Mesopotamia NOT the cradle of Civilisation?

Hello to all ;

I am going to be at CatalHoyuk next week .
I have not been there since 1978 .

Here is some fun from Cappodocia .

uk.youtube.com...

Originally posted by 23432



Hello to all ;

I am going to be at CatalHoyuk next week .
I have not been there since 1978 .

I am so jealous. Could you take some pics and post them up. i would love to see them.

Quote by mojo:
If some form of written communication is found at Catalhoyuk however then things will get really interesting.

There are many sites found around the Gulf with similar gods, similar cultures, etc. The gods in those days were visible and got around a lot. Not much was overlooked by them. It would not be a surprise if Catalhoyuk was involved in their "rounds"! The sites stretch from Egypt through present Isreal, Syria, Iraque, Iran, Persia to India and perhaps further.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the main reason that the Middle East got the designation of the "cradle of civilisation" had more to do with the religion of those earlier archeologists who were mainly from european countries. plain and simple, they looked where they wanted to find something..something that would give their religion more credibility. I mean, if you wanted to believe that the judeo/christian faiths were the oldest and the best...well, you wouldn't want to go digging around too much in all those other places on earth, you might find something older, and better!!
these same archeologist also tended to throw findings that didn't seem to mesh with their views into dark storage rooms to be forever forgotten.

I think it's a human trait all scientists exhibit every now and then...a bias toward this belief or that, and then a search to prove that belief is right, often ignoring anything and everything that might prove it is wrong.

This early site at Jiroft is in mid, lower Iran to the right of the main Persian Gulf. Just across the Gulf is old Mesopotamia. For a www.appiusforum.com... check this out. (And sorry it is from a religeous orginization) But from the introduction the dig at Jiroft was dated 6000 years ago which would put it mid to late Uruk. The Sumarians would have been present in Mesopotamia at that time. Egyptian civilization is generally dated a bit later or BC 3000. Although somewhat contemporary many of these seperate areas differed greatly from each other so I wouldn't expect much similarity say in the writing found at Jiroft but this is a guess.
If anyone has a better Time Line to share it would be great. Thanks!

reply to post by plumranch




Ubaid period

The tell (mound) of Ubaid (Arabic: عبيد) near Ur in southern Iraq has given its name to the prehistoric Pottery Neolithic to Chalcolithic culture, which represents the earliest settlement on the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid culture had a long duration beginning before 5300 BC and lasting until the beginning of the Uruk period, c. 4100 BC. The invention of the wheel and the beginning of the Chalcolithic period fall into the Ubaid period.

Uruk period

The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BC) is the protohistoric Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age period in the history of Mesopotamia, following the Ubaid period. Named after the city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia. It was followed by the Sumerian civilization. The late Uruk period (34th to 32nd centuries) sees the gradual emergence of the cuneiform script and corresponds to EB I.

Was Perperikon a civilised city? A water tank with a capacity of 432,000 litres has been found but it doesnt give a date for when the tank was constructed.

www.novinite.com

The city of Perperikon has been inhabited since around 5000 BC, while a nearby shrine dedicated to Orpheus, near the village of Tatul, dates back to 6000 BC and is older than the Pyramids of Giza.

Wikipedia

Human activity in the area dates back to 5000 B.C. The first traces of civilization on the hill date from the Bronze Age, while the ceramics found on the place date from the Early Iron Age, as well as the impressive round altar, almost 2 m in diameter, hewn out of the rocks.

Photo Gallery


www.goldensands

The sanctuary is an oval hall roughly hewn in the rocks. It has a stone altar bearing traces of the numerous fires lit there. This is the sanctuary of Dionysus, or rather of Zagreus (the Thracian name of this Greek god), a site archeologists have spent 100 years searching for.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the main reason that the Middle East got the designation of the "cradle of civilisation" had more to do with the religion of those earlier archeologists who were mainly from european countries.

Speaking as an anthropologist, I heartily agree. If they define civilization to mean "something that lead to the greatness of Europe" then they can conveneintly ignore India and China and similar regions around the world. It's always been something I've growled about.

these same archeologist also tended to throw findings that didn't seem to mesh with their views into dark storage rooms to be forever forgotten.

I think it's a human trait all scientists exhibit every now and then...a bias toward this belief or that, and then a search to prove that belief is right, often ignoring anything and everything that might prove it is wrong

Some, yes... but if they're honest (most are but some aren't) then they tuck those artifacts away and the junior students and researchers come along much later and find some interesting things. Lots of things have been discovered in the archives of material and there's more material in museums than can be examined conveinetly by the staff.

From the Free Dictionary:

civ·i·lized (sv-lzd)
adj.
1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable: terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

Basically a totally relative concept, no matter how one looks at it!

Personally, I would define civilization as a social structure which provides both support and direction for it's members. Such as government/law...as well as sanitation/waste management....and which would provide for the tangible and intangible needs of the members simply because they were a part of the whole...

It is my current opinion that the whole idea of it being Mesopotamia, for the last 6 or 7 millenia, was simply due to the fact that was as far back as the human 'memory' had been preserved - and I don't mean literal recollection but the clues which we have found and attempted to decipher according to what we know NOW.

And therefore mainly creating theories and calling them the truth instead of discovering facts and patiently forming conclusions over time which are never 'closed' or 'final' - the most blatant example we have, IMO, is that of Egyptology. It is basically a contaminated field of study because it was built upon imagination instead of true open-minded scholastics.

I think there is a good chance that the Indus Valley people were organized in a more advanced society before the Sumerian people of Mesopotamia - but it isn't provable, I don't think, as far as in a true scientific fashion. It was a surprise, I think, to many, when those forgotten histories began to be discovered - the orderly composition of their communities was the most startling to many - and there is unmistakable evidence of a rather sophisticated system for waste removal.

Health and communication are what keep a society together and alive, I think - and so sanitation and written records seem to be something of a benchmark.

Think about the middle ages in Europe, in the days of the Black Death - compared to the height of the Roman Empire! Definitely one would have to admit that the Romans, although earlier, were far advanced as a 'civilization' compared to feudal Europe in the 1300's! More about 'poo' than anything else! And that might be linked to education and literacy; it seems quite possible!

reply to post by queenannie38



Your right queenannie38, you can cite heaps of sources and they all define it differently. Whats needed is a standard definition from archaeologists but depending on where they are working and on what they have been taught, their opinions also differ substantially, so what hope do you have.

I still believe that for the sake of the argument it should be as basic as possible when referring to ancient cultures.
Permanent structures, a stable population for a certain period of time and advances in some fields, whether agriculture, livestock, the arts, trading or government.
If a culture had those attributes i would suggest that they have contributed to the advance of the human race in some way, which in time has helped to define our civilization, even in some small part.

I dont believe that a written language should be a pre-requisite.

blatant example we have, IMO, is that of Egyptology. It is basically a contaminated field of study because it was built upon imagination instead of true open-minded scholastics.

reply to post by queenannie38

Interesting queenannie! Would you mind expanding on this or giving examples? I probably agree. Thanks!

europes oldest civilization

For the last several years, archaeologists have been steadily working to excavate a network of dozens of temples that are believed to be older than the pyramids in Egypt, and even older than Stonehenge. More than 150 gigantic monuments have already been identified and unearthed beneath fields and cities in Austria, Germany, and Slovakia. The temples are built from wood and earth and are surrounded by fences and ramparts that extend for thousands of feet. The fortifications and buildings, built between 4800BC and 4600BC, are believed to have been constructed by a civilization based on farming and agriculture.

Here's an interesting find, though i cant find many reliable sources for the article apart from the one above written in 2005.

As archaeologists have worked to excavate these Stone Age temples, they have also unearthed several other intriguing mysteries. Each complex was used for only a few generations, and the central sacred area was always almost exactly the same size. And each circular ditch enclosing a compound required the removal of the exact same volume of earth, no matter what the diameter of the circle was. They reduced the depth and/or width of each ditch compared to the diameter of the circle, so that the volume of dirt removed was always the same for each circle.

Would this require some sort of mathematical ability to calculate how much earth needed to be removed from ditches of different sizes so that the amount was always equal. If so that would be fairly significant.

It seems this civilization only lasted for a few hundred years then mysteriously died out. It is around a similar timeline for the middle eastern civilizations.

Am also hunting down some info regarding Kerma and the Ethiopian civilizations.

Originally posted by mojo4sale
europes oldest civilization

I hope you can do some followup on this. It looks interesting. If it's an active dig, someone may have a website on it. You'd think that monuments would have made some sort of news event, though.

(about measuring volume) Would this require some sort of mathematical ability to calculate how much earth needed to be removed from ditches of different sizes so that the amount was always equal. If so that would be fairly significant.

Not necessarily. I can think of 3 or 4 ways to do it that require no calculations. But it would indicate that thy were building ot a cultural standard and that it was a pretty well regimented procedure.

Originally posted by Byrd

I hope you can do some followup on this. It looks interesting. If it's an active dig, someone may have a website on it. You'd think that monuments would have made some sort of news event, though.

Most of the links i've been able to find i wouldn't even consider posting here. Unfortunately white supremist nut jobs jumped on this find and are using it to further their own agenda's.
But the original find did involve reputable organizations so i'll chase those up.
It doe's seem odd though that more information on this from reputable sources is difficult to find.

Originally posted by mojo4saleMost of the links i've been able to find i wouldn't even consider posting here. Unfortunately white supremist nut jobs jumped on this find and are using it to further their own agendas.

Nationalism rears its ugly head again. I've seen that kind of thing before.

It doe's seem odd though that more information on this from reputable sources is difficult to find.

Either they're working and have vast amounts of data that they haven't compiled yet -or- they found links to other cultures and have reassigned the temples to another group -or- some of it is hoaxed. Or all three.

Originally posted by plumranch
Interesting queenannie! Would you mind expanding on this or giving examples? I probably agree. Thanks!

I would be glad to; it isn't a brief topic (in my explaining thereof) so maybe I should start a thread just about that.