the big melt... Those cities would now be miles out at sea under
400 to 800 feet of water and under 20k years of debris and marine
growth..
That makes sense.

A book came out about 1993 that had 900+ pages of odd archaeological
evidence,
like fine gold jewelry found in coal 100k years old and stuff like that.
Have
you read it? Very interesting. Get the unabridge version.

I think it was called "Unknown Archaeology" or something.

http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php

Has a bunch...





--
Freezone Freeware and Free Delphi Components
http://freezone.darksoft.co.nz http://chuckr.bravepages.com
http://www.bdsg.com/resources

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"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

AA,

I don't think you've thought this through very well.

If the passage of years removed archaeological traces, then we would
find a temporal barrier beyond which we don't find anything. But there is
no barrier: we have archaeological evidence from 2-3 mya. 25 kya is
peanuts.

Even if later peoples built on the site(s) of a 'city of deerskin huts',
many such areas would still be available under soil that had built up over
the years. In these days of modern times, most city construction requires
archaeological investigation of the proposed building sites. While these
surveys won't always pick up the type of site you mention, some would. None
have been.

Finally, no civilization at 25 kya would have been built in any areas
now under arctic ice, since today's glaciated areas were also glaciated
then. And while it is possible that some sites might have been drowned with
the rise of sea level at the end of the last active ice advance, any true
civilization would have left traces in areas that are still above sea level.
Those areas would be available for archaeology now, and would certainly
produce both C14-datable organic materials, but also indications of whatever
specialized extraction activities the site would have been performing for
the 'city of deerskin huts'.

--
Tom McDonald
remove 'nohormel' to reply

Paul R. Mays wrote:

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..

Until such evidence is found, there is nothing whatsoever to support the
hypothesis that ancient civilizations of the complexity of Egypt or
Babylon or even more sophisticated than that, ever existed. Atlantis
type hypotheses stem from a bubbah meise promolgated by Plato. To put a
point on it it, Atlantis is story and heresay. There is no solid
evidence for it.

Bob Kolker

Paul R. Mays wrote:


As for the not finding evidence that is completely
convincing I can fathom the alteration of the land
masses of today that could explain the lack of
dateable evidence.

You could also chalk it up to the Glacier Fairy too. You cannot
substitute an unsubstantiated guess for a fact. Lack of evidence is just
that. And until the evidence stops lacking your speculations have no
basis whatsoever.




There's a good argument that the catastrophic event
that caused the DNA Bottle neck was also the trigger
event of the last Ice Age and rewarm cycle. That was
a super volcano in Indonesia http://zyx.org/TOBA.html
around 75 k ago...

Now If a reasonable civilization were to form after the
event they have 40 to 55 k years to develop a
city based culture. Now that culture has limited
availability to place cities... The northern and southern
hemispheres are Ice covered. The mountains along
the equatorial areas are ice capped and 500 to 800 feet
higher above sea level than today. The coast line and
all river systems are in vastly different locations . Most
land that is usable would be in the low lands with smaller
hamlets and villages scattered to the edges of the ice fields
and even on the ice fields.

Now along about 30 to 20 k ago the ice receded and this
happened very quick which makes me think there was a second
catastrophic event of some type.

You can think anything you want to. But no one will take you seriously
until you produce evidence. No evidence leaves you ten feet in the air
with nothing to stand on.


This melt changed the face
of the planet.

You are invokaing a Flood maybe? Where is the evidence? You should not
assert as fact anything for which evidence is lacking. No evidence, no
fact. It is as simple as that

Failure to produce hard convincing evidence will cause you to hanker
after Floods of biblical proportions. That is a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Bob Kolker

Paul R. Mays wrote:

Cities under a few hundred feet of water and 90 or so
feet of ocean debris can wipe a few traces.. and how
much of a trace would you say a 200 foot tall stone
building would leave... after being scraped over by a
couple miles of ice.... for a 1000 years or so...

You have not produced the means to distinguish between no such city
ever, and a city wiped clean. In the absence of evidence you have not a
square yard to stand on. All you offer us if feeble speculations not
backed up by anything other than your foolish fantisizing.

Bob Kolker