Thanks for the Angkor Wat link, Stan, and Steve, once again for great
comments and critique. You get us all thinking, questioning, rooting
around into the specifics of some of these web links and often
unexamined assumptions by reporters and writers. I appreciate those
of you who also try to tie together the many web links from areas
global--of both historic and ancient eras--which come to this group.
I also want to acknowledge and welcome the two new members who joined
Ancient Waterways Society this month. If or when you feel
comfortable, feel free to introduce yourselves and interests.
Otherwise, we are also happy to have onlookers. We probably have
dozens also who are not members but who regularly follow posts. I
receive a number of personal letters of people making inquiries or
comments, but encourage them to post directly to the group rather
than my doing so 'second-hand'.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> Yes, Stan, isn't that awesome?
> 1,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE! Holy cow. Consider that Washington
> (this is from memory...) 96 square miles, versus Angkor's 1,150 sq
> The more we learn, the more impressive ancient peoples are.
> BTW, something I can't let pass without comment:
> This quote is ridiculous:
> "The large-scale city engineered its own downfall by disrupting its
> local environment by expanding continuously into the surrounding
> forests."Now what in the heck brought that on? Based on the size,
> guy thinks that is the reason Ankgor fell into disrepair? Give me a
> By this logic, London should have fallen centuries ago. Paris,
> New York City should be in ruins. Mexico City and Tokyo? Toast
> No? They are still around? Gee, I guess that logic wasn't so
> was it?
> Counter arguments:
> First of all, just because it is large in area didn't mean that the
> people didn't have backyard gardens. Second, does he think that
> didn't spread out around the city? Third, what was the population
> the entire world then? 100 million? 200 million? And we are
> to think that they were so packed in that they couldn't feed
> In a region that probably has two rice harvests a year? Not likely.
> And the real dig being made is the suggestion that any large city
> definition doomed simply because it takes up a lot of space? Caca!
> Taking up space on a planet with a population density of , what?
> 1.0 person per square km average density is "disrupting its local
> environment"? Is there any indication that the population density
> greater for Angkor just because it is spread out?
> And doesn't this guy think that they had trade? I don't know squat
> about Ankgor's civilization, but I have to think this guy is
> they had global warming back then. (p.s. I am not a Republican.)
> To some people "disrupting the local environment" can mean spitting
> the sidewalk, to some it can be tilling the soil, to some it is
> humans breathing. It is such a nebulous phrase that can mean
> but what it does do is harp on the "by definition, people are bad
> citizens of planet Earth" spiel, a lie that keeps getting repeated
> repeated and repeated. By extending the global warming type
> to past civilizations, they are only extending the lie. The
> that Rome fell because they chopped down trees ignore the far
> evidence that it was because they changed from a Republic to an
> which accelerated the decayed within, or that maybe the Vandals
> beat them because they were better fighters. No, in some people's
> minds, the speculation that it was the trees is gospel.
> Rome killed their trees and Gaea took her revenge; Angkorians
> too far and Mother Earth stomped on them - it all makes perfect
> . . . . Steve