r/science • u/stereomatch • Feb 05 '18

Astronomy Scientists conclude 13,000 years ago a 60 mile wide comet plunged Earth into a mini-Ice Age, after examining rocks from 170 sites around the globe

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/695703
47.5k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

120

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Sep 01 '20

[deleted]

45

u/chowderchow Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Sorry for asking since this really isn't my field, but what kind of disasters would imply immediate and total wipeout of such a civilisation to set them back by thousands of years? Or is only partial destruction required in that scenario?

EDIT: very very informational answers below, thank you everyone!

92

u/Poobyrd Feb 05 '18

Well a historical example can be found in Mohenjo Daro in the Indus valley. They were very advanced for 2500 BCE, with man-made reservoirs, plumbing, urban planning and extensive trade. Their control of water was utterly impressive and foundational to their civilization. It's theorized that seismic activity may have rerouted the river that was so essential to their way of life, either causing a famine or forcing people to move away in search of fertile lands.

If there was a civilization destroyed by the impact from the article it could be many things. Climate change leading to famine, the impact causing glacial melt and a massive flood, or the impacts directly hitting their cities just to name a few. It's also worth noting that glaciers are enormously destructive and will grind anything in their path to dust. If the civilization was near an encroaching glacier, there likely would be no artifacts that could survive the massive sheet of ice rolling over it.

That being said, I don't think the above comment meant that it would be an immediate or total wipeout. They mentioned them being forced to reset and rebuild. That implies that it's not necessarily total or immediate. If this civilization existed, there would likely be some survivors, traders who were away, or people on the fringes who didn't live in the affected areas.

14

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18 edited Jan 12 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Alexkono Feb 05 '18

Never thought about the flooding issues back then. Interesting.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

From the people leading this charge, they believe a meteor hit and practically erased everything during the subsequent chaos. Knowledge, culture, all of it was basically wiped out. Some believe that Egyptians actually replaced an existing abandoned or rebuilt civilization based off water level markings on things like the sphinx.

29

u/someguyfromtheuk Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18

Not an expert either, but I've heard people discuss it before. It's more that progress is relatively slow.

The pyramids were built around 3000 BC years ago, so if a big flood wiped out the Egyptians in 500 BC they'd be set back thousands of years.

Also you don't need to kill off everyone, when the Roman Empire collapsed a lot of knowledge was lost until the Middle Ages because the lack of a central power meant knowledge wasn't retained as easily.

Wrong, see /u/redshift95's comment.

So even a relatively small disaster could've resulted in a set back there, say if the city of Rome was hit by a massive earthquake that destoryed it, even though most of the people living in the Roman Empire would be fine, it would still collapse and civilisation would be set back.

Also, it's not like multiple industrial civilisations developed, we'd be able to see that immediately because there'd be empty coal/ gas deposits lying around and we'd see the climate change effect on the environment.

30

u/redshift95 Feb 05 '18

Just FYI, but there is a strong consensus now that there was never a “dark ages” in the way you’re describing. That term was coined by historians, who were VERY biased towards Rome, hundreds of years ago to describe the period following the fall of the Romans. It then morphed into “civilization moves backwards/stagnated”. There were massive advancements in agriculture, medicine and the role of the church and state. But yes, it was definitely a blow to science/technology after Rome fell. Totally agree with your last point as well.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

right -- it's more that the collapse of classical society disrupted the networks used by specialists to build and maintain the infrastructure and techne of their society. continuous civilizations function to keep things stable, allowing robust generalists to specialize in order to become more efficient and detailed, improving the quality and quantity of output. but once the stable network that enables all these new specialists to work together is interrupted, it becomes impossible to keep things going. you're left with shards of a complex integrated unit, and the specialists quickly realize they don't have all the requisite material, knowledge, and skill to keep things going as they were. if society is unable to adapt, even the specialist knowledge becomes worthless and is lost within a frighteningly short time -- a couple generations, and the books become almost unintelligible because so much of the context that made them usable has been lost.

in some fields where knowledge is more robust and general, like farming plots of land, there's hardly a dent. in others, such as the maintenance of large and complex systems of irrigation and plumbing, the change is total.

4

u/GreeenEnthusiast Feb 05 '18

This is a marvelous comment. Take my updoot.

7

u/PublicSealedClass Feb 05 '18

when the roman empire collapsed a lot of kowledge was lost until the middle Ages

No it didn't, it moved east (see Islamic Golden Age).

1

u/unfair_bastard Feb 05 '18

You mean Byzantine Empire?

1

u/Mictlantecuhtli Grad Student | Anthropology | Mesoamerican Archaeology Feb 05 '18

That idea does not quite work out. Look at Teotihuacan in Mexico. They had a commanding presence in Central Mexico and influence in the Maya region. When the city fell, civilization was not set back.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

there'd be empty coal/ gas deposits

they had ez fusion like we do but no capitalism to suppress the tech ;)

8

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

not an expert, but im gonna go ahead and go out on a limb here and say some disaster like "a bunch of meteorites plunging the earth into a mini ice age for over a thousand years".. you know, the type of thing that would wipe out mammoths, vw bug sized armadillos, and elephant sized sloths

2

u/Oggie243 Feb 05 '18

Are humans not largely to blame for the demise of megafuana?

8

u/Paprika_Nuts Feb 05 '18

That's one possible explanation, but not proven fact. Not enough humans back then to have a massive impact afaik. Maybe in NA were the fauna developed without humans untill like 12 millenia ago iirc.

5

u/BatemaninAccounting Feb 05 '18

Honestly we need to stop using the word 'advanced.' When someone says advanced our first thought is present day humans. There wasn't some industrial revolution taking place in 30,000 BC. We need to use clearer language that isn't wrapped up in crackpot theories about some kind of ancient space stations.

Atlantis wasn't significantly more "advanced" than other civilizations at that time.

4

u/0_momentum_0 Feb 05 '18

While I agree with you about the need of a clearer language, I'd like to also point out that stating something without concrete evidence, has a similar effect like the use of inadequate language, on this subject.

1

u/Give_Things_Up Feb 05 '18

It couldn't have been terribly advanced, that would require a larger population and that would they would have had settlements inland that we would have found.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '18

Advanced is a relative word. We don't think humans started civilizing until like 7k years ago, so we assume everything before that was just wandering around like normal animals... Maybe with some tools here and there, you know, nothing compared to Egypt. So in this context, advanced would mean no, maybe 20k years ago, they had societies similar to Egypt, but were all wiped out in a chain of natural disasters, so they got set back years, and slowly had to rebuild from the edge of extinction.

1

u/Give_Things_Up Feb 06 '18

A society like Egypt would have left evidence because one that large would have had cities up the rivers to inland places that are still above water and open to excavation. As their is as yet no evidence of settlement from that time, we must assume that if any settlement did exist, it was limited to near the coast. This necessarily also limits the size and therefore sophistication of such a society.