Prior to the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals these people appear to have been following a hunter-gatherer life-style as “civilised” in most respects as that which evolved when agriculture and the domestication of animals became the primary source of food.
I have yet to read it, but James C. Scott looks at the issue in his new book Against the Grain.
You’ve posted a link to one of the notable pre-pottery Neolithic sites. Here a dozens of others: Pre-Pottery Neolithic A - Wikipedia
There’s no evidence of the behavior of these peoples before this time, all we have is how this settlement did things.
I believe the technological developments outlined here could have taken tens or hundreds of thousands of years, from the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic.
What do you think?
On the page I linked, you can click on other pages, going backward in time:
Each article lists their various characteristics.
One image that keeps popping into my mind is of Neanderthals living in log cabins … even, maybe, in settlements similar to “wild west” forts. Maybe “civilisation” goes back a long, long way?
The Jomon pottery of Japan is very very old in human terms and certainly points at some kind of sedentary, localized human organization. Whether that qualifies as “civilization” is surely a matter of definition and argument. Were the Jomon potters outliers, merely the only so-far discovered exemplars of contemporary techniques, or are there even older examples of “civilization”? Wouldn’t we all like to know.
Where have you ever seen that? Certainly not from scientific sources.
Civilization is normally *defined *as the development of “cities,” i.e. permanent settlements fed by farmed agriculture and the domestication of animals. Therefore, there cannot have been civilized hunter-gatherers earlier. You need to define what civilization means to you if you’re using it in this idiosyncratic way.
I agree more or less–the root word for city is right there in civilization–but then again the Mongols under Genghis/Temujin had a highly organized and regulated society that was not urbanized. So I wonder if when considering very early peoples we ought not to consider transmitted culture as a form of civilization even if it was not sedentary.
I’ll just stand by for the experts to blast me to smithereens on this. 
The etymology of civilization is based on the distinction between civilized peoples and barbarians, which the Mongols were certainly considered to be. That doesn’t determine the modern definition, but I don’t think it has been stretched beyond permanent settlement.
In any case, it’s just not true that the Mongols lacked cities. They had them under Genghis. Those were bases they used to roam from and to bring the spoils home to.
They built houses out of Mammoth bones when no trees were available
They did indeed, but were these cities/bases centers of culture, social structure, and technology? I had thought that the Mongol culture and social structure was not location-dependent, and that technological advancement by the Mongols was pretty small (which is not meant as a slur).
But let’s take it back to the OP, and if desired leave aside my blah-blah–which I assume most WOULD desire. Based on the question, it seems the poster is asking about organized and stratified forms of human behavior, which clearly did exist before “civilization,” that is the forming of permanent settlements. And in fact there is ample evidence of this behavior in our cousins, the “great apes.”
The problem with log cabins is they are difficult to build until you have more advanced (I.e. iron) tools for chopping trees down wholesale (and then forming the result.
The ornately carved wood art of the Pacific Northwest tribes, for example, is a side effect of their eventual trade with white fur traders. They received metal tools which allowed them to carve poles and make more complex woodworking artifacts than the stone tools available before that would permit. So they took their existing carving art and went hog-wild decorating every square inch of exposed wood.
The technique for felling trees (or hollowing logs for canoes) before iron tools consisted of slowly girdling the tree with hot stones from a fire and chipping away the resultant layer of soft charcoal, but by bit.
This is why wigwams and teepees were made of poles and bark or woven filler between. The PNW natives had the advantage that their food came to them (up the rivers) on a regular basis so they had the time to invest in massive wood houses, and lived in an environment with plenty of raw material. Even the Iroquois longhouses, intended for long-term habitation, and benefitting from agricultural food supply, were not solid wood, although the palisades were.
The question with sites like Gobekli Tepe was whether the builders were beneficiaries of a particularly rich and abundant environment, or did a large number passing through contribute to the builders - I.e. a surplus for to the stoneworkers from every passing tribe?
The whole point of civilization is that the agricultural revolution produced food surpluses to support full time non-hunting occupations like stone workers, artists, builders (and oppressing elites and armies and the fortifications they used). A nomadic civilization would need both the surplus to “pay” the non-hunting builders and a reason to stay (or frequently visit) a specific spot so it could become a form of permanent or seasonal base. Perhaps a herder nomadic tribe could justify a fortified village to occupy near good grazing grounds every summer or some such.
The problem as always is how much effort it takes to produce a permanent site - and how to feed the people who build it.
My guess would be MicroProse and then Firaxis, but maybe I don’t understand the question.
How to build a log cabin without tools
Bring down trees by building fires at their bases. Use standing trees as uprights to attach the trees to. It wouldn’t take very long to construct a nice, safe environment that the dangerous wild animals couldn’t break into.
This gives you fallen trees, not logs.
Attach how? How are you proposing to fit the logs together?
I think you’re oversimplifying it. None of what you said is impossible, but neither is it quick or easy.
I believe it. That’s the only explanation for Abraham Lincoln’s looks.
If we’re going for ‘easy’, the solution that’s easier than log cabins (but still hard) is:
A location that already provides some natural protection such as an outcrop of rocks, a natural steep hill or gully, etc
A perimeter comprising a fence of wattle, or palisade poles stuck in the ground, or dry stone walls, or a deep ditch, or brush and branches piled into hedges (or any combination of these)
Huts with walls of mud, or wattle and daub (or tents made of animal skins), roofs of skins or turf.
Yes, but a children’s toy called “Og Logs” would, though a memorable rhyme, lose the pun.
Civilisation evolved at permanent locations on river systems that had abundant fertile soil for growing crops and provided the means to transport it in bulk. Rivers and the sea also provide a source of protein from fishing and sea food and further trade.
It is no great surprise that the oldest civilisations are near populous countries that are next in ancient food producing areas: Nile valley. Tigris and Euphrates, The Indus and Ganges in India, the Yellow River and Yangse in China.
However, rivers change their course, sea levels rise and there is climate change that renders once fertile places barren. So who knows what ruins lie under the sea, the buried by sand or hidden, consumed by jungle?
The concentration of a numbers of people in an urban population requires transportation and abundant food. It must have come much later than small farmers living next to their crops. Animal husbandry does not require a fixed settlement, so herders would have come first and there are plenty of examples that persist to this day. But they are resticted by what they can carry. Farming crops is not neccessarily an easier life. Famines, disease and war have to be contended with. Uncertainties that made religion a common feature of many civilisations as they tried to influence the course of nature by appealing to deities and those are the most persistent features that remain of ancient cities - provided there was some hard stone handy.
Jared Diamonds books offer some anthropological insights into the orgins of civilisation and why they disappear. They are quite a good read.
1966, with the introduction of the BMW e10.