Axial Precession and Rise of Civilization.

I actually got the Idea for this from my last posted comment. Thought it could make an interesting thread of flimsy assertions.

I'll get right to the point.

4,500-3,500 BCE - Holocene Wet Period Ends after 10,000 year run. Sahara and Arabian deserts dry up.

4000 BCE - Civilization begins around Tigres and Euphrates Rivers in modern day Iraq.

3400-3100 BCE - Civilization begins around Nile River in Egypt.

Earth has an axial precession that repeats every 25,700 years, and apsidal that repeats every 112,000 years.

climate.nasa.gov...

As Earth rotates, it wobbles slightly upon its axis, like a slightly off-center spinning toy top. This wobble is due to tidal forces caused by the gravitational influences of the Sun and Moon that cause Earth to bulge at the equator, affecting its rotation. The trend in the direction of this wobble relative to the fixed positions of stars is known as axial precession. The cycle of axial precession spans about 25,771.5 years.

Apsidal precession changes the orientation of Earth's orbit relative to the elliptical plane. The combined effects of axial and apsidal precession result in an overall precession cycle spanning about 23,000 years on average.

This changes the rain pattern by up to 15° latitude. Earth is currently in the middle of the Holocene Dry Period. The rains reach 15° N, about the latitude of Senegal.

At the height of the wet period this shifts to about 30° N latitude and reaches Morocco.

The Sahara is a savanna. Grasslands, abundant wildlife, and huge freshwater lakes.

Further East in present day Iraq, the same applies. The rains shift well into the Arabian Pennisula and beyond. It is speculated during wet periods Saudi Arabia becomes similar to Ethiopia. Even including lush forests, like ones in Eastern Africa. Iraq being at the northern edge of expected rains.



Before 4,000 BCE resources and food were plentiful north of 15° latitude. People could maintain their nomadic family groups and spread themselves evenly over the landscape.

Around the EXACT time civilizations formed the Sahara and Arabian deserts dried up in a short 200 year period.

Columbia core study reveals Sahara dried up in 200 years at same time civilization formed. There were Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic cultures. There were nomadic tribes and pastoral practices, but no civilizations yet. They could raise livestock on open terrain still and keep moving about.

That said, I want to know why the birth of Civilization is a mystery. Or why it's not more connected to climate.

While this is speculation, it still points to this scenario for me.

• Nomadic pastoral tribes lose food, ability to be pastoral nomads.
• Former pastoral nomads in Africa and Arabia find the last remaining sustainable location.
• Former pastoral nomads begin to raise animals and farm in fixed location.
• Former pastoral nomads programmed for family groups are forced to coexist around last remaining water.
• Civilization forms first in Iraq and then later in Egpyt, both within a few hundred years of their respective regions finally losing the rains.

I currently belive civilization's sudden formation was out of necessity to coexist in units beyond 150 (Dunbar's Number). Suddenly the nomadic groups, where everyone had an empathetic bond reached its limit, and people adopted forms of government (and other control mechanisms) to fill in what the mind could no longer do. Stay civil and live beyond the default density limits.

Pantheons are formed. Common stories are woven in myth. Civil codes are formed. Language to make it clear is developed. Language likely invented to track trade transactions.

Commerce was unheard of in The Holocene Wet Period. It was every nomad group for itself. Once the water dried up, trade, agriculture, commerce became a survival necessity.

While I can't really prove this beyond circumstantial evidence, it stands to reason that such a dramatic shift in our species approach to life was preceded by an environmental trigger.

To not omit it.

China threw me a curveball. But it's official Civilization started way later, for different reasons.

Villages formed in 5000 BCE around The Yellow River, and remained small farming/fishing villages without government until the Xia Dynasty 3000 years later around 2050 BCE. Yu The Great. (The mercury tomb guy)

It is said a major flood brought him to power by leading an effort to fight it and attempt to save land and people.

China is obviously a completely different climate, and axial precession has a different effect on their desert belt.

Anyway. That's my thought of the day.

The wobble of the axis was the main catalyst for the seasonal nomadic pastoral to civilized commercial society switch.

a reply to: Degradation33
Relative to the number of earthworks and megalithic structures that possess orientations with the solstice and equinox. It seems clear that mankind marked the measurements of great ages like the one you mentioned, of 23,000 years, for a reason.

It’s staggering to consider the implications of man and perhaps other sentient species that must have populated the Earth and managed to keep oral, or other records spanning huge swaths of time from our perspective.

It is eluded to throughout older world religions, esoteric writings etc. Many have always felt that the Mayan calendars were certainly marking cycles like your describing, and frankly it theoretically explains so-called unexplained disappearances of huge cultures/civilizations all around the world.

a reply to: Degradation33

Addendum:

I also feel the rise of superstition was partly related to this loss of abundance at the end of the wet period. I'd imagine rain spirits became something very common to do rituals for.

It would be traumatic to have this vast area of lush abundance become uninhabitable rather quickly. No wonder they were extremely spiritual by the time of Old Egypt.

SPAM

Civilisation was born to keep the food supply concentrated, but whose?

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Degradation33

Addendum:

I also feel the rise of superstition was partly related to this loss of abundance at the end of the wet period. I'd imagine rain spirits became something very common to do rituals for.

It would be traumatic to have this vast area of lush abundance become uninhabitable rather quickly. No wonder they were extremely spiritual by the time of Old Egypt.

This is actually what they teach in anthropology courses at the university (or did in mine, some 30 years ago) -- as the climate changed, nomadic lifestyles were less sustainable and people gravitated toward areas of richer abundance like river valleys. Agrarian life involves villages and when you have a lot of villages interacting along a long area of waterways, civilization develops (exchange of ideas and culture, development of legal systems and writing.)

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Degradation33

Addendum:

I also feel the rise of superstition was partly related to this loss of abundance at the end of the wet period. I'd imagine rain spirits became something very common to do rituals for.

It would be traumatic to have this vast area of lush abundance become uninhabitable rather quickly. No wonder they were extremely spiritual by the time of Old Egypt.

Hunter gatherers have a lot of charms and practices (and shamanism) to bring food into their sphere of travel.

The Egyptians were neither more nor less spiritual than any of the other ancient people.

a reply to: Byrd

Yeah, that was a late thought. Additional comment. Probably should have left it out. Sorta ruined the first one.

Let me tweak that a bit.

Superstitions may have formed around resources.

The root of superstition being the genetic memory and teachings of thousands of years of ancestors using hunting charms and shamanism to fulfill their needs.

There were ingrained reasons why there were heavy superstitions in early civilizations. And these were often influenced by the scarcity of resource.

Can sorta save that Comment.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Byrd

Yeah, that was a late thought. Additional comment. Probably should have left it out. Sorta ruined the first one.

Let me tweak that a bit.

Superstitions may have formed around resources.

The root of superstition being the genetic memory and teachings of thousands of years of ancestors using hunting charms and shamanism to fulfill their needs.

There were ingrained reasons why there were heavy superstitions in early civilizations. And these were often influenced by the scarcity of resource.

Can sorta save that Comment.

I think you've first got to prove that there were "heavy superstitions" in early civilization.

AND you have to distinguish superstition from other practices. For example, pouring water over the statue of a god and drinking the water (a practice in ancient Egypt) to cure a disease -- superstition or medicine? Wearing an amulet of Bastet to help a woman have children -- superstition or medicine or religion? Feeding peeled wands to animals to change their coat color (Bible) -superstition or primitive agriculture or religion? Is "not walking under ladders" superstition or a good work practice or both? What about praying... to Tu’er Shen?

All of the above are folk and cultural practices.

It's a pretty problematic word, because it implies a certain bias on the part of the observer. For example, WE know that pouring water over a rock (no matter what type) is not likely to impart any benefit (or harm) to the water. So we'd say the water procedure was "superstition" -- but the ancient Egyptians believed it was medicine. So to one group, it's a cause to sneer and feel superior but to the other group it was an effective treatment (possibly placebo effect) in a time when medicine didn't save everyone.

Perhaps reframe your idea without trying to go into "what is superstition"?

a reply to: Degradation33

You seem to have forgotten that Globekli tepi, which was ten thousand years back. civilization must have been well established for the skills required to make the place. Some races of humans could have been well-civilized, and the rest doing a bit of hunter-gathering. Even today some tribes in the Amazon have never seen anything else but arboreal life, who would rather kill an invader in the forest than co-exist. We are the aliens to them. So no one knows for certain.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Degradation33

You seem to have forgotten that Globekli tepi, which was ten thousand years back. civilization must have been well established for the skills required to make the place. Some races of humans could have been well-civilized, and the rest doing a bit of hunter-gathering. Even today some tribes in the Amazon have never seen anything else but arboreal life, who would rather kill an invader in the forest than co-exist. We are the aliens to them. So no one knows for certain.

There is no evidence of civilization at Gobekli Tepe.
There is no evidence of a settlement there at all.
There is some slight evidence that a few people stayed there year-round. Not firm evidence though. Not yet anyway. Probably maintenance of the site and wildlife scouts if at all.

Harte

a reply to: Harte
So what in your mind supports the formation of a massive cultural development, complete with art of a highly stylized form requiring coordinated effort, not to mention hoisting massive stones, if not “civilization ?” Gobekli Tepi surely represents the effort of a civilization

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Harte
So what in your mind supports the formation of a massive cultural development, complete with art of a highly stylized form requiring coordinated effort, not to mention hoisting massive stones, if not “civilization ?” Gobekli Tepi surely represents the effort of a civilization

The definition of "civilization" is "people living in cities." More specifically, they have an organized government, social hierarchy (trade classes, specialized labor), laws, agriculture (planting fields and domesticating animals), and writing. The last point (writing) is somewhat contentious, but the rest is generally agreed on.

GT wasn't built in association with a city. And there's lots of efforts that are undertaken by cultural groups -- the Cahokia Mounds, Canyon Chelly, for instance, or Stonehenge.

a reply to: Byrd
Where I appreciate your statements, what occurred at Gobekli Tepi is vast and the development of art to that degree, and particularly skill required implies something deeper than a loose cultural association. A protected artisan class that isn’t required to acquire food etc… that can produce acres of a coordinated effort, like that requires a shared system of measurement and a host of other systems. It takes generations of close cultural exchange to evolve high level artisans capable of the feats we are discussing.

Given the extreme point in the timeline, wouldn’t it be a fair supposition that the civilization is equally well hidden by time and nature, but quite likely it isn’t appreciated by virtue of an unrecognized context?

I suppose I’m arguing the losing side of a semantic argument, but I consider Cahokia another likely candidate for a broader definition for civilization.

Thank you for clarifying the the definition, I do appreciate your scholarship in this area🙂

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Byrd
Where I appreciate your statements, what occurred at Gobekli Tepi is vast and the development of art to that degree, and particularly skill required implies something deeper than a loose cultural association. A protected artisan class that isn’t required to acquire food etc… that can produce acres of a coordinated effort, like that requires a shared system of measurement and a host of other systems. It takes generations of close cultural exchange to evolve high level artisans capable of the feats we are discussing.

There are other structures in the area -- Gürcütepe is a likely spot, but others exist -- Jericho, for example (en.wikipedia.org...) that are made by various Pre-Pottery Neolithic peoples.

So, to respond to an un-asked point, yes they already had practice at organizing and building things.

Given the extreme point in the timeline, wouldn’t it be a fair supposition that the civilization is equally well hidden by time and nature, but quite likely it isn’t appreciated by virtue of an unrecognized context?

You're seeing it as a single point with no references. People who study the area see it as part of a pattern with muiltiple sites.

I suppose I’m arguing the losing side of a semantic argument, but I consider Cahokia another likely candidate for a broader definition for civilization.

You're not really on the losing side, there... there's some debate about Cahokia and it does seem to meet the major qualifications for a civilization for the Mississippian Culture. I'm on the fence about it, personally, having not studied it or the Mississippian Culture.

I agree that climate changed and forced changes in behavior that led to the rise of new civilizations, but I think evidence clearly points to a pole shift every 12-13,000 years as the main cause. The Sahara was lush and green until the last pole shift almost 13,000 years ago; then Earth's surface re-oriented. Africa and the Middle East, near a pivot point, didn't change latitude a lot, but the planetary changes altered currents at sea and in the air and the rains slowed down. After a few thousand years the North American ice cap, which had been centered on the Hudson Bay North Pole, completed melted in North America's new range of latitude. The end of the frigid meltwater in the North Atlantic triggered more climate changes and now the Sahara really turned into a desert. After that I agree with OP's premise in general, except that Egyptians tried to rebuild in the ruins of a previous great civilization from before the pole shift and could not duplicate their craftsmanship with equal skill.

originally posted by: Kammlersgrdaughter77
I agree that climate changed and forced changes in behavior that led to the rise of new civilizations, but I think evidence clearly points to a pole shift every 12-13,000 years as the main cause. The Sahara was lush and green until the last pole shift almost 13,000 years ago; then Earth's surface re-oriented. Africa and the Middle East, near a pivot point, didn't change latitude a lot, but the planetary changes altered currents at sea and in the air and the rains slowed down. After a few thousand years the North American ice cap, which had been centered on the Hudson Bay North Pole, completed melted in North America's new range of latitude. The end of the frigid meltwater in the North Atlantic triggered more climate changes and now the Sahara really turned into a desert. After that I agree with OP's premise in general, except that Egyptians tried to rebuild in the ruins of a previous great civilization from before the pole shift and could not duplicate their craftsmanship with equal skill.

Not strictly any pole shift, but a slow, gradual change.
climate.nasa.gov...

Harte

originally posted by: ARM1986
Civilisation was born to keep the food supply concentrated, but whose?

If you look at the history of Sumeria, and probably also early Egypt, the issue was that the civilized people had a huge surplus of food, and nothing to do with it, so they would go out and trade it for stuff.

Also offering the less civilized peoples a way to get the food without raiding them helped keep things civil.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Byrd

Yeah, that was a late thought. Additional comment. Probably should have left it out. Sorta ruined the first one.

Let me tweak that a bit.

Superstitions may have formed around resources.

The root of superstition being the genetic memory and teachings of thousands of years of ancestors using hunting charms and shamanism to fulfill their needs.

There were ingrained reasons why there were heavy superstitions in early civilizations. And these were often influenced by the scarcity of resource.

Can sorta save that Comment.

A lot of what superstition achieves is to randomize things. If you always go and hunt in the area where you think there will be the most game, you'll deplete that area of game.

But if you use some kind of ritual to randomize your hunting behavior, you'll spread your hunting efforts out enough to cover the whole area over time, letting the game replenish from areas you leave alone for a while.

Because of that, societies that practice superstition survive longer.

a reply to: knownaught

A lot of what superstition achieves is to randomize things. If you always go and hunt in the area where you think there will be the most game, you'll deplete that area of game.

But if you use some kind of ritual to randomize your hunting behavior, you'll spread your hunting efforts out enough to cover the whole area over time, letting the game replenish from areas you leave alone for a while.

Because of that, societies that practice superstition survive longer.

One thing in all of this is clear to me, the further back you go in time the less likely people are to separate their experience from a superstitious cause. Their life is that which is bestowed by divinity. The euthyphro dilemma being a very important insight into the tendency to literaly not separate the two.

You could destroy everything that makes us and it would reboot surrounding a higher purpose or cause all over again.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis introduced by Julian Jaynes who argued human ancestors as late as the ancient Greeks did not consider emotions and desires as stemming from their own minds but as the consequences of actions of gods external to themselves.

I swear there are still reverberations of this. God = happy feelings, Satan = wickedness.

a reply to: Degradation33

The wobble of the axis was the main catalyst for the seasonal nomadic pastoral to civilized commercial society switch.

bump and what do you thunk causes the wobble.. i think the current theory is something called the solar lunar cycle. its very messy and i think the reason of its wobble is caused by the influence of stars and that its hidden in our mythology the world over..