> Well if one insists.
On what-the truth? Its swell and all to use the Wiki quote taken out of context to superficially support the simplistic notion, assuming the quote is fairly represented or accurate in the first place, that because the domestication of plants may have occurred independently in 11 different regions of the Old and New World therefore this is somehow proof they "inherited" this knowledge from an antediluvian lost civilization, but a more nuanced examination shows it in reality does not. To refresh our memory:
Agriculture involves the domestication of plants. Data from molecular and archaeological research generated over the past 15 years now makes it clear that agriculture began independently over a much larger area of the globe than was once thought, and included a diverse range of taxa. At least 11 regions of the Old and New World were involved as independent centers of origin, encompassing geographically isolated regions on most continents, but several more have been suggested.
Firstly, it is only referring to the "domestication of plants" which is hardly one and the same as "farming" or what we would consider agriculture on a scale and/or sophistication to support a population. More importantly, if you follow the Wiki article to the source the paper is referring to an 8,000yr period between c. 10,000-2,000BC-hardly the stuff of people emerging from the cataclysmic end of the last ice age and rediscovering the "lost art of agriculture" from the ALC.
A map depicting likely centers where the domestication of at least one plant or animal took place. Black outlines surround the most widely accepted independent centers of domestication, and sources of major diffusions of domesticates are indicated by arrows. Green and purple regions, respectively, are those where the domestication process took place during the late Pleistocene to early Holocene transition (12,000–8,200 B.P.), and in the middle Holocene (8,200–4,200 B.P.). Brown regions represent areas where, at present, the evidence for domestication is interpreted based upon the presence of domestic forms indigenous to these regions found outside of their native distributions.
Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies.
Many of the conclusions of this paper are based on inferences, extrapolations, interpretations, incomplete information, and assumptions the latter of which includes the most damning which is the foregone conclusion pre-Columbian transoceanic contact did not occur which I doubt few here would agree.
So while in fact there may have been "independent invention" of the domestication of plants, not "agriculture" per se' mind you, it is hardly the stuff that suggests "proof" of rediscovering the ALC on any level nor is it "strange" considering it took place over at least an 8,000yr period. What does speak to this idea, however, is what I quoted from this same wiki article:
It was not until after 9500 bc that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) sites in the Levant, although the consensus is that wheat was the first to be grown and harvested on a significant scale.
This is where "agriculture" as it pertains to civilization truly begins and from there it was largely disseminated by diffusion and not "independent invention". Among other reasons, it would appear the Levantine agricultural culture, like the Gobekli Tepe culture of the same exact period just a hop skip and a jump away, may have "inherited" this technology from a prior culture though this is still not to imply anything on par with the ability to build pyramids. In Egypt no less.
> Writing is similarly thought
> to have developed independently in isolated
> regions but one could also argue diffusion.
Actually no, it is not, and other than Sumer and Mesoamerica the case for the independent invention of writing systems vs diffusion, like in Egypt and China for example, is still widely debated with good reason.
> To me it seems more likely it stems from remnants
> from a once advanced civilization that thrived
> during the last ice age and got obliterated.
To some extent there should be little doubt the advancements made prior to the end of the Younger Dryas carried over through it which the only question is how "advanced" was it prior by comparison. People can believe or make up whatever they want, but the fact of the matter, as it stands today anyways, is that whatever there was before was not much different if less than what came after. This does not mean something may not be discovered to change that, but as of today it is not there.
> when you say you nothing leads you to conclude
> such an advanced civilization existed
What I said was:
None of which, regardless, leads me to a conclusion that supports cycles upon cycles of advanced civilization stretching back tens of thousands if not millions of years let alone any capable of building the megalithic monuments of Egypt.
> I say look
> at how after the Younger Dryas Event there are
> traces left in human knowledge. Fragmented and
> shattered but enough to reboot in some form or
Again, just what little has been brought up in this discussion c. 9500-8500BC-Gobekli Tepe, advanced agriculture, mud brick structures on an island (i.e. open water travel as well) all speak to the "reboot" of what came before which leaves nothing to suggest this was derived from a previous culture capable of building the megalithic monuments of Egypt.
> If for instance record keeping was part of this
> lost civilization it could explain how after it
> got destroyed and pretty much erased, isolated
> peoples independently developed a written
But this isn't what is found if only the opposite and regardless we are talking about 6,000yrs (9500-3500BC) after the fact or possibly as little as 3500-4500yrs if the symbols of the Vinca culture (which I believe they were) constitutes writing. Quite a gap which says nothing of even later cultures.
> However if you deny and throw "independent
> invention" out of the window the conversation
I have not "denied" independant invention no more so than I have "insisted" on diffusion as either should be accepted when warranted by the evidence regardless of one's beliefs not the other way around. Did it not ever occur to you that instead of everyone all over the globe being the "independent" beneficiaries of this ALC, thousands of years apart no less, that maybe it was only one or a few cultures in a specific region who inherited it and it was they who as they grew later diffused this knowledge to the rest? Just a thought.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Apr-16 01:24 by Thanos5150.