Talk:Cradle of civilization
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cradle of civilization article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Cradle of civilization has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Merge?
- 2 Readded
- 3 Orphaned references in Cradle of civilization
- 4 new information on the invention of the whell in Europe
- 5 Rm'ed "followed by Egypt" in the lead...
- 6 Greece - navigation hoax
- 7 Four great ancient civilizations
- 8 this should be removed
- 9 vedic civilization
- 10 Greece
- 11 Israel
- 12 Why is Greece in here?
- 13 Norte Chico civilization
- 14 "We"
- 15 Opening: If writing is considered an indicator of civilization...
- 16 New Guinea
- 17 Confusions
I believe that this article should be merged with Mesopotamia. The two are very similar, and have to do with the same subject. They both deal a lot with the ancient history of Mesopotamia.
- This article is about much more than Mesopotamia, this is about all the possible cradles of civilization. The Mesopotamia article discusses Mesopotamia specifically.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The timeline that was deleted is readded. Some one said that the links in the template doesnt exist, but I see all of them do exist and may be some servers are switched off at different timezones and that may cause some disturbances otherwise they are fine. Actually the template was submitted for review during creation and they have not seen any problems. If you still have doubts, try to rework the template itself rather than deleting it in this article. Thanks. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the pages which are linked to don't actually exist. The template needs to link to articles which actually exist, or the articles need to be created.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Cradle of civilization
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cradle of civilization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Unesco":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
new information on the invention of the whell in Europe
cant we open this arcticel again i want to add information about the invention of the wheel in europe this is a big step toward civilation and most be placed in this articel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- First known wheel is documented to have been developed in Sumeria ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Rm'ed "followed by Egypt" in the lead...
...because it was unnecessary (and inaccurate since the earliest "cradle" can be only one thing. Having a "followed by" is illogical) and very vulnerable to vandalism (order switching).
"In Crete recent findings show that the ancient people of Greece had "the most ancient sign of early navigation worldwide". Archaeological experts from Greece discovered along the southern coast of the Greek island of Crete rough axes and other tools and indicating that men of Crete navigated across open waters as far back as between 130,000 and 700,000 years ago"
There were no people in the Europe so long ago... This is a clear hoax. Even the reference is very doubtful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Define "people" - H. Erectus is known in Europe much earlier than that. I think I know what you were trying to say, but you did it very badly. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Four great ancient civilizations
I haven't checked to see why this was a redirect, but I did check to see if this idea of Liang Qichao's and his The Pacific Ocean in the 20th Century gets any significant mention in reliable sources, and I found nonte. The magazine SGI Quarterly is a Buddhist magazine for "peace, education and culture" and the article is not enough to make this significant, nor would I consider it a reliable source. The webpage from a Chinese Middle School is a student's book review, quite obviously an unacceptable source. That's why I removed it. If the concept is to be replaced it will need other and much better sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
this should be removed
" The Encarta in its similar article states: "some of these civilizations are the Andean one, which originated about 800 BC; the Mexican (about the 3rd century BC); the Far Eastern, which originated in China about 2200 BC and spread to Japan about AD 600; the Indian (about 1500 BC); the Egyptian (about 3000 BC); the Sumerian (about 4000 BC); followed by the Babylonian (about 1700 BC); the Minoan (about 2000 BC); the Semitic (about 1500 BC); the Greco-Roman (about 1100 BC)... "
Holy Duke-clobbers-Carolina, Batman! I don't think anyone takes Microsoft's Encarta as much of an encyc, but good golly! What idiot editors there let this howler get out? Dates wrong, majority historical opinion wrong .... I think it should just be quietly deleted and forgotten. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- That whole section, 'history of the idea', needs help. Maybe start by removing the three paragraphs based on two encyclopedias and a course? Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The section definitely needs work, but I don't see any valid arguments regarding the Columbia Encyclopedia and the AP World History sources, whereas the above user is commenting on the Encarta. They could provide useful opinions within the article, although maybe not in the history section, since they came from notable and well-known parties (i.e. Columbia University and etc.).--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeDMSXOhDbY VEDIC CIVILIZATION IS OLDER THAN 20000 YEARS U GUYS PUT THAT IN TIMELINE OF 1500 BC, ITS ACTUALLY 20000BC ACCORDING TO NEW ARCHAEOLOGY DISCOVERIES OF DWARAKA, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Youtube videos are generally not reliable sources to use for Wikipedia, especially when it contradicts mainstream scholarship. In the video it is said that:
- "Mainstream scholars today claim that ancient indian civilization only goes back four/five thousand years",
- then it goes on to present a different viewpoint. However, it is clear that Wikipedia should use the mainstream view for its timeline, and the mere mention of this minority view must be justified by demonstrating a significant support for the view among scholars. A reliable source is needed for that. -- Lindert (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the text here is directly copied from the sources cited, or from within other Wikipedia articles, which appear themselves to have been taken from sources, and the section as a whole doesn't really discuss how it relates to the formation of civilization. For example see the Neolithic civilization paragraph and compare to this source: http://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/Neolithic-civilization-Greece.html. Again, the minoan paragraph, see . Until such time as a rewrite is performed and relevance established, I suggest its removal--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also think a lot of the discussion on the Greek neolithic is irrelevant to the article. I think we should be primarily occupied with settlement and agriculture. Since now I also see it's copied, I'll edit it a bit more aggressively. Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What do you have in mind? This article is about the first emergence of civilization in a global sense. Although the region containing Israel has a long history, I don't think civilization in Israel is quite as old as in the nearby regions of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Anyway, if you can add something on Israel that is supported by reliable sources, please do so. - Lindert (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Concur with User:Lindert, but be warned that it might be a bit of an uphill battle to prove that Palestine/Israel, or the upper Levant region, was an isolated cradle of civilization of its own right rather than a derivative of Meso & Egypt. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is Greece in here?
The article is called "Cradle of Civilization" - yet there are no sources that refer to Greece saying it was a CofC. That might apply to other areas included here as well. We must have a significant number of good sources applying the phrase to include a region. We can't decide ourselves what qualifies. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Norte Chico civilization
has a seemingly well-founded article in the Wikipedia, and according to this is contemporary with the old Egypt. A place in the timeline for this civilization might be merited - especially if only one "cradle" in the Americas is included. But you might want to make that 2 - one on each side of the continent, since that would make it possible to include a number of later civilizations, in parallel with the other "Cradle lines". A new line could be headed "Andean". And while we are at it, the line "Maya" should be headed "Mesoamerica" or something like it, to bring it in sync with the other lines, and it ought to begin with "Olmec", not "pre-mayan". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Erik Lund, Roskilde, Denmark
"somewhere, apparently, in the 4th millennium B.C., we begin to find inscriptions written on clay," . EB 1911 strikes again. We really shouldn't allow this as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Opening: If writing is considered an indicator of civilization...
The last sentence of the opening paragraph is very bold in its assumptions.
"If writing is considered an indicator of civilization, the earliest "cradle" to have writing was Sumer (Jemdet Nasr)"
Using the same 'indicator,' can we conclude then that the cradle of civilization is in the Indian subcontinent, considering the pictograms found inside the Bhimbetka Rock Shelters predates pretty much everything else? --Ratha K (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite. Pictograms are not writing, strictly speaking. Mostly, they fail to convey tenses, abstract ideas, etc. that writing systems can. The earliest writing system came from Mesopotamia, which is why it's generally recognized as the actual cradle of civilization.
- Additionally, if we go down that slippery slope, before long you'll have people demanding France be recognized as the cradle of civilization because it has Lascaux...
- If you are in Canada, ROM has a great exhibit on the topic which I invite you to check out.
- Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia articles on New Guinea and the history of Papua New Guinea, Papuan aboriginals developed agriculture independently. Perhaps a section concerning New Guinean agriculture should be included? I can predict that some might comment that the level of cultural complexity in New Guinea is not high enough to be considered civilized, but that seems subjective, and the sole criterion for inclusion on this page seems to be the independent development of agriculture.220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I need to look at that since it's simply not right. Agriculture doesn't equate to civilization. Last time I looked the article was a mess. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Quick look - the lead notes that "Scholars have defined civilization using various criteria. The use of writing is a common one but there are cultures without writing that reached the same level of complexity as those with it. Some standard criteria include a class-based society, and public buildings." I haven't looked to see what's in the body of the article, later. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding a Melanesian origin of Agriculture, Papua New Guinea does in fact seem to have been a very early Vavilhov Zone for the commencement of plant domestication. Some evidence suggests that taro was spread to the Solomon Islands as early as 28,000 years ago, making this the first evidence of plant domestication anywhere in the world. See "Direct evidence for human use of plants 28,000 years ago: starch residues on stone artefacts from the northern Solomon Islands" by Thomas Hoy and Matthew Spriggs in Antiquity Volume: 66 Number: 253 Page: 898–912. They report "Residue analysis of stone artefacts from the site now provides the earliest direct evidence for the prehistoric use of root vegetables, in the form of starch grains and crystalline raphides identifiable to genus. The direct microscopic identification of starch grains opens new avenues for the study of the plant component of human diets in the distant past." The root vegetables identified were not native to the islands indicating that they were imported from Papua New Guinea as cultivars. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a confusion in this article between "civilisation" and "agriculture". Civilisation is a relatively recent phenomenon beginning about 3,300 BCE, whereas pre- or non-civilised agricultural cultures have existed from about 10,000 years ago. Whilst agriculture is essential to civilisation, civilisation is not the same as agriculture. This needs to be explained more clearly. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree and add my voice to yours. Sadly, I won't have any time soon to do it myself, but willing to help. Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 12:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)