Talk:Cradle of civilization

Merge?

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.

Vanbaalenj (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanbaalenj

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)

Readded

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. 27.57.24.199 (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)

So you mean that the link entries on the templates are wrong. Ok, this can be fixed either by directing or redirecting to proper page. Anybody can do it. I will do when possible. Thanks. 27.61.157.64 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the template actually looks really good. Good indication of the timeline of these ancient civilizations.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 15:27, 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":

• From Malta: "Megalithic Temples of Malta". Retrieved 16 September 2008.
• From Gojoseon: 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 80.196.3.233 (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).

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Greece - navigation hoax

"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[22]"

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 158.195.200.214 (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)

I've removed the reference to ancient navigation as irrelevant to the emergence of civilization. (its veracity can be discussed in the History of Crete talk page if people so desire) Martijn Faassen (talk) 21:31, 31 July 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)

Vedic Civilization

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 115.242.140.169 (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)

Indus Valley

Removed "The cities were perhaps originally about a mile square in overall dimensions, and their outstanding magnitude suggests political centralization, either in two large states or in a single great empire with alternative capitals. Alternatively, it may be that Harappa succeeded Mohenjo-daro, which is known to have been devastated more than once by exceptional floods. Encyclopædia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9039205/Harappa Harappa (Pakistan) – Britannica Online Encyclopedia | Britannica.com accessdate 2010-01-09

Firstly, there is no citation for "political centralisation" of indus valley. In fact, majority view is that because of absence of evidence of kings, the society was more decentralised. The second statement I removed regarding "Harappa succeeded Mohenjo-daro" doesn't make any sense in the context.

Greece

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 [1]. 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)

Israel

Shouldn't there be a section for that here as well?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on? Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:06, 21 January 2013 (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)

Natufian culture is considered by some historians as the site with earliest evidence of agriculture, domestication of animals and sedentary dwelling in the world.--Tritomex (talk) 18:18, 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". 188.178.169.92 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Erik Lund, Roskilde, Denmark

"We"

"somewhere, apparently, in the 4th millennium B.C., we begin to find inscriptions written on clay," [2]. 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)

New Guinea

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.61.227.99.166 (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)

Confusions

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)

Absolutely. That's been the case at the History of Civilization article also, as you both probably know. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 9 September 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)

I have to agree with this, and re-ask why Greece is included in this article. At several points the article quotes sources identifying 6 cradles, none of which include Greece. Sure, you can talk about the first bronze age culture in the Grecian world, just like you can talk about the first bronze age culture of any civilization. However, this article is about the locations where civilization emerged independently in the ancient world and the Minoan civilization is understood as an off-shoot of the Danube civilization; i.e. the Minoan civilization did not emerge independently and therefore should not be highlighted in this article.Flygongengar (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Vietnam?

Is not the Red River Valley culture of Vietnam an indigenous culture as old as the most ancient Chinese cultures? The Hùng dynasty dates back to about 2900 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.184.34 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Civilization in Vietnam and South East Asia in general descended from civilization that originated along the Yangtze river (referring to a "Chinese" cradle is somewhat problematic because civilization spread out of "China" long before China was unified, and most scholarship tends to only focus on the Yellow River and ignore the Yangtze despite the East Asian cradle technically including both). However, rice cultivation originated along the Yangtze which spread into proto Vietnam. The Hung Dynasty dates of 2900 BC are likely legendary (no doubt there were indigenous people living there at that time but they weren't developed enough to the point of civilization). The earliest full archaeological civilizations in the area don't date till around 1000 BC.16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cradle of Western Civilisation

I have created a small section called "Cradle of Western civilisation". I want to know two things 1)Is it ok to mantain this section in this article? 2) Is it ok to show Greece and Rome as cradles of western culture? I have noticed that User:Dr.K. has removed Sourced statements about Rome being described as the cradle of western civilisation. I think he knows better than me these kind of things, however there are sources describing both of them as birthplaces of the Western civilisation. No one is trying to say that Rome is the cradle of the Western Civilisation "instead" of Greece. I am only saying that Both have been described as cradles of Western Civilisation. DR.K, Can we discuss that here? The very concept of a western part of the world is heavily related to both the Western Roman Empire and Western Christianity and both of them originated in Rome. I am pretty sure that there are more sources about Greece being the cradle but there also sources about Rome. And in "popular culture" both of them have been described as cradles of western civilisation. Barjimoa (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The academic consensus is clear. Greece is considered the "cradle of Western civilisation". Look at your sources, a book from 1923 written by some unknown guy, an old atlas with some comments (not a specialist source), a course guide which mentions nothing about a cradle of civilisation and a book titled "The Birth Of Western Civilisation, Greece & Rome", which mentions nothing like Rome is the "cradle of Western civilisation". Meanwhile I have provided 12 specialist references all of which explicitly recognise Greece as the "cradle of Western civilisation". One actually mentions:

Ricardo Duchesne (7 February 2011). The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. BRILL. p. 297. ISBN 90-04-19248-4. The list of books which have celebrated Greece as the “cradle” of the West is endless; two more examples are Charles Freeman's The Greek Achievement: The Foundation of the Western World (1999) and Bruce Thornton's Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization (2000)

It simply doesn't get any more definive than that. Of course Rome developed many concepts of Western civilisation, it is simply not recognised as the "cradle" of it by most academic sources. Greece is. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not questioning the fact that Greece is the Cradle of Western civilisation, I am saying that Rome has been described as the Cradle of Western civilization too. The fact that Greece has more sources does not mean that Rome should be deleted from the section. Three sources I have provided are actually books, two of them describing both Greece and Rome as the birthplaces of Western Civilization while the third one is entitled "Rome, the Cradle of Western civilization". So, the term has been applied also to Rome. Plus, in popular culture Rome is known as the cradle of Western civilization. This is why i have also included some non-academic sources.

Barjimoa (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed you changed the article again. I think we should wait the end of the discussion since you changed the original version removing sourced statements. If you are right we are going to delete Rome from the section, dont worry. Barjimoa (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, the vast majority of sources refer to Greece as the "cradle of civilisation" while Rome is supported by very few. It is a clear case of WP:UNDUE to include Rome. You are also adding "usually" which is not in any of the sources and it is WP:OR as well as bad grammar to write "Greece usually and Rome" when Greece is referred to much more often than Rome. I will revert your reversion on that basis. Please stop your edit-warring because you have no policy-based reason to revert me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, Dont revert. I did not start an edit war. In fact, i never reverted you. I tried to put informations in a better way every time you reverted me. Barjimoa (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's edit-warring anyway. Please read WP:3RR. Every time you add Rome you change my edit. That's edit-warring. You have two debatable sources versus 12 sources that I provided. I can also get many more. Your edit is a clear case of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR. Please stop your edit-warring. You have no policy-based reason for it. You should revert your edit per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις}, Maybe we can find a better way to include the informations i have provided but we cannot simply ignore them. Barjimoa (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, you cannot include Rome when only a small minority of sources call it the CoWC. It is WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be the case if i was trying to replace Greece with Rome. I am only trying to avoid another editor to exclude Rome only because Rome has less sources than Greece. I want to mantain both. Find me a source that clearly excludes Rome from being a birthplace of western civilisation. Cause i have sources saying that it is.Barjimoa (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the concept of WP:DUEWEIGHT. When most sources refer to Greece as the CoWC then that's what it is. If Rome is is in the minority it is not mentioned per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I Understand. But do you understand that your sources do not say that "Greece is the one and only place allowed to be described as the one and only cradle of Western civilisation".? We cannot ignore sources that are adding (not replacing, thats my point) something to the article. Barjimoa (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. What are you doing now? :D

I appreciate your knowledge of the argument but you dont need that amount of sources to prove your point. We both agree that Greece has been decribed as the cradle of the West.

I have added "sometimes" before the word "Rome" so "Usually" refers only to "Greece". Hope you can agree with that. Barjimoa (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Only one source refers to Rome as the CoWC. The other references refer to the birthplace of civilisation in a general way, so they do not use the actual term CoWC. The term CoWC specifically refers to Greece and I have twenty references to support it. The lone reference you provided is simply not adequate to support this for Rome. The evidence is clear. Plus your pictures are POV. Only Greece should be pictured per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree beacuse i am not trying to replace Greece with Rome. How are they POV since one book is entitled "Rome, the cradle of the Western Civilization" and two books describe both Rome and Greece as the origins of Western Culture. "Usually Greece and Sometimes Rome" reflects better the situation than writing only about Greece. Again we cannot ignore sourced statements. That is against every rule in wiki. I insist, this section does not violate any wiki rule. Both have been described as Cradles of the Western civilization. One more than the other one. Much much more than other one? Ok. Write that if you want. I agree with that. BTW i bet we can find a lot of sources about Rome too, especially when it comes to popular culture, but that's not the point and it is useless. I hope you understand that there are no sources saying that Greece is the only place allowed to be described as the one and only cradle of the West, as i said before. Barjimoa (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait i am going to make some edits that may make the article more correct. Barjimoa (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made my edit. Basically, i gave up on everything. Now since you know a lot about Greece, I hope you can improve the section. Barjimoa (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by saying you gave up on everything. I think the way you framed the information is actually very good and it is also informative. Thank you for your effort. Also thank you for your invitation and your nice comments about me. I'll try to see if I can improve on your text but it will be a hard act to follow. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Little after comment: Dr.K is right. The Romans themselves said: "Graecia capta ferum victorem coepit". This says everything. Alex2006 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with maintaining a "Cradle of Western Civilization" section in the article to discuss it as the cultural origin of Western civilization. However, the section should clearly state that the term cradle of civilization in this case is being used differently than how it is throughout the rest of the article. The article is primarily discussing places where the concept of civilization emerged independently, of which there are only 6 generally accepted sites: Sumer, Egypt, Harappa, Caral, Shang, and Olmec. Greecian civilization emerged as the result of influx from Crete ultimately via the ancient Near East and Egypt, as well as the Danube Valley and Vincan culture, agricultural techniques from Mesopotamia, and is a descendant of the Indo-European culture. Greece is certainly the cultural cradle of Western civilization, but it is not a "cradle of civilization" (i.e. it did not emerge independently but rather evolved from several existing civilizations and cultures).Flygongengar (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

China/Shang/Yellow River

I noticed someone deleted the section for China/Shang/Yellow River as a cradle. As several sources list it as one of 6 cradles (including references used in this article itself), I've restored the information to the article. I think there was some objection to labeling China under the heading of "Old World", although old world was used to counterpoint the "New World" of the Americas. The section could use more sources, but in that case list it as needing sources to be expanded later instead of outright deleting it.Flygongengar (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop re-ordering China

China does not belong in the New World section. This has nothing to do with dates; it's geography. Old World is Eurasia/Africa. New World is Americas. The New World is separated because the American civilizations had not interaction with the Eurasia/African civilizations, while the old world ones existed in trade networks.Flygongengar (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline needs to be re-worked

The current timeline, though well intentioned, needs to be reworked. Discussing the Maya instead of the Olmec, using mythical dates for early China, inclusion of Greece, and only starting at 3000 BC (therefore not properly dating Sumer or Egypt) are just a few of the examples that should be updated with better sourced information. I am willing to do the work; however, I am unsure how to even edit the timeline. If someone could help?Flygongengar (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/history_world/fund_8000bc.html?worldhist
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150621221649/http://www.britannica.com/topic/Erlitou-culture to https://www.britannica.com/topic/Erlitou-culture

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction required: Indus Valley civilization

There should be correction related to the Indus Valley civilization. The pottery recovered dates the civilization back to 9000 BC - 8000 BC , making it the most ancient human civilization yet. This discovery is very recent(May 2016), and hence not known to many. Please correct the same. Below articles from two most eminent newspapers from India & Pakistan refer to the study:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indus-era-8000-years-old-not-5500-ended-because-of-weaker-monsoon/articleshow/52485332.cms http://www.dawn.com/news/1261513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.52.41 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The cited article and information is a bit disingenuous. Signs of culture and human habitation are not the same thing as the emergence of civilization proper; i.e. the article just takes the earliest radio carbon date of pottery and says that's the start of the civilization, which isn't how it works. There's evidence of human habitation in Egypt ~8000 BC and pottery ~5000 BC but we don't count civilization proper as having emerged there till ~4000 BC. In the same way there are plenty of cities in the Levant and Mesopotamia, like Jericho which dates to 9000 BC, that pre-dates what is considered the rise of civilization in the area (also around ~4000 BC). Along with a level of technological and cultural advancement, civilization, as discussed in this wiki article, requires a level of social stratification across multiple sites. Neither article you list discusses anything about the potential social stratification of the Indus culture 8,000 years ago. The emergence and dating of human habitation and advanced neolithic cultures in an area is not the same thing as the emergence of civilization, and there are many advanced neolithic cultures across the globe that predate the dates of civilization in this article.

It should also be noted that the cited articles seems to confuse themselves with their dates. "The Indus Valley Civilisation is at least 8,000 years old, and not just 5,500 years old. It took root well before the Egyptian (7,000 BC to 3,000 BC)." However, these are two different measurements of time. 8,000 years ago (before present) is NOT 8,000 BC. 8,000 years ago is 6,000 BC which still makes it younger than the 7,000 BC date the cited article lists for Egypt (and also not dating to 9000 BC - 8000 BC, as you said). Considering the article can't keep these two measurements straight, I'd seriously suggest waiting for additional academic sources (instead of news sources reporting on academic sources) before changing the date of civilization listed in the wiki article. (This wiki article also already mentions a date of 7,500 BC in the Hakra region for early pottery and tools). 108.46.147.132 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101201656/http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm to http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128194547/http://www.uparchaeology.org/pragdhara%20No-16.pdf to http://www.uparchaeology.org/pragdhara%20No-16.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807120030/https://www.chinaculture.org:80/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.com/news/2012/01/20/popcorn-was-popular-in-ancient-peru-discovery-suggests/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Elam

Should Elam be included in this page, or at least as part of the Fertile Crescent?

Considering its data and cultural development, should Elam be included in this page? Or at least added detailed in the portions pertaining to the Fertile Crescent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.78.135 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Elam is currently discussed at the end of the Mesopotamia subsection of the article as part of the early urbanization during the Chalcolithic period.72.89.38.176 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't continually edit the dating of the Indus Valley Civilization section

"Civilization" (what is discussed in the article) on the Indian subcontinent is considered to have started during the Early Harappan Phase ~3300 BC. It is during this period that both their script and a stratified society with centralized authority emerge. Frequently, new users edit the IVC section due to sources discussing sites such as Bhirrana and Mehrgarh. These sites (and others) are already discussed in this article. They are the precursor Neolithic cultures which led to the development of civilization in the area, but are not "civilizations" (as discussed in the article) themselves. The dating of Bhirrana and Mehrgarh does not make the IVC earlier than Egypt/Sumer. If you were to consider the dating of the precursor Neolithic cultures in the fertile crescent (analogous to Bhirrana and Mehrgarh), they would still significantly predate the IVC.72.89.38.176 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003043351/http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/worldhistory/ap-cd-worldhist-0708.pdf to http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/worldhistory/ap-cd-worldhist-0708.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708024023/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/civiliza to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/civiliza
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107211225/http://file104.filthbooks.org/6kln6_the-story-of-western-civilization-greece-and-rome-build-great-civilizati.pdf to http://file104.filthbooks.org/6kln6_the-story-of-western-civilization-greece-and-rome-build-great-civilizati.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are Mesopotamia and Egypt considered separate independently developed civilizations in this article?

At least that is what I feel like this article is implying. They both share common origins as they developed from the Neolithic cultures Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. They are also very near to each other geographically and thus have had constant contact with one other technologically, agriculturally, and ideologically for millennia even before the development of states. This does not sound independently developed to me and because of this, I believe it is appropriate to combine the Mesopotamian and Egyptian subsections into one “Fertile Crescent” or “Near East” subsection. Please let me know if my concerns have the grounds for such appropriate actions and if not explain to me your reasoning. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C100:13EA:E8C2:155F:153F:CA47 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FsRQvwtI?url=http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Images and 2nd - 1st millennium BCE

EdwardElric2016 the 4,500 bytes of content about Vedic period (2nd millennium BCE to 500 BCE) that you copy pasted here was unwarranted, it is not related to Cradle of civilization. Also stop changing images, because we use the most neutral images, putting images of "Mature Harappan Period, c. 2600–1900 BCE" doesn't describe events dating 7600 BCE. Lorstaking (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lorstaking the reason I changed those images for both India and China is because the original images had little to with the topic. Those images showed the cultural spheres for both India and China and didn't really focus on the cradle of civilization aspect. This is why I replaced those images with descriptive Indus Valley civilization and Erlitou culture images respectively. That is what the core of those subsections are about. You refer to the reason to why you do not accept the Indus Valley civilization image because it "doesn't describe events dating 7600 BCE". I do not understand your logic on this. 7600 BC describes the Neolithic era. The consensus is that civilization didn't begin until at least 3300 BC. Also the image presented for the Egypt subsection describes that of the New Kingdom and it doesn't describe predynastic Egypt, so why is that image acceptable while mine is not? I do however apologize for the copy-pasting. I wanted to describe the Vedic era for the India subsection as the Zhou dynasty was mentioned in the China subsection. I will use my own words in the future. But you really didn't need to undo 100% of my work here. I don't have any interest in starting an edit war with you but I think some of your revisions were unjustified. I am more than willing to have a discussion with you on the future of the image situation. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The section on Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. ends with 2000 BCE or earlier, while India ends with 1800 or 1500 BCE. You can reduce the section on China. The image that you added to India's section was dating showing a civilization from 2600 - 1900 BCE, that doesn't really seem like a Cradle of civilization, although the map certainly indicates what India meant geographically during ancient times.

El C I was trying to copy edit the article but my device went crazy. I had an edit conflict with you while I was restoring version. Lorstaking (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have now added the cleanup tag on the section of China, because it talks really a lot about those times that are not relevant to the page. Lorstaking (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

IP seems to be misunderstanding these edits, the major edit[3] was made today, and it requires consensus, though I would not encourage such forking and suggest you to cleanup any other section instead if they have more recent material. Capitals00 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lorstaking The image on the section of Egypt shows the New Kingdom at the height of Egyptian power which lasted from 1550 BC - 1077 BC, well after your 2000 BC cutoff. The image I included showed the Indus Valley Civilization at its height serving the same function the Egyptian New Kingdom image does for its respective subsection. The image I chose I felt was appropriate and consistent with the article. The original image in the India subsection has almost no relevance to the Indus Valley Civilization as it refers more to the Indian cultural sphere than to the actual cradle itself, so I don't understand why you prefer that image to mine. I have the similar concerns about the China subsection image also. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because we really don't have more neutral maps for indicating the influence of China and India. Lorstaking (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lorstaking what does "indicating the influence of China and India" have to do with anything and how is that relevant to this article? This article is about cradles of civilization not cultural influence of major countries. I feel that my images were completely appropriate for both the India and China subsections as they referred to the cradles specifically. I also do not know what you mean by "neutral maps". Could you also address some of my other concerns I laid out in my previous comments? EdwardElric2016 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Egypt is an extension of the Fertile Crescent influence and is not, on its own, an isolated independently developed cradle.

Hello Wikipedians!, I want to make a major edit to this article, either by combining the Mesopotamia and Egyptian subsection into one Fertile Crescent subsection or remove the Egypt subsection entirely. The cradle of Civilization definition given in this article is “civilizations that developed independently”. I don’t believe that Egypt meets this criterion and below, I will show major examples explaining how Egypt is not completely independent from the Fertile Crescent but is either and extension of it or heavily influenced by it. This evidence was taken from various articles on Wikipedia relating to this subject and they all have extensive sourcing to back up those claims.

• Around 10,200 BC the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phases Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7600 to 6000 BC) appeared in the fertile crescent and from there spread eastwards and westwards.
• Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt. Studies based on morphological, genetic, and archaeological data have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region.
• Although the Gerzean Culture identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period of Egypt, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean period. Distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period, indicating contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt, and the silver which appears in this period can only have been obtained from Asia Minor. In addition, Egyptian objects are created which clearly mimic Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly. Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial mace heads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the Mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style. The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water. During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt. The fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of wadis which lead to the Red Sea may indicate some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade potentially could have crossed the Sinai and then taken to the Red Sea). Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.

After all of this evidence showing major Fertile Crescent influence in Egypt before even Narmer’s unification 3150 BC, it is fair to say that Egypt is not an isolated cradle like China or Mesoamerica. If you still consider Egypt to still be an independent cradle, what’s to stop us from considering the Hittite Empire or Minoan Crete from being considered cradles as well? That’s a slippery slope and I think there needs to be consistency in this article especially on the “independent” aspect. EdwardElric2016, (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent edits and possible copyright violatiosn

I am seeing quite a bit of material copied from elsewhere, some from other articles and some from other websites. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A couple of these appeared on the bot report. It's copied from multiple other Wikipedia articles. I've added the required attribution. I didn't find any copyvio from external websites. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I did fixed some mistakes or copyedited the copied content, I will probably fix the main articles too. Lorstaking (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hat per WP:TPNO. Use a better forum if you have problems with the conduct of editors, this page is not for ranting.

== Intentionally rewriting sections to be more vague is Vandalism. (Indus Valley changed to Indo-Gangetic Plain) == I don't understand the logic or the sense of people who take perfectly good detailed information and change it into something more vague. This reeks of nationalistic intent. In the current article and context, the reference clearly pertains to the river civilisation OF the Indus Valley, but it seems over the last year, this has been expanded to "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is a vast region with no apparent connection between the "Indus" and the "Ganges". This is a clear vandalism as it serves no useful purpose to a reader or wikipedia. Furthermore the "Indo-Gangetic Plain" article is a complete mess, patched up in a hurry and serves no purpose when Ganges and the Indus have their separate more detailed entries. This Edit was submitted by User:Lorstaking back in October last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&type=revision&diff=804829168&oldid=804620625 User:EdwardElric2016 should probably also explain himself as to why he appears to be working together with Lorstaking in restoring these nonsensical edits. Just for your information, the IP that contributed to the article in October is not mine. --Xinjao (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Dear User:EdwardElric2016. Lorstaking is clearly engaging in an edit war if you consider that this was HIS edit in the first place, I find your response very lacking in research: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&diff=prev&oldid=804620625 --Xinjao (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC) The "Indus River" reference has been sourced with 9 references here: Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles Please explain why this Edit by Lorstaking is not vandalism? --Xinjao (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC) User:EdwardElric2016, once again you are reverting sourced citations with an edit made by Lorstaking. Please explain yourself. --Xinjao (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Gangetic Plain vs Indus River Valley

There is apparently a mismatch in what the main article sources quote and what is now written in the introduction.
I am referring to the 9 sources that this article introduction was originally based on:

• Source 1: Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, Trigger, Bruce G uses the phrase "Indus Valley Civilisation" in context.
• Source 2: "Rise of Civilizations: Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica" N/a I do not have access to this book.
• Source 3: [4] uses the phrase "Indus" in context.
• Source 4: [5] uses the phrase "Indus Valley or Harrapan civilization" in context.
• Source 5: Yahoo article uses the phrase "India" in context.
• Source 6: Britanica uses the phrase "Indus valley" in context.
• Source 7: No longer exists.
• Source 8: Primary states emerged before sophisticated writing systems in six generally recognized regions: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.
• Source 9: "Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture" uses the phrase "Indus civilisation" in context.

Which brings me to the usage of "Indo-Gangetic Plain". None of these sources mention such a phrase.
Consulting Google: Indo-Gangetic Plain gives 188 000 results
"Indus valley" gives 3 690 000 results

It is very clear that Indus Valley is the widely accepted and most popular term used in the context of early civilisations. Hence I propose using this phrase, as was originally the case prior to the October edit by Lorstaking [6] and User:EdwardElric2016

Please agree or disagree as to the usage of either phrase. Xinjao (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)