Poverty Point and the 3500 BC threshold?

[Bob Keeter]

Back a while we had a thread on the sudden emmergence of
"civilization" with multiple, independent seed sites, all
somewhat clustered around 3500 BC, +/- a bit. Stumbled across
another example in re-reading some of my old Archaeology
magazines.

Poverty Point, Alabama is one of several sites belonging to an
obviously organized, ceremonial culture that apparently
existed almost totally on H/G technology (certainly not large
scale farming anyway!) well before the Hopewell/Moundbuilder
cultures. Guess what the magic "oldest" date turns out to be?

Still wondering what happened around that 5-6kya that started
spinning out civilization on a global scale? Particularly
interested in what it was that had not happened many times
before over the 100ky (or more!) of HSS existence! Why should
all of these "independent paths" being pushed ahead at
geographically isolated spots around the world, all take the
same turn, at what was, in genetic and geological terms, the
exact same time!!!!

What happened? What was the "trigger" for the following chain
of events? One COULD argue diffusionism between Mesopotamia
and Egypt and perhaps even to the Harrapan culture, no matter
how improbable and ill supported by similarities, but not to
China and certainly not to Poverty Point, Alabama!

Regards bk

[Huck]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 12:40:45 GMT, Bob Keeter
<rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Back a while we had a thread on the sudden emmergence of
>"civilization" with multiple, independent seed sites, all
>somewhat clustered around 3500 BC, +/- a bit. Stumbled across
>another example in re-reading some of my old Archaeology
>magazines.
>

[ .... ]

The gulf of maine is a rift valley blocked from the lowered
atlantic ocean durring ice ages by the georges banks and nova
scocia. Cores show fresh water and swampyness at various times
including just after the last ice age.

I propose this to be the site of atlantis. circa 9-6k-bc,
being warm and fertile it promoted food growth and that
promotes civilization.

As the atlantic sea level rose to infringe on what is now the
laurtian channel, a underwater landslide off northern europe
created a tidal wave that crested the former lauratian valley,
opening it to become the lauratian sea-river/waterfall, that
flooded the gulf of maine.

This may explain the rapid emergance of the red-ochre people,
and be the base of sea-people stories. I suspect there was a
rapid fall of that small close knit civilization, but that
survivors dispersed at a lowered technical level.

While i present this as a valid theory, i gotta admit it was
something ?steve whittet? said that realy brought this to
light, something about diving to indian sites at -200 ft
elevation off monhegian. so now that one of my references is
that of a "kook", you can write off all i said as more
"kookness".

back on topic, could the spread of these survivors have taken
1-3k years to become the viable sustaining civilizaions we see
as the "independent seed sites". ok, if not worldwide possibly
on the east coast of the US at least. There does seem to be
quite a bit of confusion regarding the rapid rise and
disapearance of the red-ochre paelo-indians who do seem to be
the previous "advanced civilization" candidates on the
american continent at least. It seems there are problems in
finding/researching sites related to them because of the sea
level rise and the high posibilty that their "cities" are now
underwater.

ok, leave the gulf-of-maine-atlantis out, it was dry once,
possibly after the last ice age. much of the contental shelf
was also dry, and i suspect more pre-cursors to the
"independent seed sites" will be found there, on both sides
of the pond.

Anyone got spare hours on their submersable the next time they
are vacationing in maine? wanna take me down for quick peek? i
may be able to isolate a few spots worthy of further viewing
rather quickly due to the more limited size of the gulf. The
underwater parts of the hudson river valley to the shelf edge
would take decades to search. and who's gonna loan me the
submersable again?

i do suspect the trail you are looking for does lead
underwater. i can't afford to look and being a "kook" nobody
would fund me anyway, some of "yous guys" might have a chance
to be funded, but identifying viable sites without underwater
equiptment in the first place creates a catch-22. i know there
is underwater mapping efforts already underway, some great
"pictures" of garbage piles offa NYC, but i dont know if the
resolution will be sufficient to even pre-qualify underwater
arch sites.

Huck

[Larry Cald]

In article <B8F015D1.C6E6%rkeeter@earthlink.net>,
rkeeter@earthlink.net writes:
> Back a while we had a thread on the sudden emmergence of
> "civilization" with multiple, independent seed sites, all
> somewhat clustered around 3500 BC, +/- a bit. Stumbled
> across another example in re-reading some of my old
> Archaeology magazines.

> Poverty Point, Alabama is one of several sites belonging to
> an obviously organized, ceremonial culture that apparently
> existed almost totally on H/G technology (certainly not
> large scale farming anyway!) well before the
> Hopewell/Moundbuilder cultures. Guess what the magic
> "oldest" date turns out to be?

> Still wondering what happened around that 5-6kya that
> started spinning out civilization on a global scale?
> Particularly interested in what it was that had not happened
> many times before over the 100ky (or more!) of HSS
> existence! Why should all of these "independent paths" being
> pushed ahead at geographically isolated spots around the
> world, all take the same turn, at what was, in genetic and
> geological terms, the exact same time!!!!

It's easy to compress a time scale when you are looking back
thousands of years. Settled agriculture first emerged more
like 9000 years ago, building on several thousand years of
seed selection by mesolithic hunter-gatherers who practiced
opportunistic agriculture. Even after the development of
agriculture, hunter-gatherer lifestyles persisted. There were
hunter-gatherer tribes in Europe clear into the iron age.

There have been multiple climate changes in the earth's
history, and we haven't yet mapped them all. It is no accident
that civilization first arose in desert areas. Ceremonial
centers like Poverty Point are not uncommon among early
cultures, but civilization did not start until public works
became necessary for survival. The rise and fall of
civilizations in Mesopotamia can be measured by the health of
the irrigation canals. In China, flooding rice paddies
requires a coordinated effort of many people. In Egypt,
reestablishing boundaries after the annual flood and cleaning
the mud out of the irrigation ditches required central
authority.

The rise of civilization is an "Oh, Crap!" event. If there is
a crash in the wild game population and a drought, the only
way you eat is to move or irrigate, plant and herd. Humans do
not take well to discipline, and the advantages of
civilization were not apparent in advance. It took some really
hard times with no other choices to force people into field
work. Once a civilization develops, it has advantages that
make it self- sustaining.

Your "simultaneous event" time scale actually spreads over
about 3000 years. That is a really long time.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

[Bob Keeter]

in article MPG.1734a94981c6f871989a88@news.earthlink.net,
Larry Caldwell at larryc@teleport.com wrote on 4/27/02 3:36
PM:

Snippage.. . . . . .
>
> Your "simultaneous event" time scale actually spreads over
> about 3000 years. That is a really long time.
>

From the perspective of a single human lifespan, it absolutely
is. From the perspective of 100ky of HSS existence. . . .well,
ot quite so.

Imagine an Olympic sprint competition. Six of the fastest
human beings in the world, all racing for the record. They all
get to the finish line within 3 percent of the total time. To
make the numbers easy, lets say the race was 10 seconds to run
a 50 meter dash (probalby way too slow, but bear with me!).

A 10 second race with a 3% variance would have everyone
crossing the finish line within .3 seconds of each other. Now
you say, that this might not be unusual if this WERE six of
the fastest humans in the world, and I do know that Olympic
sprinterss tend to cluster up at the finish. On the other
hand, if I tell you that in hundreds of previous races, not a
single sprinter ran better than a 12 second time, would you
think that something was "fishy"?

In the case of anatomically modern humans, we had been milling
around spreading all over the world for 90,000 years or so as
"benign" H/G types. Then, perhaps not entirely out of the
blue, but in the space of just a couple of thousand years you
start to see towns, cities, agriculture, etc, etc, etc. Does
that feel any more "right" than having all six of those
sprinters finish within .3 seconds of each other while
achieving a goal never before reached?

Contorted and twisted as an analogy, but Im trying to state it
in terms non-anthropological! 8-)

Regards bk

[Leif]

Bob Keeter:
> From the perspective of a single human lifespan, it
> absolutely is. From
the
> perspective of 100ky of HSS existence. . . .well, ot
> quite so.

You're using the wrong perspectives here. Nothing siginificant
happened 100ky when HSS "speciated". Something very
significant happened 30-50ky ago when they hybridized with
Neanderthals.

> Imagine an Olympic sprint competition. Six of the fastest
> human beings in the world, all racing for the record. They
> all get to the finish line within 3 percent of the total
> time. To make the numbers easy, lets say
the
> race was 10 seconds to run a 50 meter dash (probalby way too
> slow, but
bear
> with me!).
>
> A 10 second race with a 3% variance would have everyone
> crossing the
finish
> line within .3 seconds of each other. Now you say, that this
> might not be unusual if this WERE six of the fastest humans
> in the world, and I do know that Olympic sprinterss tend to
> cluster up at the finish. On the other hand, if I tell you
> that in hundreds of previous races, not a single sprinter
> ran better than a 12 second time, would you think that
> something was "fishy"?

Use the correct figures instead!

Leif

[Larry Cald]

In article <B8F09F82.C756%rkeeter@earthlink.net>,
rkeeter@earthlink.net writes:

> In the case of anatomically modern humans, we had been
> milling around spreading all over the world for 90,000 years
> or so as "benign" H/G types. Then, perhaps not entirely out
> of the blue, but in the space of just a couple of thousand
> years you start to see towns, cities, agriculture, etc, etc,
> etc. Does that feel any more "right" than having all six of
> those sprinters finish within .3 seconds of each other while
> achieving a goal never before reached?

Let's look at that 90,000 years. 40,000 of those years were
spent in an ice age with great huge meaty creatures running
around all over and sparkling cold rivers full of fish. Cro
Magnon was as big as modern man, which is huge on the homo
size scale. They had a diet rich in proteins and fats, and
never went hungry during their growing years. They had no need
to engage in agriculture. Why would they even want to? The
world was their oyster.

Agriculture started when the ice age ended. No more mammoth or
mastodon to eat. Forests grew back and covered some
grasslands, while other grasslands turned to desert. People
started starving. The average height of adult males went from
6' to 4'6".

Civilization is a survival strategy. You don't adopt survival
strategies until you need them. Look at Mesopotamia or the
Indus Valley. Civilizations developed there as an irrigated
response to encroaching desert. In adjoining territories
where the game held up, no civilization, even in the presence
of a river.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

[Leif]

Larry Caldwell:
> Let's look at that 90,000 years. 40,000 of those years were
> spent in an ice age with great huge meaty creatures running
> around all over and sparkling cold rivers full of fish. Cro
> Magnon was as big as modern man, which is huge on the homo
> size scale. They had a diet rich in proteins and fats, and
> never went hungry during their growing years. They had no
> need to engage in agriculture. Why would they even want to?
> The world was their oyster.
>
> Agriculture started when the ice age ended. No more mammoth
> or mastodon

Why would that be related? Mammoth more likely was
exterminated by too much hunting. The reason for this is not
obviuos, but the comparison with other species becoming
extinct because of humans is interesting. Maybe UP tools made
humans too efficient, maybe something else.

> to eat. Forests grew back and covered some grasslands, while
> other grasslands turned to desert. People started starving.
> The average height of adult males went from 6' to 4'6".

Hmm, starvation really isn't directly related to the
environment, rather to fluctations in climate, or like in
recent time, introduction of new technology (medicines), that
disrupt the balance between birth-rates and death-rates.

However, it's perfectly possible desertification in some areas
because of human intervention or climate made people cooperate
to survive.

Leif

[Paul Crowl]

"Larry Caldwell" <larryc@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1735c5e45ad29600989a95@news.earthlink.net...

> Let's look at that 90,000 years. 40,000 of those years were
> spent in an ice age with great huge meaty creatures running
> around all over and sparkling cold rivers full of fish. Cro
> Magnon was as big as modern man, which is huge on the homo
> size scale. They had a diet rich in proteins and fats, and
> never went hungry during their growing years.

Can you name ANY wild species (mammal, bird, insect, fish,
etc.) in which its members do not frequently go hungry during
their growing years?

Or is it just that you think homo is an exception to all the
rules of nature?

Paul.

[Larry Cald]

In article <RYWy8.34514$n4.7234091@newsc.telia.net>,
leif@rdos.net writes:
> > Agriculture started when the ice age ended. No more
> > mammoth or mastodon

> Why would that be related? Mammoth more likely was
> exterminated by too much hunting. The reason for this is not
> obviuos, but the comparison with other species becoming
> extinct because of humans is interesting. Maybe UP tools
> made humans too efficient, maybe something else.

I was just using mammoth and mastodon as examples. There was a
whole world full of ice age megafauna that went extinct. The
mastodon did a lot to keep forests in check. There is a lot of
romantic nonsense spread around about forests, but the truth
is that you can starve to death in a forest even faster than
you can starve in a desert. You better get used to eating
rodents, because that is about all that survives beneath a
closed canopy.

The encroaching forests in Europe forced a switch to settled
agriculture because clearing land was such a labor intensive
process. The encroaching deserts in the east forced a switch
to settled agriculture because digging irrigation canals was
such a labor intensive process. For the first time in history,
a patch of dirt became important.

It only looks like this all happened at once. There were
sometimes thousands of years between the development of
agriculture and the development of a civilization. Europe in
particular seems to have been a peaceful place of neolithic
villages for 2000 years, while the Egyptians and Sumerians had
already discovered the joys of chopping up and enslaving their
neighbors.

[Larry Cald]

"Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
news:<r26z8.10755$e5.69375@news.indigo.ie>...

> Can you name ANY wild species (mammal, bird, insect, fish,
> etc.) in which its members do not frequently go hungry
> during their growing years?

Most wild species do all their growing within a few months,
and availability of abundant food is a prereqisite for a well
grown specimen.

> Or is it just that you think homo is an exception to all the
> rules of nature?

Certainly h.s.s. has been an exception at times, particularly
given mesolithic hunting technology. The sheer size of Cro
Magnon is proof of a diet that exceeded MDR on a regular
basis. The shrinkage in the human race after the beginning of
agriculture is proof of a shortage of proteins and calories
in the diet.

[Paul Crowl]

"Larry Caldwell" <larryc@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:40b3a9f.0204301057.2bb5b33@posting.google.com...

> "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in message
> news:<r26z8.10755$e5.69375@news.indigo.ie>...
>
> > Can you name ANY wild species (mammal, bird, insect, fish,
> > etc.) in which its members do not frequently go hungry
> > during their growing years?
>
> Most wild species do all their growing within a few months,
> and availability of abundant food is a prereqisite for a
> well grown specimen.

In the vast majority of wild species the death rate among
young and juveniles is extremely high . . . because those
individuals cannot obtain enough food. There are several other
mammals where the young take about as long to reach maturity
as Hss -- chimps, orangs, gorillas, elephants. All of them
have high pre-adult death rates, with malnutrition being the
major cause.

> > Or is it just that you think homo is an exception to all
> > the rules of nature?
>
> Certainly h.s.s. has been an exception at times,
> particularly given mesolithic hunting technology.

Hss is clearly not be such an exception -- as Malthus pointed
out. When there is plenty of food, populations expand. When
the food supply is poor, populations go down -- as happens in
every other species.

> The sheer size of Cro Magnon is proof of a diet that
> exceeded MDR on a regular basis.

What is MDR? In any case, the physical sizes of individuals
within a species or population does not tell us anything about
the probable extent of malnutrition in that population.
Elephants are big. Does that mean that no infant or juvenile
elephants die from starvation? List all the other big species
and ask the same sort of questions about them -- hippos,
rhinos, whales, buffalo.

> The shrinkage in the human race after the beginning of
> agriculture is proof of a shortage of proteins and calories
> in the diet.

It is no such thing. All we can say is that the Cro Magnon
niche needed a larger size for reproductive success,
especially in males; whereas the farming niche did not require
that size.

The reasons were probably to do with the kind of fighting,
social co-operation and technology available. If your main
weapon is a club, and you live in small groups, it's best to
be big. But if you use knives and swords, and live in large
groups, size is not so desirable; its extra costs can mean
that a small size is better overall.

Paul.

[Robt Gotsc]

In article <1CCz8.11111$e5.71599@news.indigo.ie>,
sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com says...
> "Larry Caldwell" <larryc@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:40b3a9f.0204301057.2bb5b33@posting.google.com...
>
> > "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote in
> > message news:<r26z8.10755$e5.69375@news.indigo.ie>...
> >
> > > Can you name ANY wild species (mammal, bird, insect,
> > > fish, etc.) in which its members do not frequently go
> > > hungry during their growing years?
> >
> > Most wild species do all their growing within a few
> > months, and availability of abundant food is a prereqisite
> > for a well grown specimen.
>
> In the vast majority of wild species the death rate among
> young and juveniles is extremely high . . . because those
> individuals cannot obtain enough food. There are several
> other mammals where the young take about as long to reach
> maturity as Hss -- chimps, orangs, gorillas, elephants. All
> of them have high pre-adult death rates, with malnutrition
> being the major cause.
>
> > > Or is it just that you think homo is an exception to all
> > > the rules of nature?
> >
> > Certainly h.s.s. has been an exception at times,
> > particularly given mesolithic hunting technology.
>
> Hss is clearly not be such an exception -- as Malthus
> pointed out. When there is plenty of food, populations
> expand. When the food supply is poor, populations go down --
> as happens in every other species.
>
> > The sheer size of Cro Magnon is proof of a diet that
> > exceeded MDR on a regular basis.
>
> What is MDR? In any case, the physical sizes of individuals
> within a species or population does not tell us anything
> about the probable extent of malnutrition in that
> population.

> Paul.

Have to agree with you on this. I'd think the size of the
population rather then the physical size of the individuals in
the population is a better indication of the availability of
food. Agricultural societies are generally more populous then
hunter/gatherer societies.

robt

[Paul Crowl]

"Robt Gotschall" <hobgots@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:MPG.173e4c48246c175b989689@netnews.att.net...
> In article <1CCz8.11111$e5.71599@news.indigo.ie>,
> sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com says...
> > "Larry Caldwell" <larryc@teleport.com> wrote in message
> > news:40b3a9f.0204301057.2bb5b33@posting.google.com...

> > > The sheer size of Cro Magnon is proof of a diet that
> > > exceeded MDR on a regular basis.
> >
> > What is MDR? In any case, the physical sizes of
> > individuals within a species or population does not tell
> > us anything about the probable extent of malnutrition in
> > that population.

> Have to agree with you on this. I'd think the size of the
> population rather then the physical size of the individuals
> in the population is a better indication of the availability
> of food. Agricultural societies are generally more populous
> then hunter/gatherer societies.

On second thoughts I was too sweeping. The presence of large,
powerful well-fed individuals shows us that there were usually
'rich pickings' to be had, by those with the strength to get
them (either their own strength or that of their 'family').
Whereas in an environment where drought and poor nutrition
were common, and nearly everybody suffered at times, only the
small and hardy would be likely to survive. Somali tribesmen
are likely to be smaller than European farmers.

My general point here is that both the whole ecosystem, and
the particular niche, have to be considered.

Paul.

[Tonyk]

Robt Gotschall <hobgots@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:MPG.173e4c48246c175b989689@netnews.att.net:

> I'd think the size of the population rather then the
> physical size of the individuals in the population is a
> better indication of the availability of food.

When I was in viet Nam in 1969, I couldn't help but notice
that at 5' 7" (170cm) I was as tall as or taller than most
of the vietnamese. Thirty two years later, I see the
offspring of these same people, born and raised in the
U.S., much taller than their parents. I'm not talking
about isolated cases, or ethinc chinese, I'm talking about
an entire population on the West coast, through
observation. You may not need great nutrition to increase
the size of a population, just enough to procreate and
survive. Increased size of individuals may be a reflection
of the qulality, or amount of calories per capita. My
non-scientific, but valid, opinion. TonyK

[John H. Wi]

"TonyK" <tonykaye@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:a2RD8.35$iZ4.33834@news.uswest.net...
> Robt Gotschall <hobgots@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:MPG.173e4c48246c175b989689@netnews.att.net:
>
> > I'd think the size of the population rather then the
> > physical size of the individuals in the population is a
> > better indication of the availability of food.
>
> When I was in viet Nam in 1969, I couldn't help but
> notice that at 5'
7" (170cm) I was as tall as or taller than most of the
> vietnamese. Thirty two years later, I see the offspring of
> these same
people, born and raised in the U.S., much taller than their
> parents. I'm not talking about isolated cases, or ethinc
> chinese, I'm
talking about an entire population on the West coast,
> through observation. You may not need great nutrition to
> increase the
size of a population, just enough to procreate and
> survive. Increased size of individuals may be a
> reflection of the
qulality, or amount of calories per capita.
> My non-scientific, but valid, opinion.

What's unscientific about it? A testable assertion along
with some evidence. IIRC, Japanese are becoming taller
since WWII, with better nutrition. Regards John GW

[Ejudy]

John H. Wilson" <j.gissw@verizon.net> wrote :
>
>"TonyK" <tonykaye@qwest.net> wrote:

>> You may not need great nutrition to increase the
>size of a population, just enough to procreate and
>> survive. Increased size of individuals may be a
>> reflection of the
>qulality, or amount of calories per capita.
>> My non-scientific, but valid, opinion.
>
> What's unscientific about it? A testable assertion along
> with some evidence. IIRC, Japanese are becoming taller
> since WWII, with
better
>nutrition. Regards John GW
>
>
But don't you have to go farther than that and set up some
parameters? The usa kids are also growing outwards as well as
upwards. Maybe certain kinds of foods/lifestyle may promote
early onset puberty and if so does that mean they stop gaining
height earlier so may not in fact acheive as much height as
the adequately nourished yet not overnourished? Are there
certain growing periods in which the higher than average
nutrition leads to taller adults just as early brain
malnourishment can lead to less IQ in the adult? I read in
science news i believe this week that breastfed babies who
were fed longer than 9 months have a significantly higher IQ.
Then again its possible to underfeed a breastfed baby or even
tranfer toxins to the baby so..... Just seems all these little
dials need to parsed out and tested properly just to get a
nice clear definition of what good nutrition means for humans.
And if one eats a sparse or lowfat diet doesn't longevity go
up as well? How is nutrition and body type related?

ejudy

[Zolota]

"TonyK" <tonykaye@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:a2RD8.35$iZ4.33834@news.uswest.net...
> Robt Gotschall <hobgots@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:MPG.173e4c48246c175b989689@netnews.att.net:
>
> > I'd think the size of the population rather then the
> > physical size of the individuals in the population is a
> > better indication of the availability of food.
>
> When I was in viet Nam in 1969, I couldn't help but
> notice that at 5'
7" (170cm) I was as tall as or taller than most of the
> vietnamese. Thirty two years later, I see the offspring of
> these same
people, born and raised in the U.S., much taller than their
> parents. I'm not talking about isolated cases, or ethinc
> chinese, I'm
talking about an entire population on the West coast,
> through observation. You may not need great nutrition to
> increase the
size of a population, just enough to procreate and
> survive. Increased size of individuals may be a
> reflection of the
qulality, or amount of calories per capita.
> My non-scientific, but valid, opinion. TonyK

There was a study 20 years ago of the Dutch army medicals for
new recruits for 2-300 years of records. The average hieght of
18 year old boys slowly cycled up and down through the period.
The authors showed that their hieght was most directly related
to the economy when they were 1-5 years old. More nutrition
meant taller adults.

Z