The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[ParkCungHee]

Because, quite the opposite, that is still the belief of mainstream archaeology and history.

No, it's most certainly not. This hasn't been the view of mainstream archaeology and history in fifty years. To quote a book over two decades old dismissing the idea:

Up until the 1960s it was widely held that Neolithic communities in Europe and Britain Derived their building technology - and many other techniques, too -- from the earliest civilizations of the Near East, like Sumer (Mesopotamia) and Egypt. This theory of diffusion of knowledge and skills from the Near East outwards into the Mediterranean, central and western Europe and the British Isles has recently come in for serious reappraisal, largely through the application of more modern techniques of the dating of surviving monuments and artefacts. One pioneer, Professor Colin Renfrew, has gone as far to say that much of Eropean prehistory needs to be rewritten, and that seems unchallengeable. The reappraisal has compelled specialists to redate some of the more interesting and dramatic monuments in Spain, Brittany, Denmark and the British Isles (especially Scotland and Ireland), and among the best known in the last named countries that have been confidently redated are the Maes Howe chambered tomb on Orkney mainland, now put at c. 3400 B.C.-3200 B.C., and the passage grave at Newgrange, Co. Meath , now dated to 3200 B.C. or perhaps earlier. Those familiar with the accredited dates of the earliest Egyptian pyramids of stone (for example, the Step Pyramid of Zozer, c. 2700 B,C, will see that Newgrange now antedates the Pyramid Age by at least half a millennium. Clearly, Neoltihic stone technologists working in Co. Meath in the fourth millennium were not receivers of instruction from Egypt - or from anywhere else in the Near East for that matter.

And I know from my history classes that:
A) China is older than that.

I never said otherwise, I said that China didn't start having conflict and contact with the Korean Kingdoms until after then, and even then in very in small amounts for a while. Meanwhile contact with Siberia had been going on for thousands of years by that point.
This has been known for at least 50 years.

B) There was no major civilization in ancient Siberia, though many nomadic cultures existed.

There evidently was a cultural system there that spread material culture down through Korea and into Kyushu, creating damn noticeable civilizations.

 

[Masada]

Mmm Southeast Asia is the same:

Research in the prehistory of Southeast is currently at an exciting stage, with new discoveries and interpretations appearing almost annually. It may thus be apposite to recall a tendency on the part of many scholars writing before the mid-1960s to regard the region in prehistory as little more than a backward appendage of the more advanced cultures of India and China. It is now clear that this view was far too simple, and that Southeast Asia has a prehistory as complex and as indigenously creative as any other major region of Eurasia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Peripheral-region-studies-fist-bump.

 

[Masada]

whatisperipheral?

 

[Tee Kay]

Indonesia, obviously.

(I believe National Geographics described it as "a rain of islands in a hidden corner of the world" or something along those lines)

 

[Masada]

America ain't exactly in the center of most world maps

 

[Tee Kay]

America ain't exactly in the center of most world maps

But Westerners read things from left to right, which means America is the first landmass your eyes land on.

 

[aelf]

To me it seems a problem of how human language works, and the kind of qualitative assessments we keep making all the time.

What you seem to be calling for is a working analytical definition. Well, such can be made, but especially in matters of history they usually turn out unsatisfactory. We make a definition, fine, along the lines of "by educated man/civilization I mean NN, because of NN".

Next thing happens someone pulls out an interesting society/person/phenomenon which clearly doesn't have all the features required by the analytical definition, yet still requires understanding and explanation. All the analytical definition then provides is fairly boring ruling of: "No, it does not comply with the criteria and so is not a civilization/educated man". Which is next to useless if you want to actually understand this society/person.

I've seen one of the most sterile academic debates ever unfold over an abstruse argument made by one very influential older historian arguing that according to his definition of "Enlightenment" Sweden never had one. (He reserved it exclusively for France and Scotland. Somehow his mates in France were flattered by the argument and even translated his train-wreck argument.)

But then there was a new generation of young Turk historians going:
"Fine! By your definition Sweden never had an Enlightenment, and we don't give a toss! We still want to understand what all these publishers, writers, parish priests, men of science and what not in the 18th c. were actually doing, and how they figured their place in the grand scheme of things, and who DID in fact refer themselves to part of an "Enlightenment" in Sweden."

Analytical definitions in history might on occasion tidy up discussions some, but then they tend to have to be highly provisional, or they have the power to send everyone cereening down some damn sterile and uninteresting tracks. Especially when academic prestige enters into it.

One of my personal peeves with them is when an historian postulates and analytical definition (eg. from personal experience: "By 'racism' I mean") and then doesn't even bother to actually USE the damn thing, simply assuming individuals and situations conformed to the definition they initially postulated, as if the definition itself could remove the onus of doing actual research and intepretation. I've now seen it often enough to actively warn students about analytical definitions in history. They are NOT the beef of writing history. Occasionally they can be a crutch, but if you can't actually toss it away in the end, you're doing it wrong, and it's holding you back.

Pet peeve of mine, this...

Just as an addendum to that, I think it's been fairly well established for a while now that words don't have to have agreed definitions in order to have useful meanings. The famous example is "game" - there is no known definition that perfectly captures all the things, and only those things, that we actually refer to as "games". Nevertheless, most of us still know a game when we encounter one and we know what it means to call something a "game". The same could be said of "religion". The notion that you can't talk meaningfully about something without having a definition of it is the assumption that Socrates invariably makes in all of Plato's dialogues, and while that certainly leads to a lot of interesting arguments and some decidedly baroque metaphysics, it's fairly obviously a mistake.

I agree with these points. However, the crux of the matter, as I see it, is that while an agreed definition for a term is not necessary for it to have useful meanings, it doesn't follow that there is therefore a commonly held conception of the object that the term refers to. It seems contradictory to claim, on one hand, that people may understand a term that they use slightly differently from each other and, on the other hand, that everyone would agree that any (supposed) specimen merits the term. For the latter to be true, there must be an agreed definition; ergo, for everyone to know an educated man/a civilisation when they see one, there needs to be a common definition for it. Either that or the statement is uselessly tautological.

 

[Veles]

Well, Russian steppes are the craddle of Indo-European "civilization". (According to Kurgan hypotesis)

Is it properly represented in Civ 5? Never got to play that game, heard it requires constant internet connection or some such ridiculouse sheet.

 

[CivOasis]

To respond to all of the above, I think the difficulty may lay in the definition of civilization, since the "textbook" definition is certainly rather poor. Note that I'm still not buying some of Park's dates, though.
This post was to discuss who should represent the two "generally" accepted cradles in the Americas, or if the current representatives were good enough.
Aelf, please drop it. One person's analogy shouldn't become that much of a battle, just say you don't think it makes sense and move on.

 

[ParkCungHee]

To respond to all of the above, I think the difficulty may lay in the definition of civilization, since the "textbook" definition is certainly rather poor.

I don't think that's the issue. I don't think anyone who actually knows about them can seriously doubt that there were civilizations in the British Isles before the pyramids ever were built, or that Gojoseon was a civilization, etc. etc.

Note that I'm still not buying some of Park's dates, though.

It is noted that you stand in opposition to scientific fact and consensus when it's unpleasant for you.

This post was to discuss who should represent the two "generally" accepted cradles in the Americas, or if the current representatives were good enough.

Generally accepted, cradles are a bunk concept.

 

[CivOasis]

I don't think that's the issue. I don't think anyone who actually knows about them can seriously doubt that there were civilizations in the British Isles before the pyramids ever were built, or that Gojoseon was a civilization, etc. etc.

I think it is, I'm not doubting their existence, just saying that I may have been using another definition when I originally posted.

It is noted that you stand in opposition to scientific fact and consensus when it's unpleasant for you.

It is noted you are mistaken, saying I am opposed to scientific fact and consensus (at any time) is like saying the sun doesn't exist. Completely false.

Generally accepted, cradles are a bunk concept.

Clearly not, as I am getting my information from new (within 5 years) sources. As I stated above, perhaps this is more of a semantics/definition issue.

 

[CivOasis]

Just as an FYI, the dates I get for Gojosean Korea is 1500 B.C. as a loose federation, between 800 and 400 B.C. as a unified state.

 

[Masada]

Clearly not, as I am getting my information from new (within 5 years) sources. As I stated above, perhaps this is more of a semantics/definition issue.

No, it isn't. Civilization quite simply did not diffuse out of cradles. It's that damn simple. Furthermore, I don't rate unseeen sources. You could at least make the effort and post something to back up your position.

 

[CivOasis]

No, it isn't. Civilization quite simply did not diffuse out of cradles. It's that damn simple. Furthermore, I don't rate unseeen sources. You could at least make the effort and post something to back up your position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia is less-than-accurate, and it does say possible. My major points are the following:
A) The dates that are being used to disprove me are false. Additionally, some of the information being used is false, as well. I.E., a giant Siberian civilization. Seriously, I even thought that was supposed to be a joke at first.
B) Regardless of what it is called or means is irrelevant to my question. If you want me to rephrase it, fine: Are the current (Civ V) representatives of the Norte Chico and Mesoamerica regions good choices, or should other civs be used? If so, who?

Seriously, was it *really* necessary? My main issue is with the "evidence" used to disprove me, not the concept of those regions being/not being cradles (which, yes, depends on how you define civilization, which I personally don't care about. Define it how you want, thats not a topic I want anything to do with).

 

[sophie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia is less-than-accurate, and it does say possible. My major points are the following:
A) The dates that are being used to disprove me are false. Additionally, some of the information being used is false, as well. I.E., a giant Siberian civilization. Seriously, I even thought that was supposed to be a joke at first.
B) Regardless of what it is called or means is irrelevant to my question. If you want me to rephrase it, fine: Are the current (Civ V) representatives of the Norte Chico and Mesoamerica regions good choices, or should other civs be used? If so, who?

Seriously, was it *really* necessary? My main issue is with the "evidence" used to disprove me, not the concept of those regions being/not being cradles (which, yes, depends on how you define civilization, which I personally don't care about. Define it how you want, thats not a topic I want anything to do with).

That's nice, now give us some legitimate sources to actually back up your point, preferably written by someone who isn't a.) dead, or b.) not part of the field

 

[CivOasis]

Follow the links on the page, most of them are from 2007-2008, if memory serves correctly.
And, a little bit of research into real science shows that the Hwanguk and Beadelguk are mythological, and the Gojoseon started later than certain posters would have me believe.
Honestly, though, can we all agree to disagree on this one? I seriously want to get people's opinions on the civs in the regions I mentioned, not whether or not somebody thinks Sumeria was a cradle of civilization...

 

[Masada]

Gut feelings on your part, do no constitute an arguement. Simple as that.

A) The dates that are being used to disprove me are false.

How are they false. Moreover, could you please stop conflating states with civilization. The two are not at all the same things.

Additionally, some of the information being used is false, as well. I.E., a giant Siberian civilization. Seriously, I even thought that was supposed to be a joke at first.

Same thing here.

Seriously, was it *really* necessary? My main issue is with the "evidence" used to disprove me, not the concept of those regions being/not being cradles (which, yes, depends on how you define civilization, which I personally don't care about. Define it how you want, thats not a topic I want anything to do with).

This is a history forum. We discuss history here. This is a discussion of history. Moreover, it doesn't matter how you 'define' civilization because quite simply civilization did not spread out of cradles.

Follow the links on the page, most of them are from 2007-2008, if memory serves correctly.

... because some links found on Wikipedia trump the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia?

And, a little bit of research into real science shows that the Hwanguk and Beadelguk are mythological, and the Gojoseon started later than certain posters would have me believe.

History isn't a science, and stop conflating states with civilization.

Honestly, though, can we all agree to disagree on this one?

Your wrong and blatantly so.

 

[sophie]

Follow the links on the page, most of them are from 2007-2008, if memory serves correctly.
And, a little bit of research into real science shows that the Hwanguk and Beadelguk are mythological, and the Gojoseon started later than certain posters would have me believe.
Honestly, though, can we all agree to disagree on this one? I seriously want to get people's opinions on the civs in the regions I mentioned, not whether or not somebody thinks Sumeria was a cradle of civilization...

See, the fact that you refuse to give me specific sources tells me that you haven't actually done any research on the subject matter and instead are just going on gut feeling or high school history textbooks. Neither are particularly useful for history.

 

[CivOasis]

As posted above, Hanguk and Baedelguk are mythical, Gojoseon formed later than posters stated.
Secondly, I am not mixing civilization with state, but it appears others are confusing it with "culture" and "population".
Thirdly, yes, you discuss history here, but I am discussing history of two SPECIFIC regions (this thread's purpose), which, in turn, is for how that is applied in Civ V. If you don't want to discuss that, or want to discuss other topics, please, form your own thread, rather than de-railing mine. I asked a question, I would like answers and discussion of that topic, civilization around Norte Chico and Mesoamerica, not whether or not Mesopotamia and Korea were cradles of civilization (or if such things actually existed).
Whether or not you believe there is such thing as a cradle of civilization does not bother me, nor, I am sure, does your opinion affect me. I request the debate, which has no serious affect on the question posed, be dropped, or continued elsewhere.