The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[CivOasis]

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.

The most reference anyone else has given me is a decades-old book (with no name mentioned) and some fictional, uncited maps. Neither of which is particularly useful for history.
And, yes, I gave you specific sources, and told you exactly where to find them. Whether or not they werre good, that's still more sources than anyone else posted.
Regardless, that's irrelevant to the thread, I'm not *trying* to discuss old-world civilization and its origins.

 

[Masada]

As posted above, Hanguk and Baedelguk are mythical, Gojoseon formed later than posters stated.

You need to read what PCH said. He didn't say that 'Korean' civilization started with Gojoseon, he merely used it as an example of 'Korean' civilization as an independent construct. (And I'm using Korean with hesitation because I don't know the formal term).

Secondly, I am not mixing civilization with state, but it appears others are confusing it with "culture" and "population".

You are conflating civilizations with states. There's been ample evidence of that: Gojoseon, Hanguk and Baedelguk. But I'd be interested to see how I'm conflating 'culture' with 'population'?

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).

You also suggested that civilization disseminated from 'cradles' something that is demonstratively false. Something which you continue to defend.

The most reference anyone else has given me is a decades-old book (with no name mentioned) and some fictional, uncited maps. Neither of which is particularly useful for history.

Right because citing from Wiki is lots better. Something you admit to being the case:

I'll be the first to admit that Wikipedia is less-than-accurate

I'm also not sure what book is being referred to here. I've cited the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia which is current and has an impeccable pedigree witness 'Cambridge', Tarling, Bellwood (the expert), Taylor, Hall, Mabbit and Casparis. Moreover, mine isn't decades old, it was last updated in 1999 and is still current in the relevant sections. Furthermore, a quick google search turned up A History of Ireland by Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry which is the source PCH cited. So it can't be that. But whatever the case, I find it fascinating that you've locked on to the dated concept because PCH admitted that his was old: that was kind of the point, he was demonstrating that the whole notion of cradles was dead a long while ago. Here's the man himself:

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:

 

[ParkCungHee]

You need to read what PCH said. He didn't say that 'Korean' civilization started with Gojoseon, he merely used it as an example of 'Korean' civilization as an independent construct. (And I'm using Korean with hesitation because I don't know the formal term).

As far as I know there isn't any formal term. We don't have any evidence of the linguistic make-up of the peninsula at the time, but given the lack of Chinese material culture and writing, it's probably a good deal different then modern Korean. The material culture we do have points to the population having a pretty regular connection to the peoples of Manchuria and Siberia, but there's a lot unanswered.
Generally it's understood and most books caution that these were "Korean" kingdoms in a Geographic sense, not in an ethno-linguistic sense.

 

[aelf]

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.

I don't know about you, but it's an interesting discussion to have that is quite relevant to the topic you bring up. Just because you don't find it interesting or comprehensible doesn't mean you have the authority to ask for it to be dropped. Sometimes people just disagree with some of the basic premises and assumptions made in an OP, and sometimes they would say so and defend their position. You have to get used to that rather than simply lashing out at people for 'derailing' your thread.

 

[CivOasis]

I don't know about you, but it's an interesting discussion to have that is quite relevant to the topic you bring up. Just because you don't find it interesting or comprehensible doesn't mean you have the authority to ask for it to be dropped. Sometimes people just disagree with some of the basic premises and assumptions made in an OP, and sometimes they would say so and defend their position. You have to get used to that rather than simply lashing out at people for 'derailing' your thread.

Its got nothing to do with the OP, that's the only reason I want it to stop. It'd be fine, if that was actually in the OP.

 

[aelf]

It's got a lot to do with the OP. In the case of Jericho, for instance, why can't a city be a civilisation? Is there a universal definition of civilisation that excludes polities as small as cities? If Jericho is a civilisation to some, then would it not possibly be a "cradle of civilisation"?

It's not even that hard to see the relevance.

 

[CivOasis]

It's got a lot to do with the OP. In the case of Jericho, for instance, why can't a city be a civilisation? Is there a universal definition of civilisation that excludes polities as small as cities? If Jericho is a civilisation to some, then would it not possibly be a "cradle of civilisation"?

It's not even that hard to see the relevance.

Jericho would go under Mesopotamia.
And, at this point in history, those were the only known regions with what is understood as a city, by current definitions. Regardless, the OP explicitly states two specific regions, both in the Americas. Therefore, it is besides the point whether or not there were such things as cradles of civilizations, what they were on other continents, or even if others existed in the Americas. And I am perfectly willing to edit the OP to say "these historical regions" instead of "these cradles of civilization", as well as removing the stuff listing the old world cradles. I just put that up so that no one tried to argue that they needed attention.

Edit: Well, Mesoamerica is a little later, but I'm not really bothered about that, I care more what people think about Norte Chico.

 

[aelf]

By Mesopotamia you mean the geographical area, right?

A map of the area known as Mesopotamia:

Location of Jericho:

Pretty far off, no?

As for your wanting to restrict the discussion only to "cradles of civilisation" in the Americas, I'm not sympathetic either. Firstly, I don't see why discussion should not be allowed to grow naturally around the general topic brought up and must strictly go according to the direction set by the OP; that just doesn't conform to how things are around here. Secondly, you were wondering aloud about the question of Jericho yourself, so your present claim that it's irrelevant to what you want to discuss is a bit rich.

 

[CivOasis]

By Mesopotamia you mean the geographical area, right?

A map of the area known as Mesopotamia:

Location of Jericho:

Pretty far off, no?

Noted. I had mistakenly believed it was elsewhere.

As for your wanting to restrict the discussion only to "cradles of civilisation" in the Americas, I'm not sympathetic either. Firstly, I don't see why discussion should not be allowed to grow naturally around the general topic brought up and must strictly go according to the direction set by the OP; that just doesn't conform to how things are around here. Secondly, you were wondering aloud about the question of Jericho yourself, so your present claim that it's irrelevant to what you want to discuss is a bit rich.

Yes, I had wondered, pointed out it was off-topic, but it was included with an on-topic discussion. THAT is what normally shappens in this forum, at least in my experience- off-topic posts are accompanied with relevant information.
I rarely see huge conversations with little relevance to the posts (and, when I do see them, it's normally been accompanied by moderator action, most frequently the closing of the thread, not something I want to see).
And, yes, generally around the topic is normal, and great. Generally around the topic would be discussions of the civilizations in the mentioned regions. Not "I don't believe a minor term in your OP doesn't exist, and I will try to now claim that a completely unrelated civ was one of these fictional terms".
If anyone wants to discuss ANYTHING that has to do with the civs in those regions, I'm cool with that.

 

[aelf]

From your OP:

This post relates to the civs present in Civ V, and, more specifically, which regions aren't represented there

So it still seems pretty relevant to me, even if you're going to be strict about it. It's no one else's fault that you made an OP that apparently stipulates a few different directions in which the discussion can move.

 

[CivOasis]

Basically, the questions are:
Looking at history:
Who should represent Norte Chico?
Is Mesoamerica fairly represented by the Aztecs? If not, what civ should represent it?

This is the question in the OP. Clearly stated.
Besides, with the exception of Jericho (and one post on SE Asia, which, according to your opinion, may or may not be represented), the other conversations have not discussed other, unrepresented regions, they've discussed Korea, Europe, and a very large side-track into whether or not "cradles" of civilization existed, and where the origins of European and Korean civilization lie. Which is completely irrelevant to any part of the OP.

 

[say1988]

Except your entire argument for such a civilization is based on the "cradle" concept. And They are attacking that concept. They have more knowledge outside of the americas, so they are showing that the concept is fasle in general, and your arguement is based on a false assumption.

 

[CivOasis]

Except your entire argument for such a civilization is based on the "cradle" concept. And They are attacking that concept. They have more knowledge outside of the americas, so they are showing that the concept is fasle in general, and your arguement is based on a false assumption.

As I pointed out, me calling it a cradle or region is rather irrelevant to this question, and, if it bothers them so much, I can (and the offer remains) change the OP to rephrase the question. If they don't know about the Americas, they shouldn't be criticizing it. If they really want to argue over whether or not the term is false in general, they should make a new thread for it.

 

[say1988]

As I pointed out, me calling it a cradle or region is rather irrelevant to this question

The six "areas where civilization ermerged independently and then sprea outwards" is the core you the OP. Name it what you will.

 

[CivOasis]

The six "areas where civilization ermerged independently and then sprea outwards" is the core you the OP. Name it what you will.

I realize I put that in (bad decision), it was because I didn't want to see a ton of "Let's add the Apache" posts (not dissing them, just not really interested), and I was trying to discuss the history of those regions. Its not really important, I can change it without changing the meaning of the question. I didn't realize I'd get a ton of "OMG YOU CHOSE THE WRONG TERM" crap.

 

[say1988]

I didn't realize I'd get a ton of "OMG YOU CHOSE THE WRONG TERM" crap.

But you didn't. You got, "the entire theory justifying you idea that a civ from this are should be included is BS"

 

[CivOasis]

I never used the theory to justify it. In fact, there was one response, where I said that the justification should be that the regions were under-represented, I don't particularly care what the region means, historically. Traditionally, at least, those regions were called "cradles" of civilization, so the term was used more or less as just that.
Frankly, this thread isn't even posting civs in the OP (I did so later, with two civs I thought were cool, and I justified Teotihuacan), its meant for other people's opinions of who should go there.

 

[sophie]

This post relates to the civs present in Civ V, and, more specifically, which regions aren't represented there (Before anyone asks why this isn't in the Civ V forums, I was told to put it here).

Basically, there are six accepted cradles of Civilization:
Egypt (represented in civ v by... Egypt...)
Mesopotamia (represented by Babylon, maybe Persia?)
The Indus River Valley (India)
The Yangtze River Valley (China)
Those, I really wouldn't worry about. Sure, Mesopotamia could've gotten more attention, but it is represented relatively fairly.

In the Americas, though, there are two more:
Norte Chico (which isn't represented at all)
Mesoamerica (admittedly, that one's the latecomer to the group, but it's only represented by the Aztecs, who first showed up in the 1300's A.D.)

Basically, the questions are:
Looking at history:
Who should represent Norte Chico?
Is Mesoamerica fairly represented by the Aztecs? If not, what civ should represent it?

Yeah...sounds to me like this whole "cradles of civilization" thing is pretty central to your whole argument, so why don't you stop dodging the question like a little **** and just admit you're wrong.

 

[Masada]

You know, I don't think CivOasis is up to our sophisticated level of arguementation because he still doesn't seem to get what it is PCH and I are arguing. For reference here's the core part of what was said:

As for the idea that Civilization developed and spread from the Middle East to Europe, that is so old and thoroughly debunked that...seriously why are we even having this discussion?

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

And the remainder is our objection to the farcical notion that 'civilization' spread out of 'cradles' and encompassed the world. So far we've pointed out three viable counter-examples between us: Southeast Asia, no cradle there, Korea, no cradle there and Ireland, no cradle there. For bonus points I'm going to put forward Polynesia as yet another counter-example. But whatever the case, whatever we argue: CivOasis just doesn't get it

 

[CivOasis]

Yeah...sounds to me like this whole "cradles of civilization" thing is pretty central to your whole argument, so why don't you stop dodging the question like a little **** and just admit you're wrong.

Take out the second section, rename the thread, you've now removed everything that has to do with the cradles of civilization, and, yet, my question (not argument, where the heck is anyone getting that from?) is still unchanged, no meaning has been gained or lost. I'm pretty sure mods can re-name a thread, and I will remove that section, if everyone will confirm they'll stop drowning my thread in rage-posts.

Dodging what question? As I recall, I'm the only one who ever posted a question, sparing the Jericho post.

Admit I'm wrong? As I have demonstrated with Jericho, I am perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong, when I've seen something that shows that I was. So far, all the "there are no cradles of civilization" group has posted are fringe theories and pseudoscience about Europe and Korea, and a couple books I will likely never be able to get a hold of. Frankly, if something more substantial was posted (for example, some news articles relating to the origins of civilization in the Americas, since that is what is supposed to be discussed here), then, yes, I will (willingly) admit I am wrong. For the moment, though, I would appreciate if that shifted to, say, another thread, or PM'ing articles, so that this thread may be used for its original purpose.