A
Anonymous
Guest
There have been quite a few threads on this forum regarding the pressures that drove the development of early civilisations. According to this Amos Nur, a Stanford University professor, earthquakes may have been an important factor in historical change. The article states:
'Nur's research on the ancient city of Megiddo, also known as Armageddon, provides one example. By studying ancient texts and archaeological evidence, Nur demonstrated that earthquakes, and not repeated conquests, could have been responsible for the city's sandwich-like layers of ruined buildings.
Other research suggests that earthquakes - caused when fault lines release built-up tension - could have done more than just level cities; they may have brought down civilizations as well. According to Nur, storms of earthquakes raging over periods of 50 to 100 years might have helped bring the Bronze Age to an end.
In hierarchical societies where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few well-fortified elites, says Nur, earthquakes that toppled columns and cracked walls could have instantly changed the balance of power. That would have been especially true during times of war or revolt....
Despite growing evidence of the effects of ancient earthquakes, some researchers remain skeptical. Iain Stewart, a geologist at Brunel University in England, will argue at Friday's AGU session that earthquake damage is hard to distinguish from the effects of poor construction, ground instability or human intervention.'
Seems a bit tenuous to me. What about climatic change, warfare, enviromental degradation, technological advances, competition, etc? I find it a little hard to believe that a single event such as an earthquake could have destoyed an entire civilisation, even one based around a single city state. I think it's too easy for people to simply rebuild.
The host website EurekAlert is a great source of information on science and new discoveries though.
'Nur's research on the ancient city of Megiddo, also known as Armageddon, provides one example. By studying ancient texts and archaeological evidence, Nur demonstrated that earthquakes, and not repeated conquests, could have been responsible for the city's sandwich-like layers of ruined buildings.
Other research suggests that earthquakes - caused when fault lines release built-up tension - could have done more than just level cities; they may have brought down civilizations as well. According to Nur, storms of earthquakes raging over periods of 50 to 100 years might have helped bring the Bronze Age to an end.
In hierarchical societies where wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few well-fortified elites, says Nur, earthquakes that toppled columns and cracked walls could have instantly changed the balance of power. That would have been especially true during times of war or revolt....
Despite growing evidence of the effects of ancient earthquakes, some researchers remain skeptical. Iain Stewart, a geologist at Brunel University in England, will argue at Friday's AGU session that earthquake damage is hard to distinguish from the effects of poor construction, ground instability or human intervention.'
Seems a bit tenuous to me. What about climatic change, warfare, enviromental degradation, technological advances, competition, etc? I find it a little hard to believe that a single event such as an earthquake could have destoyed an entire civilisation, even one based around a single city state. I think it's too easy for people to simply rebuild.
The host website EurekAlert is a great source of information on science and new discoveries though.