XPost: sci.archaeology, alt.archaeology   
   From: eric.stevens@sum.co.nz   
      
   On 13 Nov 2006 08:23:24 -0800, "Tom McDonald"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >Eric Stevens wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   >I gave them in the previous post, and in this post. I'm open to   
   >disagreement on my interpretation, and I'm open to being corrected if   
   >I've mistaken something. (NB: I admitted two such mistakes in the   
   >second post.)   
   >   
   Those aren't 'fact's. They are merely an assertion of what you don't   
   know.   
      
   >> >> > > 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?   
   >   
   >I was hoping he would answer. It was a real question. The synchronicity   
   >of dates is something to be demonstrated, not assumed.   
      
   There are two problems. First, as I have recently pointed out, if two   
   events occurred simultaneously on opposite sides of the world 5200   
   years ago, there is no way that we could establish simultaneity to   
   better than +/- several centuries. The second is that while I a   
   worldwide flood might bring about a truly simultaneous collapse of   
   civilizations, a marginal climate change might cause the collapses to   
   be spread over centuries.   
      
   Then there is my favourite - a cometary bombardment. I don't think   
   anyone is proposing that the whole world was bombarded with equal   
   severity all at once. But if there are several centuries of severe   
   bombardment (and the evidence suggests there might have been several   
   millenia) then one part of the world gets a clobbering one time,   
   another is on the receiving end of a Tunguska like impact 120 years   
   later, a city gets beaten flat and tens of thousands people are killed   
   five years after that. It's all part of the same ongoing astronomical   
   bombardment but not everyone gets hit all at once.   
   >   
   >> >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?   
   >> >> >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)