Palmyra, Syria

[Roberto]

Animal Bones and Flint Tools Found in Archeological Site in Palmyra

Monday, July 16, 2007 - 05:55 PM

Palmyra, (SANA) – The Syrian-Swiss archeological expedition started work for this season in Bir al-Hamel in the Palmyra semi-desert.

According to the Swiss expedition director, this site which dates back to 1 million years BC is one of the oldest civilization sites in Syria, composed of several layers of earth stacked one over the other and are 30 meters high.

The site contains flint artifacts and bones of animals that used to inhabit the region such as the camel, the gazelle and the elephant, in addition to human bones from the period when humans lived on hunting and gathering and resided in caves and straw tents.

Director of Palmyra Archeology Department Walid Asaad stated that the camel bones found at the site indicate that this camel was twice the size of modern camels, and that it is native of the Syrian semi-desert and that it lived in it 100 thousand years ago then migrated to Asia and North Africa, contrary to previous scientific theories.

He also pointed out that the site contains tools and blade made of flint that indicate to the development of methods of manufacturing and sharpening flint in prehistoric times.


Did I read that correctly .... "1 m yr B.C., the oldest civilization in Syria."
That has to be the oldest, "civiilzations" in the world. That must
be a misprint.

I would like to see some of these stone tools!

[Minimalist]

Getting close to that site in Georgia...Dmanisi? or something. I think that was an HE site from 1.3 m years back.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Getting close to that site in Georgia...Dmanisi? or something. I think that was an HE site from 1.3 m years back.

Iirc, it's dated to 1.8 million B.P. "Proto" Erectus?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Getting close to that site in Georgia...Dmanisi? or something. I think that was an HE site from 1.3 m years back.

To the contrary, because like Charlie pointed out, those Dmanisi bones are supposedly dated 1.8 million BP. A half million years older still than 'your' number!
Plus there's about 1,000 kilometers of high mountains in between.

So I wouldn't call that 'close' on either score.

[Roberto]

Perhaps it's the term "civilzation" that I can't rightly except.
I just don't think of a site of occupation, at 1 million years old
as being a so-called "civilzation." Cultural traits maybe.
When I think of "civilzation" I tend to think of multiple house
patterns and building, not people living in caves. Perhaps it's
just my hangup, and I'm lost for another term besides
"civilization" right now.


But it makes me wonder when did the camel become
domesticated? Was it ealier than the horse?

[Digit]

Oh no! Not the 'civilisation' word again!

[Charlie Hatchett]

Perhaps it's the term "civilzation" that I can't rightly except.
I just don't think of a site of occupation, at 1 million years old
as being a so-called "civilzation." Cultural traits maybe.
When I think of "civilzation" I tend to think of multiple house
patterns and building, not people living in caves. Perhaps it's
just my hangup, and I'm lost for another term besides
"civilization" right now.


But it makes me wonder when did the camel become
domesticated? Was it ealier than the horse?

It's a slippery term to say the least, Roberto. There is a fairly recent article out making a case for Homo erectus villages:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 980396.ece

Of course this site is 600,000 B.P. younger than the one you brought up.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Oh no! Not the 'civilisation' word again!

[Digit]

Where is the conflict, Charlie, between a hunter/gatherer life style and a settled existance?

[Minimalist]

But it makes me wonder when did the camel become
domesticated?

Apparently in the early first millenium. In fact, the anachronism of domesticated camels is one of the main things that has caused archaeologists to dismiss Old Testament accounts as being historically reliable.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Where is the conflict, Charlie, between a hunter/gatherer life style and a settled existance?

I see no conflict, personally. I think it's more of a definitional problem, where civilization is partly defined as being settled.

[Digit]

I studiously avoided the civilisation word Charlie. My concern is that the article seemed to suggest that settlement was unlikely simply because HSE was assumed at that time to be a H/G.
All that I've read in the past seems to equate H/G with being a nomad.
IMO that is not so.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I define a civilisation as a full step up from a tribal society (be that hunter/gatherer or village people; not mutually exclusive BTW). A civilisation would be a supra-tribal society, mostly living in cities, that was familiar with 'civilised' stuff like the wheel, writing, trading, taxes, etc.

[Charlie Hatchett]

I studiously avoided the civilisation word Charlie. My concern is that the article seemed to suggest that settlement was unlikely simply because HSE was assumed at that time to be a H/G.
All that I've read in the past seems to equate H/G with being a nomad.
IMO that is not so.

I see what you're saying: Why couldn't a group, living in a very resource rich enviroment, be H/G and settled? I think those using Clovis technology, at least in central Texas, were just that: H/G and settled. Obviously there are those who think Homo erectus and/or Neanderthal were H/G and settled in some parts of the world. Some may have had the time on their hands to dream-up iron smelting, beautiful rockart, musical instruments, etc...And, if I recall correctly, technological advances and blooming arts are a trademark of civilization.

[Minimalist]

How do pastoral nomads fit into the mix? They are not settled but follow given tracks through a specific territory looking to feed and water their animals.


I suspect that civilization is one of those words which has mor exceptions to its meanings than it does meanings itself.