Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink

Global warming led to first civilisations

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 9th September 2006

  I read a short article the other day about a theory that global warming led to the rise of the first civilisations. Egypt was given as the prime example, although apparently the same climate conditions (allegedly) preceded other known early civilisations. The theory goes that nomadic peoples who normally did not encroahc on each other's living space, were forced to congregate around known water sources as deserts expanded. Forced to move together, they either had to fight for resources or work together to share them, thus creating the first civilisations.
  
  There was no real detail in the article, but apparently the team doing the research has studied rainfall and climate conditions throughout the world (South America and China were mentioned). Quite how they were able to do this wasn't disclosed.
  
  Anyone heard any more about this theory? Any views one way or the other?

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 9th September 2006

  I am not so sure on the above as that research does not state a chronological approximation. For example, myself like so many other experts (I am not expert of course!) I believe that there were civilisations at least 5000 years before the Sumerian that anyway is older than that of Egypt - we even know that Indian kingdoms having huge cities existed in the north at least in the 9th millenia B.C.!
  
  From what evidence there is, what seems to be true is that the first civilisations commenced in places where temperatures were hot to temperate (the line of Mediterranean, northern middle east and India) and not in tropical nor in colder climates who only builted upon the structures of the former cultures.
  
  It has of course to do something with the numbers. A tropical or a very cold place cannot support a large number of people in a small place and without that it is really difficult to have the developement a big-time civilisation unless that is imported. It also has to be noted that apart from the factor of luck, it was mainly those competent populations that got the best places (whatever best means anyway) and if that was not the case then anyway they would lose them quickly.
  
  My guess would be though that the first real cultures would start during the glacial period and not after it; after it people had the chance to travel to many more places in the north that earlier avoided thus normally things should be less tensed. Tension must had been worse during the glacial period when most people would prefer to live in those areas where winter could be tolerated and where there was possibility to cultivate and all that started from the line of the Mediterranea-Middle East and India and below (that is why I am a supporter of the idea of "from south to north" motion of people and not the usual "from north to south" that is supported by IndoEuropeanologists... which does not make sense at all.
  
  It is most logical that during the glacial region the populations living above that line would be sporadic (unless you can imagine large villages of 10,000s surviving on hunting - no hope!) in comparison to those living in the south who must had already cities (in India it is already established). If one wonders why then we find equal findings of human presence both in the south and in the north of Europe then I will tell him my usual points:
  
  1) the fact that we find evidence means anyway that the place had been uninhabited for long!!!! In places continuously inhabited you have less chances to find things as there were more opportunities for recycling or destruction. It is the example of the Roman Imperial helmet that everybody imagines as made of iron but then the truth was that Romans equally produced bronze ones and actually most of them preferred the bronze but bronze was reused (being also at those times more expensive) while iron was let to rust or thrown to the garbage and that is how we find them (bronze are found only after accidental loss in an isolated place (e.g. a river).
  
  2) no matter the percentage of money from the states', there is much more concern for research in north Europe than in countries like Greece where the state does not show the least of interest for preserving things like whole ancient temples (who will care or give money about cavemen then?). Do I need to mention that we have pyramids in Greece of unknown dating (has to be priot to the 3rd millenia B.C.) that nobody ever cared to study cos there are no funds (state prefers to spend for silly festivals to pay politically coloured artists that influence voters)? Hence mathematically there is still more chance to find things north and not south.

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 10th September 2006

  Tony,
  
  I dont doubt that global warming would have led to civilisations appearing, esp in the European context as up untill c.10,000 years ago northern europe was icebound and southern europe would have been effected by such climatic change that precipitated the warming of the north.
  
  Nik,
  
  What cities in India dating back over 11,000 years?????? And again is there any evidence of civilisations older than the Sumerians??
  
  The reason that civilistions flourised in the crescent and the Nile valley is because they enjoyed a median climate, not too hot, not too cold with rainfall and rivers enough for agriculture to flourish

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 10th September 2006

  
  The theory goes that nomadic peoples who normally did not encroahc on each other's living space, were forced to congregate around known water sources as deserts expanded. Forced to move together, they either had to fight for resources or work together to share them, thus creating the first civilisations.
  Μύ
  
  A theory that equates civilization with urban development and makes light of the fact that the same centralised urban conurbations required extensive access to arable lands to survive (hardly likely with the encroaching desert scenario on which it hinges). It is therefore selective to the point of disingenuity, and/or amazingly narrow minded in its definition of civilization in any case.

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 11th September 2006

  I thought the main reason why civilizations (in the narrow sense of complex urbanised societies) developed was because they learned (over many generations) how to domesticate plants and animals and then breed/cultivate them on a large scale. The reason this happened in China, the Nile & Euphrates etc was because people there had access to far more domesticable plants & animals than people in other places such as Africa & America etc (see Jared Diamond 'Guns Germs & Steel' for more on this)
  
  The global warming theory is interesting but does it explain why civilisation only developed in some areas & not others?

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Monday, 11th September 2006

  There might be something in what you say here, as the Holocene Climatic Optimum happened between c9,000 - c5,000 years ago, which would mean that some of the earliest civilisations would have been born during it. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was a period in the earth's history when the average temperature was 0.5 - 2 degrees warmer than today and parts of the world (the Sahara for example) were a lot more verdant than they are today.

  Link to this forum: Global warming led to first civilisations

  Report message6

Back to top