Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Angkor Wat - some new discoveries & welcome new members

Expand Messages
  • Susan
    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
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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'.

      Susan

      --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2"
      <puppet@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, Stan, isn't that awesome?
      >
      > 1,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS MORE! Holy cow. Consider that Washington
      DC is
      > (this is from memory...) 96 square miles, versus Angkor's 1,150 sq
      > miles.
      >
      > 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,
      the
      > guy thinks that is the reason Ankgor fell into disrepair? Give me a
      > break!
      >
      > By this logic, London should have fallen centuries ago. Paris,
      too.
      > New York City should be in ruins. Mexico City and Tokyo? Toast
      long
      > ago.
      >
      > No? They are still around? Gee, I guess that logic wasn't so
      logical,
      > 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
      farms
      > didn't spread out around the city? Third, what was the population
      of
      > the entire world then? 100 million? 200 million? And we are
      supposed
      > to think that they were so packed in that they couldn't feed
      themselves?
      > 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
      is by
      > definition doomed simply because it takes up a lot of space? Caca!
      > Taking up space on a planet with a population density of , what?
      about
      > 1.0 person per square km average density is "disrupting its local
      > environment"? Is there any indication that the population density
      was
      > 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
      telling us
      > they had global warming back then. (p.s. I am not a Republican.)
      >
      > To some people "disrupting the local environment" can mean spitting
      on
      > the sidewalk, to some it can be tilling the soil, to some it is
      simply
      > humans breathing. It is such a nebulous phrase that can mean
      anything,
      > 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
      and
      > repeated and repeated. By extending the global warming type
      arguments
      > to past civilizations, they are only extending the lie. The
      arguments
      > that Rome fell because they chopped down trees ignore the far
      greater
      > evidence that it was because they changed from a Republic to an
      Empire,
      > which accelerated the decayed within, or that maybe the Vandals
      simply
      > 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
      spread out
      > too far and Mother Earth stomped on them - it all makes perfect
      sense.
      >
      > . . . . Steve
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.