Origin of civilizations

The reasons why information is so "fuzzy" is because there is no agreement as to what factors contributed to its rise as well as no agreement as to what constitutes a "civilization".  We have had threads dealing with the definition of "civilization" and opinions varied widely.  One of the latest theories, based on natural environmental factors is even questioned by other scholars.  The only things which seem to find wide agreement is that recognized civilizations sprung from regions which had great rivers and which were capable of fertilizing (either with or without canals) the surrounding land.

c. 3500 BC.  The site of Uruk had reached a level of complexity such that it should be regarded as a city.  Writing also was also developed at this date, and monumental architecture was in use by this date. 

Basicly, the conventional natarive has civilisation come about with the spread of urbanism/cities (civitas is the root of the world civilisation).
There is some debate over the inevitable what is or isn't a city, but usualy hands point to the mesopotania region.

Even if the sphinx is as old as is claimed by the weathering theory (which was 9,000 years AFAIK), it doesn't mean anything if there is no evidence for civilisation (sizeabele settlements that show showns of economic diversity).

A modern human during the time of Australopithecus afarensis? Dont think so.

why not?

Originally posted by perikles There was archaiological findings in Petralwna (greek territory) with a human sceleton exactly as it is now the modern people aged 3.000.000 years. Next to him there were tools. After that we have findings of a big Disaster that occured 10000bc  and was called Deukalionas. Isiodos has written about that. In that pshsical disaster the know civilization was destroyed according to isiodos.

Urmm... Perikles, I don't mean to be rude, but those kind of findings have been found all over Europe. It is common knowledge that the oldest human remains have been found in Ethiopia and south Africa. Thus i conlude that the oldest "civilizations" must have been in Sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Old though Greek civilization may be, it (And other civilizations) are only a glint in the eye of time to the oldest like Mesopotamia.

perikles, be careful with the dates, Petralona isn't 3.000.000 but a maximun of  "only" 350.000 years, possibilly half million years, no more. You have Atapuerca in Spain with 800.000 years, Dmanisi in Georgia with 1.600.000 years, and the oldest place of �frica with the entire family of the human evolution, first the Homo habilis with near 3.000.000 years, then the Australopithecus... The modern humans, the Homo Sapiens, appeared in �frica (of course) about 150.000 years. So take time and read about this. Please don't talk me about Aris Poulianos, if is this your source, anybody accept his unscientist claims.

Your entire argument is based on the asumptios of Poulianos. He is the only that see in Petralona men oldest than 500.000 (in fact, 700-900 thousand), he see there greeks, he see there the first man of the world; all mistakes. Show me the opinion of the GNI and then we talk.

The man of Petralona isn't a modern man, but acording with Yioannis Melentis (a true scientific) a man between Homo erectus and Homo neardenthalensis, probably Homo heilderbengensis

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoheidelbergensis.htm

I think, next article is exactly about topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/08/nscience08.xml

Edited by John Lenon - 08-Sep-2006 at 08:25