Talk:Cradle of civilization/Archive 1

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)

Deleted the following content

Deleted 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 is a poop head of terds.

---

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.

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)

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)

Merging

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

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)

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. [1]
  2. status of women in four great ancient civilizations: Egypt, Persia and the Near East, Greece, and Rome. [2] --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)

Merge. I have researched and there is nothing more out there that I can find. At the moment the article is a stub which mirrors exactly what is in Cradle_of_civilization#Four_Great_Ancient_Civilizations. A redirect of the target would point everyone to the same place. With more attention it is more likely the information can grow. When there is enough material that is the time to break it out in summary style into a stand-alone article. At the moment there isn't enough material in English for an article - and I have searched! Redirecting now doesn't mean it can't be broken out later. A redirect (it's not a merge as the material is already in place) would help. Leaving it isolated doesn't assist the growth. SilkTork *^YES! 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Merge Four Great Ancient Civilizations

The concept of the Cradle of civilization is global. It is important that scholarship from all parts of the world are brought together. Differing names, different speculations, and scholarship from different countries are best brought together to create a balanced view. SilkTork *^YES! 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The views of those who think that civilization originated in four different cradles could be included in and contained within a separate section. I don't think it is a valuable concept that should pervade this article. There is no civilization without interacting people. Not everybody agrees on the civilizations of India or China being completely autonomous, nor can we underestimate the importance to civilization of "Indo China" or Bronze Age Europe, each of which developed cultural packages that brought together different autonomous and regional cultural items. Rokus01 (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Four Great Ancient Civilizations should be "included in and contained within a separate section" - that section already exists as Cradle_of_civilization#Four_Great_Ancient_Civilizations. It is just a matter of formalizing the merge, for which we need a consensus. If there are no objections to this merge proposal within the next few days then the merge will proceed under the guidelines: "If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus, or if there is silence, proceed with the merger." SilkTork *^YES! 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. One concept is about four great river civilizations of antiquity, and the other is a concept about four great river civilizations of antiquity. They are the same concept. Badagnani (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree to the way DBachmann is merging. By giving my support to a merge, I clearly stated that the Chinese view of 1900 is NOT a valuable concept to be taken as a lead: a separate section is enough. Please stop the way the merge is performed now! I don't accept that this merge is abused as an opportunity to dispose existing contributions to this article. The "Four Great Ancient Civilizations" - concept is just not important enough. I would rather classify it as obsolete nationalistic fringe. Rokus01 (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article scope

This article should focus on the phrase or meme of "cradle of civilization". The definition and history of civilization itself belongs discussed at civilization. The histories of Sumer, Egypt, Harappa etc. belong on these individual articles, not here. Beware of pointless and harmful {{duplication}} of articles' scopes. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I see too many articles that would be ok if they stuck to the topic but expand to cover other topics the way this one has. This article should not be about how civilizations develop, etc but about the notable phrase. That should be enough for a decent article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Cover the main topic and briefly cover (ala., main article and small section) other topics the way this one has. This article include information on how civilizations develop but primarily focus on the notable phrase. J. D. Redding 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Three reverts on sourced information

[3] [4] [5] It has not been explained why sourced information has been removed on food production, an indispensable precondition to civilization. Rokus01 (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

the cut paragraph in question:

The emergence of civilization was preluded by the first settlements. The earliest signs of a sedentarization process can be traced back to the Mediterranean region in the Levant, where the Natufian culture evolved into a center of civilization.[6] The absence of any indication of agriculture or animal husbandry in the earliest stages of settlement was important to reconstruct the process as being essentially unrelated to food production. The importance of water to safeguard an abundant and stable food supply, due to favourable conditions to hunting, fishing and gathering resources including cereals, provided an initial wide spectrum economy that triggered the creation of permanent villages.[La protohistoire de l'Europe, Jan Lichardus et al., Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. ISBN 84-335-9366-8, 1987, chapter II.2] In general, a sedentary life-style is possible for hunter-gatherers, where food supplies are abundant, reliable and can be stored, up to the point that permanent villages and high population densities can be achieved.[Britannica 15th edition, 6:161, on "hunting and gathering society"]

As I note above, I see no relevance of this information to this article. This is neither the civilization article, nor the Neolithic Revolution one, nor the Hunters and gatherers one, nor the Natufian culture one, on all of which the paragraph may arguably be on-topic. A brief link to Neolithic Revolution as a "precondition" is enough.

Be that as it may, if you disagree, feel free to restore the paragraph in question, instead of indulging in blanket revert-warring. I am saying this because you pretend to be asking for an "explanation", not because I think you haven't understood my edit, or because I think any understanding will come from it, as it were going through the movements of WP:DR unilaterally. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"I am saying this because you pretend to be asking for an "explanation", not because I think you haven't understood my edit, or because I think any understanding will come from it, as it were going through the movements of WP:DR unilaterally."

I don't understand a bit of what you are saying here. Have you lost contact with reality completely now? You say YOU see no relevance to the information? Without any discussion you change an article that has some history now, I think you are going to worse in your autocratic way of mass-editing. Your opinion alone is not enough for implementing disruptive edits. You changed the whole article: nothing wrong to arrive at an historic assessment, but don't cut away all that describe the conditions and the process towards civilization. You have to respect what is written by others, so it is up to you to insert your new chapter and assessment in what was already there. The preconditions to civilization is poorly represented by just a link to Neolithic Revolution, since this involved a lot more. We are only talking about how it all started, the trigger, not how civilization propagated in a wave of advance as described by the Neolithic revolution. I don't mind your innocence, but I mind your disruptive editing. Rokus01 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

it is hardly my fault if you "do not understand a bit" of what I am saying. The point is that there are two articles, civilization and cradle of civilization. The latter discusses an idiomatic phrase. Discussion of the Neolithic Revolution is not relevant to it. dab (𒁳) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So why civilization refers to this article to cover the prehistoric part? Or does "civilization" to your opinion also refers to an idiomatic phrase, just like anything else? It is nothing new we don't understand each other. To me it seems that you should apply multiple points of view and be more tolerant. You could ask a third opinion on this, I think it is rude to throw away sourced contributions of others just because you have a different view. Rokus01 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with dab here, this article should be mostly about the term. Looks like your edits are throwing away information about that term. - Merzbow (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The intention of my revert was to give DBachmann the opportunity to insert his term information in a proper way, without deleting sourced information that was already there. I don't think it is well done to leave the mess to others, fixing cites and reinserting sourced information being deleted without discussion. You could just take a look at the errors down at footnotes for seeing how uncarefull his edits were performed. Now I got the "impression" people here really don't mind what they are doing, as long as they can destroy things. None of you didn't even check the presentation. So Merzow, how can you pretend a third opinion without NEUTRALITY and even showing so obviously you did not even READ? Sorry, this won't do. Hope this is not symptomatic. I will take a desperate look for an unbiased third opinion according to the standard procedures and hope this can still be settled in a neutral way. Rokus01 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:30 Opinion

—Greetings from WP:30. I have read this talk page and studied the history of the page. As an outsider I've got to say that I like the article better in its current form (without the additional information) better. I think this article is at risk of "Wikicreep," a term I just made up to describe the tendency of an article to grow in size due to the inclusion of tangentally related information. For example, an article on grass could say "Grass is green." Then another editor adds "Green is the combination of yellow and blue" with a citation. Is it true? Yes. Is it cited? Sure. Is it relevant to an article on grass? Not really. An article needs a balance, but in this case, with the wikilinks to Civilization, you can assume your reader knows what a civilization is and how one gets built. This article is about a specific (or a set of specific) civilizations; not civilizations in general. I hope this 3O helps, feel free to contact me on my talk page if you would like me to respond to any questions or you have comments. Thanks! Livitup (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you. Actually, the dispute was much about change of scope induced by the way the merge was performed, and I have to agree that the balanced correction of SilkTorch [7] took away much of my concerns.

Also, I make the observation that the actual deletions were not properly listed by the other editor, and for this reason probably performed at random. In reality, the deletions I address were:

In general, a sedentary life-style is possible for hunter-gatherers, where food supplies are abundant, reliable and can be stored, up to the point that permanent villages and high population densities can be achieved. Conditions to settlement were met at different places, along lakes, rivers and shores. Further development to food production did not follow a single course. The transition to agricultural societies occurred in scattered areas all over the world by acculturation and migration as well as by independent indigenous developments. Cultivation of toxtail millet in America, domestication of elk in Scandinavia and of gazelle in the Middle East were abandoned, while the cultivation of rice, wheat, barley, potatoes and maize met with great success. In this process, some regions contributed more to the package of civilization items than other regions.

To my opinion, this is hardly a tangential account on the Neolithic nor on Civilization in general. Rather, the additions were designed to put settlements and the emergence of different cultural packages within the context of the origin of civilization. Rokus01 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage of references

Copying the following from TheLeopard's talkpage to keep the discussion in one place:

Hi TheLeopard. I understand your concern and thinking behind this edit [8] as there could be some uncertainty about the accuracy of the source. However, the Verifiability policy does allow for cases like this - the relevant section is here: Wikipedia:Sources#Non-English_sources. There is a translation of the article title, and a translation of part of the text alongside the original Chinese. Readers are also able to go to the source and use an online translator if they wish to read the whole article. If you are still unsure let me know and we can discus it further or ask for a Third opinion. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is about the idea of "Cradle of civilization", there could've been a variety of criteria measuring such. Thus, we definitely need concrete and scholarly references for this article. For example, the Chinese-language source, which is not translated, came from a Chinese web opinion piece from sohu.com and is of unknown origin and authorship, definitely not an ideal source for any encyclopedia.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are so many aspects that are inappropriate about the source [9] and the way the source has been cited. First of all under Wikipedia:Verifiability, it states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly...Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."

There is no translation published by "reliable sources", because there is no translation! Its in Chinese. The source is also not a quality source; think of this way, if this was an English-language source, but if its simply an anonymous online opinion article on a website, would you use that for a citation for an important statement on this article or would you find an actual published scholarly reference (from JSTOR or EBSCO or other research databases)?

Another thing is that, not to mention the credibility of this source, the statement was also incorrectly phrased because the way it has been written on this article says "The theory is not universally used and has come under some criticism from Chinese historians..." What Chinese historians? The source is a "single" opinion piece that made no mentions of other scholars, but simply an article of one anonymous writer's opinion on a website (sohu.com). If you really think such source deserves a place on an encyclopedia article (instead of encyclopedia articles and published sources), then please elaborate the reasons.--TheLeopard (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed source was inserted by a previous editor. I am not aware of the provenance of that source. What are the issues with sohu.com that makes it an unreliable source? From my limited experience it appeared to be an in-depth article. I am content for the source and the information relying on that source to be removed if it can be shown that sohu.com is not reliable. SilkTork *^YES! 18:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the sohu.com article is anonymous and has no authorship and we don't know who is this person that wrote this online article? The statement written on this article which cited this sohu source was also incorrectly phrased, as it stated "some criticism from Chinese historians", while the sohu.com article didn't mention this claim, and the article is written as one person's opinion (and since the source has no authorship we don't know the anonymous person who wrote the sohu article's occupation). Not to mention the article is in a "foreign language" and the "there is no translation issue." It is an online anonymous article from a Chinese website, it holds no weight when the introduction paragraph contains sources from prominent English-language encyclopedias.--TheLeopard (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That the author isn't named is not important. The important thing is the reliability of the publication. We can attribute a source to The Times without the journalist having a byline, because The Times is a reliable source. I don't know sohu.com, but I note that it has an article on Wikipedia so it's not just a blog. How do they accept material for publication? If material is submitted and is screened to meet the accepted standards of the publication by an editor then we would need to consider it as being a potential reliable source. If people can enter their own material without approval, then it's not a reliable source. SilkTork *^YES! 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sohu.com is just a popular Chinese search engine/website, there is no point in arguing its academic merit. You mentioned the reliability of the publication, which is a valid point. Sohu definitely does not specialize on academic studies and it is not a source that will be recommanded to use for fields (archaeology and history) like this. I don't know if sohu preview people's written article, but remember it is simply a search engine-website. The fact that the article is your average online essay (with no bibliography, no author), shows that it definitely does not have enough merit to be on this article.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We accept The Times as a reliable source which does not have a bibliography and sometimes no named author. I'll raise the issue on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. SilkTork *^YES! 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)