Did Ancient Civilization Just Get More Ancient?

Well, the ancients themselves (and later, early AD researchers on them) were often noting that supposedly previous iterations of civ existed tens of thousands of years before them.
For example in the very important work (10 books) by Diogenes Laertios, in the 3rd century AD, about the early Greek philosophy, he begins in the very first page mentioning some calculations of some past 'sages' according to which some forty thousand years had passed from the age of the events of the mythical circles (eg Troy) to the time of the first philosophers (7th century BC). (he likely does not urge to take those at face value, but they are known enough for him to include them in his first passages in the book, even if attacking the position that Greek Philosophy owes its birth to barbaric -term used- priests in Egypt, or barbarians such as druids and sages in general, etc)

Well, i do not recall currently what the earliest events were about, and maybe it was not Troy or other tales of Homer, but it is also well known that in ancient Greece there was the myth of a past civ, before the great flood of Deucalion (and there was even an older great flood).

I wouldn't be that surprised if past civs did exist, and ended due to cataclysmic events or a full ice-age.
 
How can we get any more ancient when the Earth is only 4-6000 years old?
 
Presumably he means: civilizations that existed prior to 15,000 BP might have been established on lower lying land because the sea-level was much lower during the last Ice Age? And that's why they'd be underwater now.
 
Hm...so... does water get so busy destroying the remnants of those civilizations that we don't find them today? Honest wondering - I just don't know.
It sounds plausible to me that a significant change in sea levels would throw back humanity by quit a bit.. But I am wary when this peters out into a "lost-great-civilization"-narrative.
 
Well, Gobekli Tepe isn't exactly a new discovery: it first came to notice in 1963. And it's way above present sea-level.

I'm not sure what point the OP is making.
 
and a recent news blurb pushed agriculture back a few thousand years in and around Israel and the fertile crescent... (I cant find the article).

Is that the new findings which tend to prove that religion came first, then civilization, and the agriculture rather than the other way around?

I'm getting the impression that civilization has been around a lot longer than we've heretofore believed. I saw some finding that supposedly show that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old. And of course, Stone Henge cannot have been built by primitives.
 
Is that the new findings which tend to prove that religion came first, then civilization, and the agriculture rather than the other way around?

I'm getting the impression that civilization has been around a lot longer than we've heretofore believed. I saw some finding that supposedly show that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old. And of course, Stone Henge cannot have been built by primitives.

The theory religion preceded or accompanied agriculture was based on Gobekli Tepe since it appeared to be a central place of worship surrounded by farming communities at a very early time, but the more recent discovery of earlier farming comes from the Jericho vicinity I think and goes back quite far, several thousand years before this monolith.

The older dates for the Sphinx are based on erosion patterns and the fact climate was wetter before the Old Kingdom when it was supposedly built. I dont know when it was built but I believe it represents the time when the Great Flood happened, the cusp of Leo and Virgo maybe 13 kya
 
There is no evidence for any 'Great Flood'. There is evidence of rising (and falling) sealevels, associated with the ending (and beginning) of ice ages. There is also no 'new evidence' that the Sphinx (just that one?) is 10,000 years old. This is a minority view among some historians that is not likely to ever gain scientific consensus. Essentially, the idea is that the (water) erosion patterns on the Great Sphinx are different from that of the Great Pyramid. I'm not quite sure how anyone can determine that, seeing as the entire outer casing of the Great Pyramid was removed many centuries ago, while the Sphinx has been buried under sand for possibly a roughly equal amount of time.

Is that the new findings which tend to prove that religion came first, then civilization, and the agriculture rather than the other way around?

I'm getting the impression that civilization has been around a lot longer than we've heretofore believed. I saw some finding that supposedly show that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old. And of course, Stone Henge cannot have been built by primitives.

No? Why not? Anywho, I've always learned that civilization is connected with cities. It's basically where the word comes from. So a phrase as 'ice age civilizations' makes no sense with no proof of cities prior to, say, 3,000 BC. The critical threshold between (temporary) settlements and cities was only reached when temporary settlements became permanent ones. Basically the threshold between prehistory and history, as permanent settlements apparently necessitate some kind of administration, and, hence, writing. In short, the mere fact that certain cultures were able to erect quite large monolithic structures does not, in itself, make them civilizations.
 
Back
Top Bottom