August 21, 2007 at 2:21 am #827
Here it is – it's the city of Caral, located in modern-day Peru. It eventually was abandoned or somehow lost its inhabitants, but it was in operation from about 3000 to 2000 B.C. This was interesting about the city from the article below:
One singularly unique thing about Caral is the lack of signs of conflict. When the city was first discovered to be the oldest yet found, many archaeologists came to the site looking to find more proof for a theory that proposed that war and conflicts were the catalysts for cities and civilizations to be born. When they got there, however, they were quickly frustrated. The city had no walls, no fortifications, no signs of any military whatsoever. Even more significant, they found no weapons anywhere.
Caral: The first city in the New WorldIt's another case study as to why other civilizations, such as the Egyptians which may have dated to around the same time, succeeded whereas this one apparently did not.August 21, 2007 at 2:31 am #9558
Wow they are pushing the dates back for civilization in the New World. Interesting. It doesn't surprise me though. Archeologists and anthropologists are always trying to push civilization back whenever they can.August 21, 2007 at 2:36 am #9559
It sounds like you are skeptical of this claim, but it's not always easy to read between the lines when reading text. Do you believe the reported date of this city?August 21, 2007 at 2:41 am #9560
Mr. Herbert appears to be an amateur and he cites no sources in his article. I'm not going to say it's all false of course, but more information is definitely needed.October 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm #9561
Right, I had never heard of it! ;DHowever, I had heard of the theory gaining popularity among cultural anthropologists and archaeologists that primitive/early civilizations existed without conflict, without armies, and without priests and high lords.October 24, 2007 at 9:29 pm #9562
Right, I had never heard of it! ;DHowever, I had heard of the theory gaining popularity among cultural anthropologists and archaeologists that primitive/early civilizations existed without conflict, without armies, and without priests and high lords.
Yeah I have too and I don't buy it yet. Violence is as human as breathing, and organized violence is the hallmark of every civilization I have ever studied.October 25, 2007 at 1:13 am #9563
Yeah I have too and I don't buy it yet. Violence is as human as breathing, and organized violence is the hallmark of every civilization I have ever studied.
I could believe primitive civilizations existing without widespread conflict, but not without a religious outlet. That would seem to be a largely modern-day concept.Donnie, what about the American Indian tribes that were not of a warring nature? Obviously some were likely warring (e.g. the Iroquois) but not all, in my understanding.August 22, 2014 at 3:55 am #9564AethelingParticipant
The above link is dead however here is a 2002 BBC documentary about CaralAccording to that documentary all the different anthropologists or archaeologists have some theories about the reasons of the first civilisations (from “simple life” to cities): some pretend it's warfare, others think it's trade. In a nutshell, they don't know; theories only.About the time for that city, Carbon14 analysis seems to confirm Caral as the oldest city of the New world so far (2,627 BC)The Lost Pyramids of Caral (BBC Learning)August 22, 2014 at 4:12 am #9565
At what date do scholars put the land bridge over the Bering Strait? 9000-10000 B.C.? If so, that would have given them a few thousand years to migrate far south.August 22, 2014 at 9:20 am #9566skiguyModerator
Donnie, what about the American Indian tribes that were not of a warring nature?
Unless they were completely isolated (rare), every tribe I've ever read about was warring with another. I think saying the Natives were peaceful until the 'evil' Europeans came is a post-modern fantasy concept. The French and British used the already existing animosity between tribes very often as a stragedy.
At what date do scholars put the land bridge over the Bering Strait? 9000-10000 B.C.?
Some put is as far back as 20,000 yrsApril 16, 2017 at 1:54 am #57852
I just noticed this thread and totally forgot about it. It is really quite amazing to hear about how old this civilization was. It makes me think that if the migration push into South America resulted in a settlement by around 2600 B.C., wouldn’t it be likely that there were other settlements in North America by then as well? But evidently, nothing major was ever built (or at least never survived).September 9, 2019 at 9:55 pm #58630
Wow I just noticed I never answered Phid’s question. I’m not aware of any Native Americans who did not engage in warring activities.September 14, 2019 at 12:39 pm #58631
Lol, I’ll forgive you this one time for not answering my question twelve years ago. 😉
However, if I had to guess, I’d have a hard time imagining there would by any prehistoric civilization (or equivalent thereof) that did not engage in warring activities at least to some degree (and by “warring activities” I’m including the creation of arms for self-defense). It’s reasonable, though, that some groups did not engage in extensive military activities.
I have an even harder time believing that such civilizations did not have some sort of structured religious belief system. Even the presence of basic shamanism, which seems to date back tens of thousands of years to the Paleolithic period, signifies a kind of religious hierarchy, so religious structure is a pretty basic component of early communities.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.