Talk:Cradle of civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cradle of civilization article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Name

Shouldn't this be moved to Cradle of civilization? gren 06:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Not sure. Falphin 19:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that it should be lowercase but the first pages of googling it show capitalized. gren 1 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
    • It apparently is capitolized I looked through them and they all are refering to different places. Falphin 6 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)
I'm only a year late responding. First, it's a proper noun, isn't it? Second, what a pathetic article. Surely we can write more? -b 06:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletd the following content

Deletd the following from the Indus valley civilization section.

The episode would appear to be consistent in time and place with the earlier Aryan onslaught upon the Indus region as reflected in the older books of the Rigveda, in which the newcomers are represented as attacking the “walled cities” or “citadels” of the aboriginal peoples and the Aryan war-god Indra as rending “forts as age consumes a garment.” [1]

The Britannica is wrong for the following reasons: The Vedas talk about the war between Gods and Demons and not between Aryans and aborgins. However, never has it been proved that Gods represented Aryans and the aborginals were the Demons. More over it is a matter of contenttion if Aryans are aborgins of the Indus/Saraswati civiliation or not.

[edit] mv'ing material

Cradle of civilization is a title claimed by many regions of the world, but is most often applied by Western and Middle Eastern educated scholars to the ancient city states of Mesopotamia. Scholars educated in other parts of the world look at the question differently. There are five rivers that scholars cite as being possible sites for the 'Cradle of Civilization.' They are: the Tigris-Euphrates in modern day Iraq, the Halil rud in modern day Iran, the Nile in Africa, the Indus in South Asia, and the Huang-He-Yangtze in China.

The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest currently known attempts humanity made at establishing non-nomadic agrarian societies and they all date back thousands of years. But due to the fact that the Ubaid, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon civilizations all emerged around the Tigris-Euphrates, the theory of Mesopotamia being the cradle of civilizatons might be the strongest. It's also due to the fact that Ubaid (5500 B.C.) is the oldest civilization known to exist. Ubaid Civilization

Another 'cradle of civilization' is a non-river based area known as Mesoamerica. This is the region where the the Olmec civilization began in about 1500 B.C.

The convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers produced rich fertile soil and a supply of water for irrigation causing this particular region to be referred to as the Fertile Crescent. However, it is clear that similar conditions in other fertile river locations prompted nomadic people in that given region to form a sedentary, agrarian community and thus, also become a first "Cradle of Civilization." It is not clear where the actual beginning took place or whether there were many beginnings in many locations so that mankind's societal development cannot be attributed to only one primary location.

just don't want this lost .. may be in there ... J. D. Redding 01:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap with Civilization

Most of the material in this article appears to be covered by Civilization#Development_of_early_civilizations. Is there a reason for this article to exist independently? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. heqs 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone objects, I'll turn this article into a redirect to Civilization in a couple of days. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The "bloating" material in the Civilization article needs to be culled and "main articled" to here. That page is 80 kilobytes long (.. asa way of comparison, the Maritime history of the United States is only 74 kb long and is split up, from what I can tell ...). That article could use some splitting up. J. D. Redding 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. J. D. Redding

If that's what it's going to be, it should be titled Development of early civilizations or something to that effect. heqs ·:. 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me ... Be bold .... J. D. Redding 22:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'll wait for further comment before making such a move, but if you feel emboldened, do what thou wilt. heqs ·:. 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I'm for it. Brutannica 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I'm not going to try and stuff this reference in somewhere, but I figured it would probably make a good reference for an archaeologist referencing Ethiopia as the "cradle of humankind" -- http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/ethiopia.fossil.reut. /Blaxthos 15:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd merge discussion

This 2nd merge, since someone reverted the 1st merge on the grounds that not sufficient time was alotted for it.

Four Great Ancient Civilizations is a concept used in Chinese historiography and Cradle of civilization is a concept used in western historiography. The two concepts are almost identical in usage and refer to the same set of content. As such they should be merged. --Voidvector 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I really cannot see any reason to merge Four Great Ancient Civilizations, which was a special concept in Chinese historiography. Although they are talking about similar issue, they are obviously different concepts. --Neo-Jay 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I want to point out that the Four Great Ancient Civilizations article title should be lower case because it is a phrase, not a proper noun or book title. (see WP:CAPS) Also the phrase has been been used in English to refer to other sets of civilizations (while majority of the Google search results do contain a list including China):
    1. The ways of life of four great ancient civilizations-- Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Celtic--are illuminated here through their foodways. [2]
    2. status of women in four great ancient civilizations: Egypt, Persia and the Near East, Greece, and Rome. [3] --Voidvector 07:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am fine with the lowercase issue. And I am also agree that there are different meanings for the Four Great Civilizations. That's why this concept is also in dispute in China (please see its Chinese version, zh:四大文明古国). But this concept has been widely used in Chinese historiography. It deserves a separate article. You can mention the different meanings in it if you like. --Neo-Jay 08:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually think upper case would be better for the English translation of zh:四大文明古国. First, the four great ancient civilizations either presented as "Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and Celtic" or "Egypt, Persia and the Near East, Greece, and Rome" more likely refer to "four of the great civilizations" rather than "THE four great civilizations", given its context, while zh:四大文明古国 is meant to encompass "THE four great civilizations". Secondly, zh:四大文明古国 has been given a rather rigid definition, and probably should be presented thus in English translation. Whether the concept of zh:四大文明古国 is valid or not is entirely something else. 151.201.132.210 08:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge; concept is unique to Chinese historiography. The Cradle of civilization article focuses on individual places and their claims to be the "true" cradle. Four great civilizations article focuses on the concept itself and why the four are included. Fishal 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as long as more is added to how the Chinese system regards these civilizations. Zachorious 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wetlands of Northern Europe

I don't see any reason why Northern Europe should not be mentioned. Stonehenge was a masterpiece of engineering long before the first Egyptian pyramid and a result of a long development, a lot more ancient anyway than the Americas or China. The area, definitely not confined to the Netherlands as some reverter is quarreling, definitely contributed to civilization, especially the modern and Western civilization. It certainly contributed a lot more to the current world than some extinct civilizations in the Americas, or even the isolated cultural areas in the far east. A cradle of civilization should at least be relevant to the world as a whole, and unfortunately so far I can't see any such distinction made whatsoever. Civilization has a lot of cradles, and I wonder why areas like Israël or Greece are skipped. Not any cradle of Western civilization is mentioned! No, I am not POV pushing. This article about cradles of civilization is just not credible without a focus on areas that made some difference. Sorry, I won't allow anybody to destroy some valuable piece of sourced information just for quarreling. Rokus01 22:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Northern Europe is not conventionally regarded as one of the birthplaces of civilization. (Neither is the Americas, but that's a separate problem.) The references cited in the text you've added say nothing about Northern Europe being one of the places where civilization arose. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Having had your break, I come back for saying I never said conventionally, I said: underestimated. Basically I referred to the Beaker culture, that conventionally is thought to have had its maritime roots along the rivers of Northern Europe - even though it might have developed considerably elsewhere later on, like in southern and eastern Europe. Personally I think the only cradle of civilization is the Eastern Mediterranean, including all between Turkey, Egypt and Irak. However, if people like to include also "separate problems" (that as I can see remain to be resolved in the case of the Americas), then it would be only fair to include the homelands of Bell Beaker culture as well for being the one that established great prehistoric traderoutes that ultimately even linked to otherwise completely isolated cultures like China (as attested by Bell Beaker silk): a "cradle" that until recently was not thought to have contributed or received a thing without such ancient traderoutes. Overestimated applies to the invention of scripts and cultural items that never were accepted but in very restricted regions or time. Underestimated applies to cultural developments that brought together cultural items, spread over diverse regions and accelerated the invention of new ways and technologies, that were able to construct masterpieces of architecture even before the pyramids. Indeed, you may be right no traditional book ever made such an important observation. However, this does not make the cultural input of this region less underestimated. It would be a good idea to insist truly on reliable and notable sourced references for using the phrase "cradle of civilization", since after all this is a strange and outlandish concept. If nobody can, then please nominate this article to deletion. Probably you'll still find this phrase in popular picture books or cheap magazines, but this kind of mainstream-guru thing won't do. If it ever was, I don't think the concept is very useful anymore now we know so much more of archeology and how important developments intertwined. Instead, I'd fathom "cradle of script" would fit the intentions of this article much better. Rokus01 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify

This is an odd article which looks to have suffered from some "creative accounting" by nationalists. The dating of the IVC is fudged to make the civilisation (as opposed to the settlements) in the area seem older, and there is similar vagueness in the section on China. As far as I am aware there is no serious contendor with Mesopotamia, but it's the shortest section. I guess Mesopotamian nationalists are thin on the ground. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More

We should add more other forgotten great civilizations that flourishing at the same time: such as Jōmon period in Japan; Hoabinhian and Dong Son culture in Northern Vietnam. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Changed the 3rd paragraph that had ambiguously declared, without source, that something called cradle of civilization (book? tv show? what) defined some river valleys as possible candidates. Rewrote to assert that the cradle of civilization entry here has that info.

This: In the history of the world, the label cradle of civilization is commonly applied[citation needed] to several regions of choice, with reference to the original locations attested regarding the development of writing, complex social systems, and cities. Five rivers in particular are regularly cited by scholars as being possible locations for the emergence of civilization. Such 'Cradles of Civilization' are: the Tigris-Euphrates in modern day Iraq, Iran, the Nile in Africa, the Indus in South Asia, and the Huang-He-Yangtze in China.

Got edited to something more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stwomack (talk • contribs) 04:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)