What are you talking about? My understanding is that both the Black Sea and large parts of what is now the Persian Gulf flooded out VERY fast after the end of the last ice age due to ice dams breaking and such.
Um…the transition between the last ice age and the current climate was just such a major change. What are you talking about?
-XT
There are hypotheses of sudden deluges having occured in various places, as suggested by deluge mythology, which often features destruction of an antediluvian civilization.
I misunderstood you. Are you suggesting we might find artifacts of a human civilization that existed before or during the last Ice Age? I don’t think any known culture was anywhere near a civilized level at that time. The current Holocene interglacial is 11,400 years old.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Could very well be true.
There are some recently discovered stone monuments in Turkey that have, thus far, been attributed to a hunter/gatherer society. So I don’t think we can say that at all.
At this current moment in time I do not believe that we will find civilizations that are much older than is currently believable.
We know those regions were inhabited. They weren’t exactly covered in ice either…they were extremely fertile.
I think civilization is to strong a term for what I’m saying. What I said was that there COULD be permanent settlements in those areas…proto-civilizations that left real, tangible artifacts and buildings that could be found.
While it’s true that the ice started melting 18,000 years ago, they didn’t really slow down until about 8000 years ago. IIRC the Persian Gulf region flooded out something like 10-12k years ago…suddenly. I don’t remember when the Black Sea region went…IIRC around that same period.
I’m not saying there was an advanced civilization a la Atlantis there…what I’m speculating on is the possibility of a proto-civilization, perhaps advanced settlements with buildings or other structures that could survive to today. I don’t think it’s all that far fetched.
I also don’t get what you say that the climate has never changed radically (presumably before today). The climate has rarely been STABLE…change seems to be the only constant.
-XT
Well, the classic defining elements of a “civilization” are agriculture, cities, metals and writing. And I think “writing” should include even a not very versatile method of information-encoding, such as the Peruvian quipu, and metals are a negotiable requirement – all the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas were high Stone Age.
That said, I’m not optimistic about finding new evidence of any previously unknown society organized on the scale of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Olmecs, or even the Mississippian or Hopewell culures. But I wouldn’t rule out the possibility.
I meant that, for the last 11,400 years at least, there have been no climate changes that would submerge a massive land area, cover forest or prairie with ice, etc.
Well, sure it could be true. Say we know that the Persian Gulf flooded 11,000 years ago. It’s true that any cities there would have been flooded. Except we have no evidence of other cities anywhere on earth at that time. So we would have to hypothesize that the only cities in existance on Earth were confined to the Persian Gulf region and below the future flood line. But why would the cities be confined only to the low-lying flood plain? Why wouldn’t some have been above the flood line?
It seems to me that the ancient Persian Gulf was essentially a continuation of the Tigris-Euphrates flood plain, which was a cradle of ancient civilization. So why didn’t the ancient protocivilization centered on the now-flooded parts of the flood plain expand up the river to the areas that are now above water? There’s no particular geographic or climatic change, just a slow increase in elevation as you go further up the river valleys. It seems rather prescient of those guys to make sure that they never built except in areas that would eventually flood.
Sure, someplace had to have the first cities on Earth. But most places on Earth haven’t been covered up by rising seas, only small areas. It just seems unlikely that we’d find the earliest civilizations only in the places where we can’t currently look. Not impossible, but unlikely.
Why were the cities we know about where they were? Because they were in fertile regions that allowed for a concentration of humans. They were there because…well, they were there.
There had to be a first city somewhere…i.e. when there WAS a first city (or first major permanent settlement) then it would also have been true that there would have been no other cities on earth elsewhere…right?
They had to build somewhere first. Why not there? My understanding is that the fertile region moved north after the southern parts were flooded out.
There are any number of plausible reasons to build a city in one place and not another. Because they didn’t build everywhere doesn’t mean they didn’t build anywhere after all.
Climate changes when sea level rises…and climates that may have not been optimal may have become better suited to large scale settlement later on after the climate stabilized in it’s new configuration. People tend to live in very specific locations…and a lot of times those places that seem best suited to us are also places where catastrophe can occur.
Is it likely? I’m not sure one way or the other.
-XT
Found this cite on Wiki that shows the oldest (known) continuously occupied cities on earth.
According to the cite Jerico has been occupied since 9000 BC(!!). What is interesting is that many of these cities were abandoned and then later re-occupied (presumably because they are in areas that are favorable geologically for human habitation). If there WERE settlements that are now under the waves this wouldn’t have been an option…which may account for why we don’t know about them.
To get back to Lemur866’s point, why were THESE cities built but not others? Why there? Why Byblos/Gebal…but not permanent cities on the Nile at the time (5000 BC)? Since some think that this is one of (or perhaps the) oldest city on earth…well, why there and not somewhere else? Why weren’t there cities all over…why just this one? If Byblos was currently under the Mediterranean would we even know about it?
-XT
Not enough population to support them?
Exactly. Humans were pretty thin on the ground…and would have been 10k years ago even more so. So if they DID have a few large settlements then it would have been just that…a few. Not spread all over.
-XT
You mean, “now”?
Depends on your definition of “civilization.”
I think it’s fairly easy money to bet that we’ll find out that ancient peoples were more advanced in many ways than we currently think, just based on archaeological discovery trends. And no, not in the “the aliens taught them” way, but actual advancement- they were just as smart as we are, they just didn’t have the easy lifestyle and tools we inherited- from them, ultimately, as it happens.
Yes, the definition is quite important. One British book (with a title that escapes me now) went into early cultures at great depth–explaining how they were NOT crude & stupid. There was a sense of wonder–but no “alien” or “great white teachers” folderol. The author’s attitude puzzled me a bit. He seemed tentative–as though experts would shout him down for speaking well of these “primitives.”
But I think the Old World has a stricter definition of Civilization. (Or “Civilisation”–as Lord Kenneth Clarke* intoned WASPishly.) Here in The New World–only the Maya were fully literate. Wonderful things were made from gold & silver; but the lack of bronze tools & weapons means New World cultures were “Stone Age.” Of course, that Stone/Bronze/Iron system is old-fashioned–even in the Old World. And the New World peoples had rich, complex cultures; some built amazing structures. Civilizations? Of course!
There are still some interesting discoveries to be made. Like the Sanxingdui finds in China. Some of these artifacts made their way to Houston in an amazing Chinese archaeology show. Even to my untaught eyes, they seemed wonderfully different.
There’s some debate about a lost underwater city or civilization under the waters of the Gulf of Cambay in North-West India, although current evidence seems to weigh more on the “natural formation” side:
(wiki link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_in_the_Gulf_of_Cambay
More promisingly are the ruins revealed off the coast of Mamallapuram in South-East India, revealed by 2004’s tsunami and corroborating local legend. However recovered artefacts date from the 7th and 8th centuries AD so are not so ancient.
(wiki link) Mamallapuram - Wikipedia
Also on tsunamis, one theory proposes that the Minoan civilization on Crete (one of the contenders for the ultimate “lost underwater city” of the Atlantis myth) was destroyed by the tsunami generated by the Thera volcano explosion of the 17th century BC.
(bbc link) BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The wave that destroyed Atlantis
