Indus Valley Civilization.

[daybrown]

"The Substance of Civilization" by Sass is instructive. He does an economic analysis of ancient cultures. If there's a city, you havta feed it. And you aint gonna do that with hunters & herders. You need farmers.

And for farmers, you need crops, and the crops today will have DNA clues as to how far back they diverged from wild varieties.

Jared Diamond reports that the New Guinea Highlanders have been there 20,000 years, in settled villages. And they had some crops. But that's villages, not cities. The Ainu also had settled villages dependent mostly on fishing like NW American coastal Indians. But again, not cities.

How far back does rice go?

As for the Proto-Indo-Europeans, JP Mallory takes Gimbutas to task for stipulating that the PIE lived between the Urals and the Black Sea. But Mallory challenges saying that there's lotsa PIE words for freshwater life, craft, rivers, & lakes. But no words for the marine environment.

Which kinda raises doubts about India as well with coastal resources so important. But Mallory wrote before Ryan & Pitman revealed that the Black sea was once freshwater.

One reason nobody could find the homeland of the original Aryans was that nobody thot to look on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Then too, climate change was going on back then as well. The Chinese found a graveyard last spring in the Western Taklamakhan, they may have the city by now, but apparantly a river dried up. At Loulan, a river moved over, and at Niya, another river dried up. These all happened between 1000 and 2500 BP.

I dont think it was the first time. I dont deny that a river may have dried up in India, but dozens of rivers dried up as the Kara Kum became desert. the Taklamakan basin was full of glacial melt water at the end of the ice age, and now all that's left is Lop Nor, a salt lake like the one in Utah.

Rather than saying the goddess was named after the river in India, I'd bet on the river being named after the goddess by people who'd seen that kind of thing before.

[Minimalist]

The "village" concept is fairly easy to see. Farmers need to be near their fields in order to not waste a lot of time going back and forth as well as watching over them for threats.

It's the leap to "cities" that is the problem. You wouldn't expect many farmers to live in the cities, just a relative handful who could live on the outskirts.

Many "cities" in the Middle East are referred to as Administrative Centers by archaeologists. They contain a palace (or at least a big house) and some warehouses. They are not particularly organized for defense and there is no indication of mass habitation. The local governor lives there along with his staff and the warehouses serve as a central storehouse for the produce of the region.

But they were not "cities" in the sense that Catalhoyuk was and that make catalhoyuk very, very different.

[Cognito]

If there's a city, you havta feed it. And you aint gonna do that with hunters & herders. You need farmers.

And for farmers, you need crops, and the crops today will have DNA clues as to how far back they diverged from wild varieties.

Alright, I would agree with you regarding large cities as we define them today, but Natufian "cities" as well as others were small, and subsisted on wild crops and hunting-gathering. There was a transition here. Yes, they were small, but they were still cities. And the Natufians came from elsewhere to settle the Palestinian area and Egypt at a very early date (Ain Mallaha, Helwan, etc.). Jericho, founded at least by 8300bce was surrounded by a defensive was 20 feet high and 9 feet thick (D.O. Henry). One tower was 30 feet wide and 30 feet high with an internal flight of stairs made of hammer-dressed stone slabs. The city began with hunting and gathering of wild grains and gazelles and went from there (Higgs, E.S). At the time of formation, it might not have contained more than 200 individuals

Prior to the end of the Pleistocene we should be seeking cultures, not cities. After all, the population of the world at 10,000bce was probably no more than 4 million and it's anyone's guess how many of those died in the ensuing flooding and catastrophes due to the "Big Melt" circa 9,600bce.

As for the Proto-Indo-Europeans, JP Mallory takes Gimbutas to task for stipulating that the PIE lived between the Urals and the Black Sea. But Mallory challenges saying that there's lotsa PIE words for freshwater life, craft, rivers, & lakes. But no words for the marine environment.

Which kinda raises doubts about India as well with coastal resources so important. But Mallory wrote before Ryan & Pitman revealed that the Black sea was once freshwater. One reason nobody could find the homeland of the original Aryans was that nobody thot to look on the bottom of the Black Sea.

Nobody is taking into consideration the massive amount of ice and water buildup here from the LGM, just north of the Black and Caspian Seas. Of course the Black Sea was fresh water since the Caspian flowed into it through the Manytch Straits prior the the termination of the Younger Dryas and the Mediterranean sea level was below the Bosporus sill. According to Aksu et al, Ryan and Pittman were wrong about the creation of the Bosporus cut since there are two distinctive deltas on the Mediterranean side of the channel demonstrating that the cut was formed from the other direction (Personal correspondence with Ali Aksu), as one would expect from a consistent although variable glacial outflow with occasional, big-time outbursts.

Apparently, nobody considered the series of Altai floods and their effect on the environment downstream. Since the Caspian was twice its current size during the late Pleistocene and flowing into the Black Sea, any Ural/Ukrainian inhabitants needed to traverse north and east of the Caspian to reach India. And watch out for the Aral on the way. It was also far larger, salt water, and occasionally connected to the Caspian.

We all read about the size of Lake Agassiz outflow and the Bonneville Floods, but the Altai Flood(s) was much more impressive.

http://www.mines.edu/academic/geology/f ... /altai.doc

The bottom line? If you're looking for antediluvean cities, think very small and look in areas where grain and fruits originated. Domesticated animals would also be a clue. Remember too that domesticated cattle mutually transport serious diseases to humans in confined environments. A prototype city that is domesticating their cattle may not survive too long before it is turned to dust from diseases, let alone wars.

[Digit]

Whilst following your reasoning Cog I am forced to ask this, why create 'cities'? What was the reasoning, expecially in the instant you describe?
The only one that I can think of is as a trade centre, that would, I think, draw farmers or HGs to it to supply food in exchange for trade goods.
The Hudson Bay Company comes to mind.

[Minimalist]

why create 'cities'?

You don't set out to "create" a city. The city grows around the political establishment. The king and whatever bureaucracy is needed (and it always grows) plus his household guards. Then the merchants and nobles who want a city home to go with their country home because they need to be close to the center of power.

Each of these adds to the build-up. The bureaucrats need offices, the soldiers need barracks, the merchants need warehouses, and so on. But the basic economic unit remains the farmer growing his crop in the countryside.

[Digit]

Again, I follow the reasoning Min but that suggests that the 'king' exists first, which could well be correct. Gengis Khan seems to be an example of a power base without a city, (to begin with), but is that correct. GK managed to run an empire whilst being mobile.

[DougWeller]

why create 'cities'?

You don't set out to "create" a city. The city grows around the political establishment. The king and whatever bureaucracy is needed (and it always grows) plus his household guards. Then the merchants and nobles who want a city home to go with their country home because they need to be close to the center of power.

Each of these adds to the build-up. The bureaucrats need offices, the soldiers need barracks, the merchants need warehouses, and so on. But the basic economic unit remains the farmer growing his crop in the countryside.

Basically I'm going to agree with Minimalist here. Cities are not the same as large towns. Cities belong to a culture with a class system, with public buildings, etc. They are probably a natural outcome of a class system in fact.

This is why Ian Hodder says Catalhoyuk is not a city -- Day's comment about a time chart is wrong in that so far as I recall it doesn't use the word city. 2000 houses clustered together, no streets, no public buildings (unless I'm out of date).

Digit, a civilization wouldn't just vanish because the sea level rose. Occam's razor works against you in this case. Civilizations engage in trade, settlements, etc. Local cultures now, that's a different story.

[Digit]

Digit, a civilization wouldn't just vanish because the sea level rose.

Can't argue pro or con on that one Doug because if were so we probably wouldn't know about it, would we?

[Minimalist]

Digit, a civilization wouldn't just vanish because the sea level rose.

But, if that basic economic unit, the small farm, breaks down because of drought...or flood....then what happens? Recent finds suggest that the Anasazi bascially gave up the whole shop because of a prolonged drought and much of the investigation on Mayan city abandonment centers on long term drought, as well. Now, just to take the analogy a little further. Floods of river water do not seem to cause long term devastation. The Egyptians regarded them as life-giving, as a matter of fact. How about floods of seawater, though? Even if it recedes the land is damaged for a certain period of time. Long enough I would suspect for people to starve to death waiting for it to recover.

If it doesn't recede then the survivors who are not killed in the flood are forced to move. If there is an unoccupied area within range or even an occupied area that they can overrun that's one thing. But what if the devastation is so widespread that relocation is not a viable option? In such a case I can see the "civilization" (and I'm getting to dislike that word) failing.

Thoughts?

[DougWeller]

Hancock still thinks that the answer is off the Indian coast....underwater!

The underwater city in the Gulf of Cambay. We were just talking about the GHMB, and here is an example. This is an Indian geologist posting there.

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/Badr ... B1.php?p=1

So, from the foregoing it is very evident the prehistoric civilization that matured and developed in the present day Gulf of Cambay was the forerunner and model to the subsequent advanced Harrapan civilization known to history. This wonderful twin prehistoric metropolis of Cambay lasted from about 13000 BP to about 3000 BP making it the most ancient and largest city civilization not only in Asia but in the entire world. It is seen to be at least 7500 years older than the oldest Mesopotamian city civilization. However strong evidence supports the presence of humans from at least 31000 BP who were evolving and developing and formed a great hitherto unknown civilization that were submerged by the flood, giving credence to local and global flood myths

This is the last paragraph in a long article (6 pages). It's very good but for those who don't want to read that much, at least look at the pictures. The side scan photography is unmistakable.

All that is left is to date the city. I haven't found any results yet on the piece of wood from the well.

Won't help you anyway as you can't match the wood with any structure. There are very strong currents there, remember?
In fact, despite the article, no structures have been found. And no repeats of the side scans. Faulty equipment? Natural geological structures misinterpreted? Why not? You can't just say 'oh look, those look like they are manmade, so they must be.'.

You always need to do your own research when you read stuff on Wikipedia, but it is often a good starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_t ... _of_Cambay

And it may well be though that the Harrappans did build on a submerging coastline and, as you would expect, moved inland as the sea levels rose.

It is all too easy to think you see artefacts where they don't exist.
http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/geofact.html

[Rokcet Scientist]

Who are you asking R/S? Me or the guy who wrote the article? I have posted links substantiating Vedic culture to 7,000 BC. This author goes much further.

You posting the quote without any reservation infers you support it for the most part, so I'm asking you (but of course the article's author by extension).

My posts are right here in the forum.

I'm not looking for substantiation of your 7,000 BC Vedic culture (today...), but for some argumentation of those 13,000 and 31,000 BP numbers!

[Digit]

My view entirely Min. Early civilisations could be as small as one or two cities, we would be struggling with sea rise like the one after the LGM meltdown.

[Minimalist]

I wonder what the effect on agriculture has been of the Indian Ocean tsunami?

[DougWeller]

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?n ... cle&sid=47
Book Review of Underworld by Graham Hancock
by Duncan Edlin

[Cognito]

Won't help you anyway as you can't match the wood with any structure. There are very strong currents there, remember?
In fact, despite the article, no structures have been found. And no repeats of the side scans. Faulty equipment? Natural geological structures misinterpreted? Why not? You can't just say 'oh look, those look like they are manmade, so they must be.'.

Doug, you are correct since scientific evidence in this case needs to be reproduced and it has yete to be done. The Gulf of Cambay sits at the terminus of a riverine system; that wood could easily have washed down the river from somewhere upstream. Therefore, get me wood from an underwater structure for dating (i.e. the provenance is suspect).

I would love to see a city at a 120 foot depth, but there is no conclusive evidence. In spite of strong currents, send someone down there with an underwater camera for pictures. It can be done, but it hasn't. Until then, the side scanning sonar doesn't cut it -- it just indicates anomolies. I am not saying it isn't a city, I am just saying that there is no proof that it is such.