Nucks
RT History Department
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,462
I don't really know anything about the argument in question, but this just struck me as a very sketchy thing to say.
That is not in any way, shape or form evidence. Unless there are other things that back it up, and make it more likely than the prevalent theory, it's not really relevant.
What specifically are you thinking about?
Basically, roughly 12,000 years ago the end of the Pleistocene resulted in a very large increase in sea levels. This means that most settlements that may have existed in this time frame would be lost to the ocean. This doesn't say they existed. It means, we wouldn't find them even if they did.
One of the chief arguments regarding the start date for "civilization" is that there is essentially no physical evidence. This is not to say there is no evidence. However this evidence tends to be dismissed as anomalous and attributed to primitive hunter gatherer society. They do this, because there is no evidence of widespread settlement. Sort of a catch-22 here.
Again, any major settlements from that time frame would almost certainly be coastal, and they would now be underwater. On top of that, after a certain period of time, all you might expect to find are monolithic structures. The argument that the Sphinx predates the Old Kingdom is a parallel situation. We see the entire situation in microcosm here. Regardless whether one believes the theory or not isn't relevant. Egyptologists dismiss the theory out of hand as nonsense. They are academically staked in an orthodox view they are experts in. Some geologists on the other hand support the science behind the theory which seems to make the Sphinx and its compound several thousand years older that is currently accepted.
Returning to the other point.
1) Over geological time, if there was a civilization in this time period, the majority of it would be lost.
2) Established academia is extremely resistant to radical changes. If you've staked your career on one concept, and suddenly it is proven that you are wrong. You're not the expert you once were.
I'm not saying there is any grand conspiracy here. I just think that even if overwhelming evidence suggesting that civilization existed ~12,000 BCE was found. It would be very difficult for this evidence to be accepted and interpreted in a non-biased manner.
Not finding a major archaeological site from a period in time when the ocean level was as much 100 feet lower present levels is not shocking. It seems like academic pursuit in this case has been pushed to the fringe, and there is an established orthodoxy regarding things like "when civilization began".