Comments on: Re-thinking the "cradle of civilization"

Re-thinking the "cradle of civilization"

stbalbach — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:32:25 -0800

Re-thinking the "cradle of civilization". New discoveries at dig sites in Middle Asia are challenging the archaeological worlds idea that civilization began in Mesopotamia. Sites in modern-day Iran and Russia suggest that a vast network of societies together constituted the first cities, along with the potential discovery of a new writing system.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:46:49 -0800

Well it's about time Iraq got some bad news innit?

By: mediareport

mediareport — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:54:48 -0800

Awesome. I love it when the complexity gets filled in. *holds onto hope for evidence of 10,000-year-old wood-based jungle civilizations*

By: DU

DU — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:58:18 -0800

...a vast network of societies together constituted the first cities... What? The first link seems more informative, but still we have this: "While Mesopotamia is still the cradle of civilization in the sense that urban evolution began there, we now know that the area between Mesopotamia and India spawned a host of cities and cultures between 3000 B.C.E. and 2000 B.C.E." There seem to be two points here. First, that cultures and societies can exist without cities. NEWSFLASH: NOMADS AREN'T 19TH CENTURY "SAVAGES" Second, that there were a bunch of cities, not just one. Duh? The comment about India in particular makes one thing of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, both of which have long been known to predate 2000 BCE.

By: afu

afu — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:09:51 -0800

Double?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:14:53 -0800

What DU said: this is fascinating stuff, but the post drastically oversells it. Mesopotamia is still the site of the first cities; it's just that other cities grew up faster and in more widespread areas than had been suspected. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for the post, but leave the hype to the marketers. Double? Nah, that was just about Jiroft.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:39:50 -0800

If only Lord Dunsany were still alive.

By: COBRA!

COBRA! — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:07:48 -0800

Listen. Civilization started in roughly 7 randomly-seeded spots around the ~~map~~ globe, and has been expanding outwards ever since as quickly as the tech trees and available resources allow. I refuse to believe otherwise, and if you doubt me I'll overrun your cities with Modern Armor.

By: jefgodesky

jefgodesky — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:36:43 -0800

roughly 7 randomly-seeded spots around the ~~map~~ globe Not random at all. Seven spots with a very specific confluence of climatic, geographic, ecological (both in the numbers and kinds of species present, both plant and animal) factors. For instance, all in sub-tropical floodplains. That's hardly random. As for the "cradle of civilization," by 3000 BCE, civilization in the Middle East was already 5,000 years old. I fail to see how this really changes much....

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:40:23 -0800

Diplomacy, COBRA!, diplomacy.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:44:50 -0800

Not random at all. Seven spots ~~with a very specific confluence of climatic, geographic, ecological (both in the numbers and kinds of species present, both plant and animal) factors~~ chosen by the Galactic Overlords a billion years ago according to a pattern that, if you were foolish enough to try to understand it, would make your brain explode like a grape in a microwave.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:46:02 -0800

Don't you realize what this means? We must invade Iran.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:51:31 -0800

TERRORISTS CONTROL THE ROOTS OF CIVILIZATION!

By: jfuller

jfuller — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:47:14 -0800

> all in sub-tropical floodplains. And now, after 4000 years of experience give or take a couple, we still haven't figured out not to build in floodplains.

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:55:12 -0800

DU: it was my impression that nomadism (pastoral nomadism) arrived rather late on the scene. Honest question: before or after the birth of cities?

By: jefgodesky

jefgodesky — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:39:11 -0800

And now, after 4000 years of experience give or take a couple, we still haven't figured out not to build in floodplains. The floodplains were actually pretty crucial, not just a random mistake. All of the major agricultural crops (corn, rice, wheat) are disaster-adapted cereal grains. It was probably the regular flooding that made agriculture conceivable. The basic job of the plow, after all, is simply to mimic a natural disaster, so as to favor the growth of disaster-oriented crops (specifically, wheat). So, agriculture arose when and where the specific material factors allowed for it and encouraged it. That's not random.

By: MetaMonkey

MetaMonkey — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:10:57 -0800

chosen by the Galactic Overlords a billion years ago according to a pattern that, if you were foolish enough to try to understand it, would make your brain explode like a grape in a microwave I'm as big a fan of Sid Meier as anybody, but Galactic Overlord is a little OTT.

By: StrikeTheViol

StrikeTheViol — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:31:35 -0800

Yeah, jefgodesky, we know you don't like Civilization all that much, but you should really try it, it can be fun sometimes.

By: jefgodesky

jefgodesky — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:51:51 -0800

Actually, I love the video game. It's the one sense of the word in which I have something good to say about it. :^)

By: absalom

absalom — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:17:39 -0800

Seven? What a pussy. Real gamers play the 18 civ scenario.

By: stirfry

stirfry — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:45:29 -0800

It be a value judgement. "Civilization" gets defined by the level of enviromental control, i.e. technology. The urges and ability to dominate that came with the technology is just a self back-pat definition of civilization. ok..we're civilized because we're living longer.