The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[CivOasis]

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:





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

Problem is, Korea and Ireland both have cradles, and SE Asia is debatable.

 

[sophie]

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.

Dude, your whole line of reasoning depends on the existence of cradles of civilization. Otherwise, why would it matter whether or not this "Norte Chico Civilization" is represented, any more than a "Srivijaya" or "Korea" civilization is represented?

As for your problem with the books. Those types of books are basically history's bread and butter. If you have a problem with those types of sources, I sorry to say this, but you're in the wrong field. As for getting a hold of them, the library is your friend

Now, PCH and Masada, who are damned well versed in their respective areas of expertise have been kind enough to weigh in for themselves and have put forward some very good arguments. The least you can do is admit you're wrong or provide some legitimate arguments of your own.

 

[Masada]

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.

Does the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia fall into the realm of fringe theory or pseudoscience?

Problem is, Korea and Ireland both have cradles, and SE Asia is debatable.

You need to expand on this. Because I don't know what 'debatable' means? And where are these Korean and Irish cradles to be found.

(I'm actually interested to hear this about Southeast Asia particularily being ma area of study and all).

 

[CivOasis]

Dude, your whole line of reasoning depends on the existence of cradles of civilization. Otherwise, why would it matter whether or not this "Norte Chico Civilization" is represented, any more than a "Srivijaya" or "Korea" civilization is represented?

As for your problem with the books. Those books are basically history's bread and butter. If you have a problem with those types of sources, I sorry to say this, but you're in the wrong field.

Now, PCH and Masada, who are damned well versed in their respective areas of expertise have been kind enough to weigh in for themselves and have put forward some very good arguments. The least you can do is admit you're wrong or provide some legitimate arguments of your own.

For point one, I'm going to say it actually doesn't matter if one is represented over the other, even if one is to accept the cradles as correct. I'm just interested in one over the other, that's all. If someone would like to discuss the historical merits of Srivijaya or Korea, that's cool, too. I've even argued for Srivijaya.

My problem isn't with books (seriously, I read tons of them). It's that the ones posted were kind of obscure.

PCH hasn't done a ton of info that doesn't involve some controversy of its own.
A lot of what Masada has posted is just insults towards myself, hardly beneficial to the conversation.

 

[Tee Kay]

edit: never mind

 

[CivOasis]

Does the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia fall into the realm of fringe theory or pseudoscience?

No, but, when I (just, admittedly) checked it out, it seemed to agree with me on an originally Chinese influence.

You need to expand on this. Because I don't know what 'debatable' means? And where are these Korean and Irish cradles to be found.
(I'm actually interested to hear this about Southeast Asia particularily being ma area of study and all).

Debatable for SE Asia and Polynesia, as in, I don't know.
Korea stems from China. Not saying they are not unique, just that they started and diverged from the same region. Not even same civilization, just same region.
Same goes for Ireland, albeit from Greece and Rome, which in turn take their cultural heritage from the Middle East.

 

[sophie]

No, but, when I (just, admittedly) checked it out, it seemed to agree with me on an originally Chinese influence.



Debatable for SE Asia and Polynesia, as in, I don't know.
Korea stems from China. Not saying they are not unique, just that they started and diverged from the same region. Not even same civilization, just same region.
Same goes for Ireland, albeit from Greece and Rome, which in turn take their cultural heritage from the Middle East.

What the hell do you mean by "Chinese Influence"?

Same goes for "Middle East cultural heritage"

also "Civilization"

 

[CivOasis]

I seriously hope people aren't assuming I'm saying that a few civilizations spawned all of the others in history, just that I'm saying few regions of the world developed completely on their own, multiple civilizations often arose in the same region around the same time.

 

[CivOasis]

What the hell do you mean by "Chinese Influence"?

Same goes for "Middle East cultural heritage"

also "Civilization"

For the first two, I'm saying that those regions didn't found the others, I'm saying they affected their development.
For the third one, I question if any of us have that figured out. I'm not really going by something solid, but I would say I consider groups more "primitive (although I disagree with the term)" than normally accepted by the "textbook definition" (Military, writing, some form of wealth, cities, etc. I don't think a lot of those are necessary), so, IDK if that helps from my thought process.

 

[Dachs]

I seriously hope people aren't assuming I'm saying that a few civilizations spawned all of the others in history, just that I'm saying few regions of the world developed completely on their own, multiple civilizations often arose in the same region around the same time.

That's not really the classical definition of a "cradle" though. You'd have to be daft to claim that there was no interplay between "civilizations" (not a huge fan of that term)

 

[sophie]

For the first two, I'm saying that those regions didn't found the others, I'm saying they affected their development.

...what?

So "Rome"s development was affected by the Middle East but not vice versa?

Also, don't you think better establishing a definition for civilization would be, you know, integral to this thread?

 

[Dachs]

And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--

 

[CivOasis]

That's not really the classical definition of a "cradle" though. You'd have to be daft to claim that there was no interplay between "civilizations" (not a huge fan of that term)

I think that perhaps I was too vague (and utterly confusing) in my posts.
Just this makes me think that, more likely than not, Dachs is probably the one I most agree with.

And, yeah, it's not the traditional or clearest definition, but, I don't really know a better term, at the moment.

As to Glyndwr's (sp., I'm sure) post below about Rome not influencing the Middle East, of course it did. It just happened to be founded later than many early middle eastern "civilizations", thus, they influenced some aspects its foundation (although, Greece had a bigger hand in that particular case).

 

[CivOasis]

Yeah, defining civilization probably would be important, but the game doesn't either, so the definition can probably be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm still waiting for the mechanism by which Sumerians reached the Orkney Isles only a few hundred years from the founding of their cities, because it clearly wasn't material culture. At least the invisible Chinese could have walked.

 

[sophie]

As to Glyndwr's (sp., I'm sure) post below about Rome not influencing the Middle East, of course it did. It just happened to be founded later than many early middle eastern "civilizations", thus, they influenced some aspects its foundation (although, Greece had a bigger hand in that particular case).

But how do you know that Middle East Civilizations started earlier than Italian ones if you can't even properly define what a civilization is?

 

[Masada]

My problem isn't with books (seriously, I read tons of them). It's that the ones posted were kind of obscure.

How is the Cambridge History of Southeast Asia obscure? Also why does that matter, it's still the authorative text.

PCH hasn't done a ton of info that doesn't involve some controversy of its own.

What controversy? Some dates he didn't mention at all, that you've chosen to use creatively to 'prove' him wrong.

A lot of what Masada has posted is just insults towards myself, hardly beneficial to the conversation.

I've done no such thing. I attacked the arguement, well more precisely the lack of one.

Debatable for SE Asia and Polynesia, as in, I don't know.

How does that make it debatable? It would seem to suggest the opposite.

No, but, when I (just, admittedly) checked it out, it seemed to agree with me on an originally Chinese influence.

Now how this gels with the above is beyond me. But please provide the citation in full. I'll just reiterate mine:

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.

Korea stems from China. Not saying they are not unique, just that they started and diverged from the same region. Not even same civilization, just same region.

Same goes for Ireland, albeit from Greece and Rome, which in turn take their cultural heritage from the Middle East.

I think this means that the whole notion of specific geographic cradles has been abandoned and replaced with the 'thewholeofreakingEurasia'.

For the first two, I'm saying that those regions didn't found the others, I'm saying they affected their development.

Ah, 'thewholeofreakingEurasia' defense.

 

[Masada]

Now folks let's not pretend this (see below) must not be humiliating for CivOasis because it represents a huge slice of humble pie. Let's not be mean about it but good freaking God it took three pages to bring this about.

Just this makes me think that, more likely than not, Dachs is probably the one I most agree with.

So let's recap what happened? CivOasis has gone from lolChinafoundedKorea to lolChinainfluencedKorea and still doesn't see the difference. I'm happy with what little progress has been made. You guys?

 

[say1988]

For the first two, I'm saying that those regions didn't found the others, I'm saying they affected their development.

No, you are saying that they "are the six spots where civilization is believed to have formed separaterly". Key word is "formed". Meaning that all other geographic areas can trace the beginnings of their first civilization to one of the six. Not that their later development was influenced by them.

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)

You are claiming that a news article is more "substantial" than works of scholars? And the reason one example was 20 years old was to specifically point out how long ago the theory was being dismantled in the scholarly community.
Popular history lags well behind anything scholarly. You are arguing as something "generally accepted" in popular history with students of history.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm happy with what little progress has been made. You guys?

No, because I'm still going to point out that if we're going by this new definition that cradles of civilization are areas that influenced other cultures, then Norte Chico certainly does not meet this standard, nor does any part of the Americas.
Norte Chico is a region that has been strongly influenced by Sumeria, (in the form of Spain), but has not done the same to others. It's indigenous languages are nearly extinct, spoken no where else, and clearly it is under the cultural sway of the Sumerians/Egyptians, best evidenced by the fact that we refer to it by the egyptian/sumerian derived words "Norte Chico"