XPost: sci.archaeology, alt.archaeology   
   From: eric.stevens@sum.co.nz   
      
   On 12 Nov 2006 12:02:35 -0800, "Tom McDonald"    
   wrote:   
      
   >sag_giganospam@yahoo.de wrote:   
   >> Tom McDonald schrieb:   
   >>   
   >> > sag_giganospam@yahoo.de wrote:   
   >> > > Well it has been debated but maybe we can discuss this again ?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Some very very troubling coincidences :   
   >> >   
   >> > More apparent than real, so not so troubling.   
   >>   
   >> For you maybe.   
   >   
   >Well, you might be more susceptible to twitching at shadows than I. You   
   >have put together a list that gives the appearance of much big stuff   
   >happening at about the same time. (And of course your title suggests a   
   >single, massive, nearly world-wide catastrophe; or at least a series of   
   >unusually catastrophic natural events.) The facts show that that   
   >appearance does not bear out, and therefore is not so troubling as if   
   >there had been a real synchronicity of disaster.   
      
   What are these facts?   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > > Stonehenge were built around 3200 BC.   
   >> >   
   >> > A henge was begun around then. It went through much rebuilding over   
   >> > time. The stones that make the henge a 'stone-henge' came later. So,   
   >> > no, Stonehenge was not built at that time.   
   >>   
   >> The earliest phase dates back to about 3100 BC. (Stonehenge 1)   
   >   
   >There were circles and earth works in the area up to four thousand   
   >years earlier. Over time, the nature of the monuments changed. The   
   >original henge (ditch and wall) appears to have been built around the   
   >end of the 4th century BCE, the time you favor.   
   >   
   >As I pointed out, there was a change in monument style then, but there   
   >had been an in situ evolution of monument forms for thousands of years   
   >before that time, and a continuation of that evolution for another   
   >thousand or more years.   
   >   
   >Why do you pick one point in that long evolution as particularly   
   >significant? Why not ca. 2500 BCE, when the first stones for the henge   
   >were installed? Why not ca. 8,000 BCE for the first monument on that   
   >site?   
      
   Because there is not the synchronicity of dates he has already   
   described?   
   >   
   >This is also not related to civilization, but to a cultural change   
   >among pre-civilization folks.   
   >   
   >> > > Indian modern age starts at 3100 BC.   
   >> >   
   >> > Or a couple of hundred years earlier. If you mean the Indus Valley   
   >> > Civilization.   
   >> >   
   >> > It did not, of course, last until today.   
   >>   
   >> Harappa dates back to around 3300 BC.   
   >   
   >I did mis-write. IVC appears to be dated from ca. 2500 BCE, and appears   
   >to have been formed largely by the Harappan culture. I will give you   
   >that Indian civilization, to the extent that it is an outgrowth of   
   >Harappan culture, started around the turn of the 3rd century BCE.   
   >However, I don't think that you can say that 'modern India' came from   
   >the IVC only. There were other factors that had huge importance, too.   
   >   
   >> > > Sumer had dark ages around 3200BC.   
   >> >   
   >> > What goes up, must come down. Spinning wheel, got to go round.   
   >>   
   >> For what reasons did Sumer fall around that time ?   
   >   
   >The Priora oscillation, bringing a drier climate to the region, might   
   >be implicated. This may be part of the evolution of the civilizations   
   >in the eastern Med area.   
   >   
   >But 'Sumer' was a movable feast during its time. Different city-states   
   >rose and declined though the whole period. Sumer was not superseded by   
   >Akkad until at least 500 years after your 'fall of Sumer' time; and   
   >Sumerian was a prime language of government until almost a thousand   
   >years later.   
   >   
   >Again, you are picking a particular point in the evolution of a   
   >civilization as of overwhelming import,  when  it really is merely   
   >interesting.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> > > 3114 BC is start of mayan calendar.   
   >> >   
   >> > But this was several millenia before the rise of the Maya. (BTW,   
   >> > 'Mayan' properly only refers to the language, not the people; and nor   
   >> > is it an adjectival form except when used about the language.) So,   
   >> > nothing much going on in the big-assed cultural change department.   
   >>   
   >> Of course, but they keep traces of something in their calendar.   
   >> It is like our calendar : the begining is based on one important event.   
   >   
   >In this case, it is an event that was retrodicted (IIRC, related to   
   >Venus) by later folks. There was no corresponding major cultural change   
   >at that time. Additionally, there was no Maya (or any other   
   >Mesoamerican) civilization at that time. That came a couple of millenia   
   >later.   
   >   
   >> > > First egyptian kingdoms are from 3200 BC.   
   >> >   
   >> > Or thereabouts. BTW, do you have something against proper   
   >> > capitalization?   
   >>   
   >> Yes thereabouts.   
   >> Proper capitalization ? Sorry I dont know better.   
   >   
   >I mis-wrote again. There were Egyptian kingdoms earlier than 3200 BCE.   
   >We have a prejudice in favor of written records, which is why the late   
   >4th century BCE seems to important--more folks were writing then. In   
   >the case of Egypt, civilization pre-dates this time by hundreds of   
   >years.   
   >   
   >> > > Are there archeological proofs that something big happened at that time   
   >> > > ?   
   >> >   
   >> > How else do you think we know anything about any of the things you   
   >> > mention?   
   >> >   
   >> > BTW, you have thrown together, willy-nilly, several points of change in   
   >> > three civilizations, a Neolithic long-term project, and a date that   
   >> > only became important millenia later.   
   >> >   
   >> > In addition, the exactitude of the dates you give is misleading. They   
   >> > are nothing like firm, accurate dates; they are estimates. And they are   
   >> > not all estimates based on the latest information.   
   >> >   
   >> > So please stop worrying about the odd congruences. They don't exist.   
   >>   
   >> Other things that happened at that time : pure coincidence ?   
   >> Major climate shift :   
   >> Atmospheric temperatures fall to lowest levels.   
   >> Sahara changes into a desert.   
   >>   
   >> Where do these changes come from ?   
   >   
   >That's an interesting question. If you are looking for a single, or   
   >short series, of disasters to explain these changes, you have to   
   >explain why it took so very, very long for all the changes you noted to   
   >occur; and why some of the things you listed (Stonehenge, Maya   
   >calendar) began far earlier, or far later, than this date.   
      
   One of the problems is that of accurate dating over that time scale.   
   If two events occurred at the identical time in the far distant past   
   we would have no way of telling that from the evidence left to us.   
   >   
   >Another thing, even for the three changes in civilizations you   
   >mentioned, there was in situ cultural evolution that means that,   
   >whatever  the disasters you think may be so vital, had they happened a   
   >thousand years earlier, or a thousand years later, would have had far   
   >different results wrt human cultural evolution. IOW, human cultural   
   >evolution is contingent, and similar natural circumstances will not   
   >result in the same cultural changes at different times.   
      
      
      
   Eric Stevens   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)