----- Original Message -----
From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Ancient Civilizations
> >Civilisation tends to develop around waterways, coastal areas and rivers.
> >There has been quite a bit in the news over the last few years about
ruins
> >just off the coast of places like Egypt and Japan. It isnt impossible or
> >improbable that there could be cities under the sea, just out of our
sight.
> >Im sure you are aware that the age of the Sphynx is under assault. And
the
> >arguments are pretty interesting and self consistant, true or not. The
> >timeline for the first Americans looks to be modified somewhat radically.
>
> There were a few scholarly book published a few years ago challenging the
> timeline. However their thesis is that the dates are too OLD, and adjusts
> them about 150-200 years forward. One of the more significant
ramifications
> of this is that it means that the Greek "Dark Ages" did not exist!
>
> If anyone is interested I'll get the titles. Only one is currently in
> print, and available from Amazon UK.
>
> As for the "lack of progress" and ancient peoples, one thing that we must
> remember is that we live in one of the most tremendous eras of change in
> history. There WAS change amongst mezolithic and neolithic man, but the
> period of change was not as rapid as we are used to. And even just small
> changes can mean tremendous benefits for the people living in the time.
The
> transition from stone and obsidian tools to copper (Chalcolithic Era)
> rendered great benefits to neolithic people, just as the transition from
> copper to bronze conferred tremendous benefits to ancient peoples.
>
> >I agree with you here. I suggest that civilisation may have been around
10K
> >longer than we are taught. But none of these proposed civilisations was
as
> >advanced as say Egypt.
>
> As I said in a previous post, are we talking about a CIVILIZATION
> (characterized by a complex social organization, writing, and the
> development of more sophisticated governments and laws) or a CULTURE
> (characterized by a simple social organization, simple governmental forms,
> and lacking writing). As I said, these words have very specific meanings
> and shouldn't be used haphazardly.
>
I meant civilisation, Damon. I understand your definition and agree with it.
To be clearer, I'm suggesting that we might discover signs of true
civilization under the Mediterranean and perhaps other places now covered by
the post ice age inunduation.
This theory about water erosion on the sphynx is very interesting, and its
corrollary theories concerning the constellation Leo and its relation to the
sphynx seem to be internally consistant and consistant with the physical
evidence.
Of course I have never seen any rebuttal to the theory, and it may in fact
be contrived, but it is still a remarkable idea. Archaeology is a fairly
young science, there may still be some interesting things to learn.
As for the question of the Americas, the idea that humans first arrived
around 20K ago, when both continents are dotted with sites dating from near
that same time make me think that the experts on the subject have been far
too conservative.
xponent
rob
