NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the oldest civilization in the world.

I've heard claims of Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, even Japan.

What is the opinion of NSG? From what you know and understand where do you think the oldest civilization was from?


(The poll will be built in a day...)

Microprose

Sumer is generally accepted to be the earliest civilisation in history.

Everyone knows it's the Greeks. *nods*

Also, I can't think of what is the oldest civilisation that still survives. People would say Egypt or China, but there's no way in hell I'd equate modern Egypt and the PRC with those states.

Also, I can't think of what is the oldest civilisation that still survives. People would say Egypt or China, but there's no way in hell I'd equate modern Egypt and the PRC with those states.

Maybe "earliest" might have been a better choice of words.


Also, the reason I ask (and the reason I've heard Japan claimed before) is you always hear about how pottery is the biggest sign of old civilizations archaeologists look for, and the olds pottery is from the Joomon(sp?) period of Japan. (well that and some rock out crops that people debate over if they were man made or not)

While I know pottery does not a civilization make, it still info (and lack there of) influences people so I was just wondering. Mainly out of boredom.

You need to define 'civilisation' first.
The Aborignes of Australia have been there for 40000+ years. They were certainly civilised for most of that - if you use a broad brush to describe what civilisation entails.

You need to define 'civilisation' first.
The Aborignes of Australia have been there for 40000+ years. They were certainly civilised for most of that - if you use a broad brush to describe what civilisation entails.

Nah, that's not civilisation. It's settling down and establishing a state or sorts, based on agriculture. At least, that's the jist of it, AFAIK.

I voted for Mesopotamia; city-states like Catal Huyük weren't sprawling civilizations, but existed before 'Sumeria' [and even Sumeria is hard to define as a sprawling state] - their geographic location, though, is close to Mesopotamia [around southern Turkey, Syria and what is now Lebanon].

Indus Valley or Mesopotamia - can't remember which came first.

Nah, that's not civilisation. It's settling down and establishing a state or sorts, based on agriculture. At least, that's the jist of it, AFAIK.
Hunter-gathering in relatively egalitarian societies was more appropriate for many societies than agriculture, especially where the climate was arid, and even semi-nomadic hunter-gatheres had a 'state'/leader, or at least a way of resolving disputes without recourse to violence. Still works for the !Kung in Botswana/Namibia, although as a civilisation, they aren't that old.

Nah, that's not civilisation. It's settling down and establishing a state or sorts, based on agriculture. At least, that's the jist of it, AFAIK.

Civilisation literally means living in towns.

Civilisation literally means living in towns.

Which falls over without agriculture.

Which falls over without agriculture.

No according to the towns in Norther Spain that live off fishing; or those in Alaska [what agriculture?]. Or, were those not civilized until they became part of the greater union [Spain and the United States, respectively]?

Its definitely China. The earliest civilisations started around the yellow river. But maybe it's India...

Which falls over without agriculture.

It is a bit of a chicken and egg thing - they tend to go hand in hand as you need to concentrate a labour force for agriculture; but if you do you need agriculture to feed so many people in one place.

No according to the towns in Norther Spain that live off fishing; or those in Alaska [what agriculture?]. Or, were those not civilized until they became part of the greater union [Spain and the United States, respectively]?

Fair enough, I was wrong.

Its definitely China. The earliest civilisations started around the yellow river. But maybe it's India...

...

SUMER.

Indus valley and Mesopotamia.
These areas were settled by homo sapiens very early on, the first documented agricultural discoveries stem from those areas. Later on, the first cities were to be found there, as well as 2 of the 3 indigenous origins of writing occured in those parts of the planet.

...

SUMER.

Wot you sed.

...

SUMER.

Actually, the Indus valley and the Mesopotamian cultures evolved more or less around the same time, some scientists claim they in fact heavily influenced one another.

Actually, the Indus valley and the Mesopotamian cultures evolved more or less around the same time, some scientists claim they in fact heavily influenced one another.

Fair enough, I was wrong.

Also, I can't think of what is the oldest civilisation that still survives. People would say Egypt or China, but there's no way in hell I'd equate modern Egypt and the PRC with those states.

I don't know about Egypt. But I certainly wouldn't associate the PRC with Ancient China - the PRC is such an improvement from many aspects of Ancient China.

If you thought historical China is any better than Communist China, think again.

If you thought historical China is any better than Communist China, think again.

They were about the same. The PRC just has a more revolting ideology. IMO.

They were about the same. The PRC just has a more revolting ideology. IMO.

LOL!! Your opinion is obviously uninformed. That is quite a big brush for all the 4,000 years of Chinese history. How much do you actually know about China?

The City states that made up Ancient Mesopotamia were the earliest Civilizations, I think Civilization started in the middle east because of the harsh climate forcing the natives to think out new ways to deal with the problems of lack of water and food. This forced organization which on a grand scale leads to Civilzation.

Anicent Chinese rulers were sometimes just as bad as the PRC, some people seem to Romantize glorious history too much I think. look at the late Shang rulers for example. Saying that the PRC is worst is inpractical because we simply dont know much about anicent history except for what the Propaganda tells us and that goes for all ancient cultures.

LOL!! Your opinion is obviously uninformed. That is quite a big brush for all the 4,000 years of Chinese history. How much do you actually know about China?

I just think that China in general is revolting. It makes the US look like a nation of geniuses, from what I've heard.

Sumer (in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq)) is generally considered to be the first.

However, if you want to stretch the definition of what a civilization is a bit, you could make a case for the Natufians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture) (Israel and thereabouts). They were building permanent settlements before they were agricultural. They *may have* actually invented agriculture. The earliest phase of settlement at Jericho is Natufian, and was built in approximately 9000 BC (about 3500 years before the earliest Sumerian cities).

I just think that China in general is revolting. It makes the US look like a nation of geniuses, from what I've heard.

I see.

This is by no means personal, but I do lament when Westerners take a potshot at China without actually finding out who, how, what, when, where, and why.

If you are not aware there is a huge popular discontent within China and the Chinese diaspora internationally about the general level of ignorance and xenophobia displayed of the Western public especially in the recent Tibetan events. You are part of the group that proves them right.

I see.

This is by no means personal, but I do lament when Westerners take a potshot at China without actually finding out who, how, what, when, where, and why.

If you are not aware there is a huge popular discontent within China and the Chinese diaspora internationally about the general level of ignorance and xenophobia displayed of the Western public especially in the recent Tibetan events. You are part of the group that proves them right.

Well first off, there no way you can put a positive spin on what's happening in Tibet, and China is stupid for thinking it can. Second, China is a single party fascist state, and Westerners tend to frown on that. Third, Chinese people I know tell me that the large rural population of China is very ignorant, very racist and they spit everywhere.

I believe it was Mesopotamia. Though maybe the Indus Valley. Japan may qualify, depending on the definition of civilization.

Also, there are some interesting archaeological digs going on in Peru that have found ruins that date back to the time of Egypt (2000 BCE). We haven't found anything to beat Sumer, but I'd name Peru as one of the earlier civilizations.

As for oldest surviving, I'm not sure. I can't count China. Not sure when ancient Chinese civilization died, but it was dead by the time Mao showed up. Japan's indigenious civilization was defeated by the Yamato, so they're out too. Egypt is dead too - Egypt is part of modern Arab civilization.

Depending on what you mean by surviving, the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews might have a claim. At least by our account, Jewish civilization is at least 3,000 years old. Modern Jewish culture is descended from that ancient culture - heavily modified, but the core is still there. Of course, we haven't had a country for most of the time.

Another candidate would be India. I don't know enough about Indian history, but whatever culture they had when the British showed up survived. If this can be traced to the original Indus Valley settlements, then India wins.

According to Fingerprints of the Gods, the oldest civilization may be from Antarctica. It certainly would explain a lot about how other civilizations popped up out of nowhere with advanced technology like early forms of writing, how the pyramids were built, how the Nazca lines were drawn, etc.

If you get some free time, it's an absolutely fascinating read.

Well first off, there no way you can put a positive spin on what's happening in Tibet, and China is stupid for thinking it can. Second, China is a single party fascist state, and Westerners tend to frown on that. Third, Chinese people I know tell me that the large rural population of China is very ignorant, very racist and they spit everywhere.

There is always a positive and negative to an issue, especially a political issue. Always.

It is a single party state, but define fascist. Half a century ago it was "communist" and now it is "fascist"? You're going to have to explain the change.

Find me a rural population that is not relatively more ignorant, racist, and have "worse" manners than urban dwellers.

And all of this is still better than Ancient China, if you're trying to compare.

It is a single party state, but define fascist. Half a century ago it was "communist" and now it is "fascist"? You're going to have to explain the change.

Fascism is a system of government, while communism is an economic system. You can be both. In fact, I can't think of a single communism state that WASN'T fascist.

Find me a rural population that is not relatively more ignorant, racist, and have "worse" manners than urban dwellers.

Sure, but China's rurals are worse than everybody else's.

And all of this is still better than Ancient China, if you're trying to compare.

I dunno. Ancient China gave us Cao Cao; modern Chinese gave us toothpaste that kills you.

...the large rural population of China is very ignorant, very racist and they spit everywhere.

Isn't that more or less true for most of the human population on the planet?

Isn't that more or less true for most of the human population on the planet?

Sure. That doesn't stop those of us in the West from looking down on them. We're still racist and ignorant, but less so. And we don't spit everywhere.

Fascism is a system of government, while communism is an economic system. You can be both. In fact, I can't think of a single communism state that WASN'T fascist.

What is fascism then?

Sure, but China's rurals are worse than everybody else's.
That borders on racism unless you state why you believe so.



I dunno. Ancient China gave us Cao Cao; modern Chinese gave us toothpaste that kills you.
And Cao Cao was a paragon of virtue, wasn't he? And all Chinese goods are sub-standard, are they?

Sure, but China's rurals are worse than everybody else's.

How do you know?


I dunno. Ancient China gave us Cao Cao; modern Chinese gave us toothpaste that kills you.

No, that was in fact the Germans (http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/toothpaste.htm).

Sure. That doesn't stop those of us in the West from looking down on them. We're still racist and ignorant, but less so. And we don't spit everywhere.

You ought to visit rural Europe when you get a chance...
And as for ignorance, I've yet to hear about Chinese religious fanatics trying to get creationism taught at state schools.

What is fascism then?

It's a system of governance. Authoritarian, focussing on the collective rather than the individual. For all of the fascism vs communism of the 20th Century, they really were extremely compatible and similar ideals.

That borders on racism unless you state why you believe so.

Well, Western rurals don't spit everywhere.

And Cao Cao was a paragon of virtue, wasn't he? And all Chinese goods are sub-standard, are they?

Cao Cao was a genius. And... yeah, Chinese goods aren't great, TBH. My earphones keep breaking.

You ought to visit rural Europe when you get a chance...

I have family IN rural Europe. They're more advanced than I am.

And as for ignorance, I've yet to hear about Chinese religious fanatics trying to get creationism taught at state schools.

Hell, can't be worse than the stuff ALREADY taught in Chinese school.

No, that was in fact the Germans (http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/toothpaste.htm).

That was sixty years ago! People used to think that heroin was a non-addictive painkiller that made soldiers braver. People used to think that gunpowder made you immortal!

According to Fingerprints of the Gods, the oldest civilization may be from Antarctica. It certainly would explain a lot about how other civilizations popped up out of nowhere with advanced technology like early forms of writing, how the pyramids were built, how the Nazca lines were drawn, etc.

If you get some free time, it's an absolutely fascinating read.

That makes absolutely no sense, the antarctic became uninhabitable before human beings evolved.

It's a system of governance. Authoritarian, focussing on the collective rather than the individual. For all of the fascism vs communism of the 20th Century, they really were extremely compatible and similar ideals.
Authoritarian, collective-oriented government has existed in China before the term "fascism" was invented.


Well, Western rurals don't spit everywhere.
Go on. Is that because Western rurals are "better" naturally?

Cao Cao was a genius. And... yeah, Chinese goods aren't great, TBH. My earphones keep breaking.
In what sense was Cao Cao a genius? Promoting democratic rule in China?

Who knows why your earphones keep breaking?

Authoritarian, collective-oriented government has existed in China before the term "fascism" was invented.

Sure, and now we have a name for it.

Go on. Is that because Western rurals are "better" naturally?

Not naturally. Just generally.

In what sense was Cao Cao a genius? Promoting democratic rule in China?

Brilliant leader. Brilliant strategist.

Well, Western rurals don't spit everywhere.


I beg to differ....



*shudders at thoughts of tobacco*

I have family IN rural Europe. They're more advanced than I am.

I grew up there, and they do spit.


Hell, can't be worse than the stuff ALREADY taught in Chinese school.

And how would you know the curricula of Chinese schools?

That was sixty years ago! People used to think that heroin was a non-addictive painkiller that made soldiers braver. People used to think that gunpowder made you immortal!

And the Chinese used to think the toothpaste was harmless. Your point being?

And how would you know the curricula of Chinese schools?

If it's anything like their media... *shudders*

And the Chinese used to think the toothpaste was harmless. Your point being?

Well, we know what's in it. We could have told them is was bad. It's not ignorance, it's negligence.

Sure, and now we have a name for it.
Fascism first developed in 1920s Europe under a specific set of historical and cultural circumstances. You cannot equate fascism with the Chinese system of government that callously.



Not naturally. Just generally.
Their behaviour is understandable and natural. I don't know why you moan about it as if it's some personal slight.



Brilliant leader. Brilliant strategist.
So was Mao Zedong. What is your point exactly?

Fascism first developed in 1920s Europe under a specific set of historical and cultural circumstances. You cannot equate fascism with the Chinese system of government that callously.

Well, if it's the same basic system, you sorta can.

So was Mao Zedong. What is your point exactly?

Mao was pretty rubbish, actually. Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and all that.

Well, if it's the same basic system, you sorta can.

If you say so. It wouldn't pass the most simple academic rubric, but if you say so.


Mao was pretty rubbish, actually. Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution and all that.
But Mao was still a brilliant leader and brilliant strategist.

But Mao was still a brilliant leader and brilliant strategist.

He was alright. But he's still a jerk.

But Mao was still a brilliant leader and brilliant strategist.

He was certainly responsible for the deaths of more people than any other librarian has been.

I believe the oldest known cities come from Sumer, Uruk specifically, and since one of the basic requirements of 'civlization' is to have cities, it looks like we're going with Uruk.
As was mentioned, though, the Australian aborogines have been around since before humans were even properly human. If you define a hunter-gatherer society as 'civilized', then they'd be the oldest by a long margin.

I believe the oldest known cities come from Sumer, Uruk specifically, and since one of the basic requirements of 'civlization' is to have cities, it looks like we're going with Uruk.
As was mentioned, though, the Australian aborogines have been around since before humans were even properly human. If you define a hunter-gatherer society as 'civilized', then they'd be the oldest by a long margin.

Australian Aborigines are just part of the first wave of migrations out of Africa - so there would have been humans who were hunter gatherers in Afric well before anyone reached Australia.

What is the oldest civilization in the world.

I've heard claims of Egypt, China, Mesopotamia, even Japan.

What is the opinion of NSG? From what you know and understand where do you think the oldest civilization was from?


(The poll will be built in a day...)

Sumerian. Sparked all others in the Middle East.
China came almost simultaneously.

Australian Aborigines are just part of the first wave of migrations out of Africa - so there would have been humans who were hunter gatherers in Afric well before anyone reached Australia.Civilization requires cities. From Latin "civis" city-dweller.

Civilization requires cities. From Latin "civis" city-dweller.

If you read the rest of the thread you will see it was me who pointed that out earlier - I am just trying to clear up the idea that Australian aborigines were around 'before humans became humans' idea, not say that I think hunter gathering societies count as civilisations.

I'd say mesopotamia. AFAIK Jericho is the oldest known city in the world. It is nearer to mesopotamia than all your other options.
Sadly they didn't have any written language, so we know vera vew about how they actual lived.

If you read the rest of the thread you will see it was me who pointed that out earlier - I am just trying to clear up the idea that Australian aborigines were around 'before humans became humans' idea, not say that I think hunter gathering societies count as civilisations.Agreed. Australian aborigines were not around before "humans became humans". They are the progeny of the homo sapiens sapiens wave that started to come out of Africa 60000 BCE just as any other modern humans (and after homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

I'd say mesopotamia. AFAIK Jericho is the oldest known city in the world. It is nearer to mesopotamia than all your other options.
Sadly they didn't have any written language, so we know vera vew about how they actual lived.

Yes they did have a written language in Mesopotamia.

Yes they did have a written language in Mesopotamia.
I know that. I was talking about the first foundings of Jericho.
Also, early mesopotamia did not have written language. It came up, when they produced more, than they could track int their heads only.

I'd say mesopotamia. AFAIK Jericho is the oldest known city in the world. It is nearer to mesopotamia than all your other options.
Sadly they didn't have any written language, so we know vera vew about how they actual lived.Jericho is just a very old dwelling place. The city status (requiring some higher degree of administration and differentiation of professions) lacks evidence yet.

But Mao was still a brilliant leader and brilliant strategist.

Yeah, starving his people to death because he didn't think his plan all the way through? Great man, that.

There is always a positive and negative to an issue, especially a political issue. Always.

Even the Holocaust

Godwin'd.

It is a single party state, but define fascist. Half a century ago it was "communist" and now it is "fascist"? You're going to have to explain the change.


Let's try that sentence again, but replace a few key words for the U.S.

Half a century ago it was "capitalist" ad now it is "democracy"? You're going to have to explain that change.

See? They're not mutually exclusive, so there's no contradiction.

Half a century ago it was "capitalist" and now it is "democracy"? You're going to have to explain that change.wtf?? capitalism is a form of economy. democracy is a form of rule. they have nothing to do with each other.

wtf?? capitalism is a form of economy. democracy is a form of rule. they have nothing to do with each other.

That was his/her point.

They were about the same. The PRC just has a more revolting ideology. IMO.

Well Imperial China had one nutball of an Emperor who decided all the concubines of the previous emperor were to retire, and had all several thousand of them buried alive in his predecessors tomb. And that's just one case. If we were to go into the political infighting that went on between the rear palace, the Eunuchs, the ministers, and the Emperor/Empress it'd be one long, sordid mess piled high with corpses.

Although to be fair, the PRC has managed to collect it's own impressive set of corpses in a relatively sort time, what with Mao at it's head during those early years.

On the upside, Imperial China had a long list of accomplishments and an advanced civilization while Europe was mucking about in its dark ages.

Sure, but China's rurals are worse than everybody else's.


Looking at certain Texans and rural communities in the US Bible belt, I don't think so. At least the Chinese rural people aren't likely to shoot you at the drop of a hat.

See what generalizations can do?

Well Imperial China had one nutball of an Emperor who decided all the concubines of the previous emperor were to retire, and had all several thousand of them buried alive in his predecessors tomb.

If I recall correctly, that was Qin Shi Huang, the guy who invented China.

On the upside, Imperial China had a long list of accomplishments and an advanced civilization while Europe was mucking about in its dark ages.

Ahh, China; great at inventing stuff, horrible at practical application. They invented gunpowder, we shot them with it.

Mesopotamia actually refers to an area, not a particular civilization. The Sumerian culture, which many people regard as the earliest civilization, comes from this area. Of course, it depends on what one defines as "civilization". Sumerians defined city-state boundaries prior to other civilizations, however their formation of a single nation-state did not occur until the early 3rd millennium BCE, shortly after the unification of Egypt (late 4th millennium BCE).

Sumerian is the first known writing system (slightly predating the earliest surviving examples of Egyptian text).

As such I'd say that with present archaeological knowledge, Sumer is the oldest known civilisation.

What is the oldest civilization in the world.
If we take the Latin root-word, civilis (which means "city"), then definitely Mesopotamia. They have the oldest cities, the oldest story (Epic of Gilgamesh), the oldest artifacts, and it is believed that farming (essential for the formation of cities) was first practiced in the Fertile Crescent.

Interesting tidbit: In the Bible, the first city is built by Cain, who killed his brother, Abel. What does that say about the Bible's opinion of cities?
(The poll will be built in a day...)
However, Rome was not. :-)

Peace,
Kester

Interesting tidbit: In the Bible, the first city is built by Cain, who killed his brother, Abel. What does that say about the Bible's opinion of cities?

No it wasn't. The first recorded city in the Bible was started by Nimrod.

(Also the guy who invented warfare, according to the Bible - but that's neither here nor there.)

Iirc, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa date even before the rise of the Mesopotamian cities, so I'd guess I go either with the valley of Indus or the valley of Nile.

According to Fingerprints of the Gods, the oldest civilization may be from Antarctica. It certainly would explain a lot about how other civilizations popped up out of nowhere with advanced technology like early forms of writing, how the pyramids were built, how the Nazca lines were drawn, etc.

If you get some free time, it's an absolutely fascinating read.

i agree, it is fascinating. but only if you use it as a jumping off point for learning actual things afterwards. because, honestly, none of what you mentioned is all that mysterious, let alone requiring of antarctic atlantians. shit, the antarctic atlantian story actually makes far far less sense given the data than even von daniken's ludicrous space tourists.

No it wasn't. The first recorded city in the Bible was started by Nimrod.

(Also the guy who invented warfare, according to the Bible - but that's neither here nor there.)

no, cain builds the first one and names it enoch (genesis 4:17). nimrod is after the flood.

Sumeria (modern Iraq, ironically) was the first place to start agriculture at ~5300 BC. Civilization started ~3300 BC for India, ~3150 BC for Egypt, and ~2800 BC for Greece. Bronze age existed as early as ~3300 BC for Greece through the middle east, ~3000 BC for India, ~2200 BC for Europe, and ~2000 BC for China. And if you count ceramics & pottery, they date as far back as a fertility statue dated 25,000-29,000 BC, and have spread quite a bit by 4500-4000BC -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Middle_Neolithic.gif

no, cain builds the first one and names it enoch (genesis 4:17). nimrod is after the flood.

I stand corrected. I forgot about it saying that he built a city by that name. I thought Nimrod built the first city.

*makes a mental note*

Thanks.

Sumeria (modern Iraq, ironically) was the first place to start agriculture at ~5300 BC. Civilization started ~3300 BC for India, ~3150 BC for Egypt, and ~2800 BC for Greece. Bronze age existed as early as ~3300 BC for Greece through the middle east, ~3000 BC for India, ~2200 BC for Europe, and ~2000 BC for China. And if you count ceramics & pottery, they date as far back as a fertility statue dated 25,000-29,000 BC, and have spread quite a bit by 4500-4000BC -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Middle_Neolithic.gif

excuse me,

Çatalhöyük (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk)

settlement in southern Anatolia, dating from around 7500 B.C.E

A channel of the Çarsamba river once flowed between the two mounds, and the settlement was built on alluvial clay which may have been favourable for early agriculture.

excuse me,

Çatalhöyük (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk)

last i heard, catalhoyuk was being called more of an overgrown village - a first swing at urbanism but without the other components of civilization, like monumental architecture and complex hierarchies and such.

Indus valley and Mesopotamia.
These areas were settled by homo sapiens very early on, the first documented agricultural discoveries stem from those areas. Later on, the first cities were to be found there, as well as 2 of the 3 indigenous origins of writing occured in those parts of the planet.

One does wonder, though, how developed certain areas of Africa might have been whose evidence has either been destroyed or not discovered. Natives along the west coast of North America had well-established and advanced societies in many ways, but they did not use agriculture as many Natives of the east coast did and had no formal writing system...

Ahh, China; great at inventing stuff, horrible at practical application. They invented gunpowder, we shot them with it.

Could we please stop with the threadjack? The actual topic of the thread is very interesting.

Yeah, starving his people to death because he didn't think his plan all the way through? Great man, that.

He did think his plan all the way through, which was exactly why it failed (i.e. too much state intervention in the economy).

I'm not saying he's a great man of high moral character. Crap governor/administrator yes, but Mao was still a brilliant strategist and tactician.


Even the Holocaust

Godwin'd.

Indeed.



Let's try that sentence again, but replace a few key words for the U.S.

Half a century ago it was "capitalist" ad now it is "democracy"? You're going to have to explain that change.

See? They're not mutually exclusive, so there's no contradiction.

Arguably if a state adopts full-blown ideological communism as an economic arrangement it also adopts certain governmental features unique to communist economies (e.g. to facilitate the state intervention of the economy). Therefore, communism can also describe a system of government. For example, just think about the differences between two European dictatorships in the 1930s, Germany and Russia. I don't think the differences between Fascist Germany and Communist Russia were purely economic.

Well Imperial China had one nutball of an Emperor who decided all the concubines of the previous emperor were to retire, and had all several thousand of them buried alive in his predecessors tomb. And that's just one case. If we were to go into the political infighting that went on between the rear palace, the Eunuchs, the ministers, and the Emperor/Empress it'd be one long, sordid mess piled high with corpses.

Although to be fair, the PRC has managed to collect it's own impressive set of corpses in a relatively sort time, what with Mao at it's head during those early years.

On the upside, Imperial China had a long list of accomplishments and an advanced civilization while Europe was mucking about in its dark ages.

Haha. Body counts mount up for pretty much every civilisation.

"civilization" is a term open to interpretation. IMO, the oldest would be the river valleys of Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus-Saraswati and Yellow river. Only the modern nations of India and China can claim to be oldest continuing civilizations, since the others have gone extinct.

Microprose

easily a win...

India is, I believe, the site of the world's first city. So there we go, it was them.

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

what?

last i heard, catalhoyuk was being called more of an overgrown village - a first swing at urbanism but without the other components of civilization, like monumental architecture and complex hierarchies and such.

I'd have to agree with this interpretation. Building an urban centre doesn't in itself really define a civilization, since these can grow up without other key advances. If we are defining civilization purely as discovering a settlement larger than the usual hamlet without other qualifiers there are many sites that immediately spring up that never really developed into full-blown civilizations.

excuse me,

Çatalhöyük (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk)

settlement =/= civilization

Mesopatamia, specifically Sumer (or Sumeria?).

Beleriand, of course, had a civilization loooong before the Sumerians came out of the mountains to settle the plain... :eek: ;)

http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/thumb/4/49/Steven_White_Jr._-_North-west_of_Middle-earth_%28First_Age%29.gif/120px-Steven_White_Jr._-_North-west_of_Middle-earth_%28First_Age%29.gif (http://tolkiengateway.net/w/images/4/49/Steven_White_Jr._-_North-west_of_Middle-earth_%28First_Age%29.gif)

Mesopatamia. But what your definition of civilisation is can change the answer quite alot.

That borders on racism unless you state why you believe so.
For one thing, Mao actively promoted a policy of encouraging people to be as crass as possible because he saw refinement, manners and politeness as signs of the bourgeoise and the aristocrat.
That, coupled with the fact a good proportion of said bourgeoise and aristocratic classes fled China during the 1950s (who, as you've already mentioned, do tend to have far better social graces than the average peasant), along with limited (or no) education has indeed led to the average Chinese proletariat being extremely uncouth, moreso than anywhere else I've been.


Getting back to the OP: What about that place in India where they had drainage systems, kilns, granaries et al but died out because the river diverted and the population reach that level where it implodes (as has happened elsewhere many times over - that ancient city in Mexico and one in Thailand [or possibly Vietnam] springs to mind).

Guns, Germs and Steel does a very interesting analysis of this and also gets into what those civilizations were actually like. But the common consensus is Mesopotamia.

ooh... whoops, I missunderstood the poll. Teaches me to read the post first.

Beleriand, of course, had a civilization loooong before the Sumerians came out of the mountains to settle the plain... :eek: ;)

I lol'd

My knowledge of the era is too spotty for me to trust Wiki to fill in the gaps, so I'll agree that Sumer was first, even though other river valleys were developing similarly at almost the exact same time.

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

what?

Change the definition of civilization to having acquired the atomic bomb.
or shall we say harnessed the power of the atom, and you are correct.


call it Atomlization. Hey nothing wrong with changing the rules so the US wins.

I honestly cant even pretend to know that answer.. but I do wonder.. would the answer be influenced by an individuals religion? I am just wondering...

psh, everyone knows that civilization didn't start until the Constitution was signed! Everything before was just practice. Why the low vote count for North America?

What is the oldest civilization in the world.

*snip* even Japan.
Who on earth claims Japan?

Who on earth claims Japan?

Someone who failed History 101 maybe?

Someone who failed History 101 maybe?
The only ones I would know of would be those silly nationalists who think the Shinto creation myths are true.

I lol'd

My knowledge of the era is too spotty for me to trust Wiki to fill in the gaps, so I'll agree that Sumer was first, even though other river valleys were developing similarly at almost the exact same time.??

??

I'm sorry...what's your question?

If I recall correctly, that was Qin Shi Huang, the guy who invented China.

Can't remember the one who was responsible, but China's had a long list of Emperors who could compete with Mao for "Most messed up tyrant of the year" awards.


Ahh, China; great at inventing stuff, horrible at practical application. They invented gunpowder, we shot them with it.

Bollocks. What China was bad at was at adaptive doctrines. They had firearms and primitive cannons way before Europe ever figured out basic sanitation (feudal Europe rarely bathed, making the spread of the Black plague easier). Not to mention anti-infantry gunpowder based rockets. They realized the potential for gunpowder, but failed to expand on its potential.

Besides, Europe didn't do so well with gunpowder at first either. Not until things like rifling and flintlocks became more widespread.

Weren't the current Japanese descended from Chinese/Korean settlers? I seem to recall the Ainu being the aboriginal people of Japan before the current crop of Japanese. LIES! LIES!!! ALL LIES!!!

I'm sorry...what's your question?I did not understand your post. You know that Beleriand is a region in Tolkien's world? Or were you referring to the Sumerian settlement of the (southern) Mesopotamian plain?

Sumeria (modern Iraq, ironically) was the first place to start agriculture at ~5300 BC.Actually, no. The (Proto-)Sumerians were the first to start large-scale irrigation. But agriculture predates these developments by quite a bit, and is generally reckoned to have started in Anatolia around 8000 B.C.

From where it expanded in quite a few directions - Europe had agricultural societies well before Ur & Uruk, err... Existed. However, it didn't do the next step because conditions were too good - there was no need for organisation beyond the village-level, no need to develop mathematics and astronomy (Well, okay, they had a bit of both. But not much). The crop just... Grew. Easily.

Mesopotamia on the other hand, had to work for it - it was too dry for agriculture to arise naturally, and needed the extra dose of work (Irrigation, calculating when the next flooding happens and such) that'd eventually cause further developments, rather than stagnation.

PS: Re: Topic. Asking 'Which was the first civilisation?' is silly. They didn't pop out of nowhere, but developed. Slowly. Over many, many generations, accumulating traditions, technologies, social systems and so on.

Cases could be made for assorted locales and civilisations ranging from the Mediterranean to southern Iraq, spanning a period of seven thousand years and something like two million square kilometres. Throughout this entire time and space, predecessors of state-run, mass-organised agriculture, of writing, of cities, of warfare and long-range trading existed, progressing continuously (If agonisingly slowly). What are usually called the first civilisations aren't 'Firsts' so much as they are the end result of this process, and the changes from stage to stage are so, well, infinitesimal, it's rather hard to draw a line and say 'HERE IT BEGINS!'. Only if one chooses to ignore the seven-thousand years in-between the first time humans engaged in agriculture, and the first ziggurat is this possible.

It's rather like claiming that, lets say, Western Civilisation started exactly on July 4th, 1776 (Probably in the early afternoon), and completely ignoring the influence the writings of Rousseau & Locke, the concept of 'Enlightened' sovereigns, the constant division of state and church over the centuries (Due to the two continuously working against each other in their little power games), the renaissance and the political chaos associated with it, and of course, roman and greek concepts of law and individuality had on it.

So yes. It's really quite silly.

Beleriand, of course, had a civilization loooong before the Sumerians came out of the mountains to settle the plain... :eek: ;)

Valinor and, before that, the Isle of Almaren. I win.

Can't remember the one who was responsible, but China's had a long list of Emperors who could compete with Mao for "Most messed up tyrant of the year" awards.
Business as usual in Ancient China. It has a different value system with the West, so all you see is "messed up tyrants".

In fact, there are a long list of "good" Chinese emperors based on the way China sees "good".


Bollocks. What China was bad at was at adaptive doctrines. They had firearms and primitive cannons way before Europe ever figured out basic sanitation (feudal Europe rarely bathed, making the spread of the Black plague easier). Not to mention anti-infantry gunpowder based rockets. They realized the potential for gunpowder, but failed to expand on its potential.

Besides, Europe didn't do so well with gunpowder at first either. Not until things like rifling and flintlocks became more widespread.
Indisputabely Europe can be very good and nicking someone else's thing and perfecting it. Remember that European civilisation was the only civilisation to originally project its power on a global scale.

Bollocks. What China was bad at was at adaptive doctrines. They had firearms and primitive cannons way before Europe ever figured out basic sanitation (feudal Europe rarely bathed, making the spread of the Black plague easier). Not to mention anti-infantry gunpowder based rockets. They realized the potential for gunpowder, but failed to expand on its potential.

Besides, Europe didn't do so well with gunpowder at first either. Not until things like rifling and flintlocks became more widespread.

Sure, but where was all that during the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion?

Who on earth claims Japan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_monument#Seabed_structures

People who think they are man-made rather than a natural happening.

Everyone knows it's the Greeks. *nods*

Nothing says civilization like pederesty!

You need to define 'civilisation' first.
The Aborignes of Australia have been there for 40000+ years. They were certainly civilised for most of that - if you use a broad brush to describe what civilisation entails.

Civilization obviously means 'anything I want it to, and in this case it's going to be um....boxes! Yes! Did they construct boxes? If so, then we can call them civilized!'

Nah, that's not civilisation. It's settling down and establishing a state or sorts, based on agriculture. At least, that's the jist of it, AFAIK.

You mean like the Iroquois, and the Salish? And many, many other indigenous peoples around the world who were in fact, agricultural, and had extensive and complicated trade relations with other peoples?

I always though Mesapotamia (Were Iraq is now) was the oldest, sad how it was the first civilisation on earth and now look at it! It`s in chaos.

Business as usual in Ancient China. It has a different value system with the West, so all you see is "messed up tyrants".

If I told you I can trace a lineage and cultural upbringing to China, would it shock you? No?

Let me put it this way. I never disputed that China had good Emperors/Empresses. It's been a long time since I looked it up, but I remember more than a few of them were among the best rulers any nationstate has ever seen. And I speak on this on basic things like basic care of the populace, ensuring a working justice system and the like.

Half the problem though, was that most tended to work in a corrupt system that either had them disposed off when they proved to be frighteningly good at their job through the endless infighting or they worked themselves to death trying to make the system work.

These were good men and women, actually dedicated to the job and the responsibilities that came with it.

It doesn't however, mean that bad things under Chinese tyrants didn't happen. Or that supposedly good people didn't go bad. Take King Zhou for example. Sure, legend puts a lot of blame on his consort Da Ji, but he wasn't without mood swings that were fatal for his detractors and their families. And what was the name of that guy? The one who had all books burned and scholars put to death.

And of course there were the wastrels who let things go to rot in their hands, and the plain old fashioned puppets who were under the thumb of the eunuchs, someone in the rear palace, or one of the nobility.


In fact, there are a long list of "good" Chinese emperors based on the way China sees "good".

Meh, when you have over 2000 years of Imperial rule, you'll have your mix of good, bad, ineffectual and downright ugly Emperors. By any cultural standard really. Although the times when China had a good emperor who was capable of reining in all the political factions and making the system work better than a rust pile ironworks were very rare.


Indisputabely Europe can be very good and nicking someone else's thing and perfecting it. Remember that European civilisation was the only civilisation to originally project its power on a global scale.

Primarily because Europe was in an expansionist phase really. China had it's own expansionist phase for a while, with huge ships that would have dwarfed Columbus's expeditionary vessels. As I recall, it all went down the drain when the then reining emperor decided that being isolationist was being better.

Sure, but where was all that during the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion?

Most likely rotting in a storehouse somewhere, if any were still left. Remember, China may have had the weapons, but they never really went the extra step towards fully weaponizing gunpowder, nor did they really field it in any large numbers. It stagnated, while Europe nicked their gunpowder, basic handcannons, and improved on them.

Getting back to the OP: What about that place in India where they had drainage systems, kilns, granaries et al but died out because the river diverted and the population reach that level where it implodes (as has happened elsewhere many times over - that ancient city in Mexico and one in Thailand [or possibly Vietnam] springs to mind).

That would be Harappa, Mohenjadaro (the earliest finds and the famous ones) and the many other sites that were excavated later.

I am not aware of any population implosion theories. There is evidence of a dried out river which is assumed to be the Saraswati river that is mentioned reverentially everywhere in the vedic literature. (For ex, the Rig Veda refers to Saraswati as Ambitamé, the best of the mothers; Naditamé, the best of the rivers; and Devitamé, the best of the goddesses.)

The theory that the Indus Valley Civ were "conquered" by the "Aryans" who gave the "civilization" that the modern day Hindu Indians follow is a bogus theory put up for colonial purposes (white man's burden etc).

The theory that makes most sense to me is that the Indus-Saraswati valley people simply moved east into the gangetic plains, after the natural reasons of drought / river drying etc. So, that civ did not "die out". It exists in modern India. I would include Pakistan (which geographically is the location of IVC) ...but Pakistanis make it a point to deny their ancestry and prefer to point towards Middle-East..so *shrugs*.

I've read that Mesopotamia is considered to be the cradle of civilization.
So I'll go with Mesopotamia being the area where the oldest civilizations came to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/MESO.HTM

Jericho is just a very old dwelling place. The city status (requiring some higher degree of administration and differentiation of professions) lacks evidence yet.

Pretty much. It was just a bungle of houses encircled by a wall, really, for most of its existence. And for those of you who may think that's what it takes to make a city, well, you really need to brush up on what entails cities.

I did not understand your post. You know that Beleriand is a region in Tolkien's world?

Yes I do, hence why I lol'd

I'd bet I've read The Silmarillion at least as many times as you have. ;)

Or were you referring to the Sumerian settlement of the (southern) Mesopotamian plain?

Yes I was, in an attempt to add a little seriousness to my post...

...I see that I failed miserably. :p

Pretty much. It was just a bungle of houses encircled by a wall, really, for most of its existence. And for those of you who may think that's what it takes to make a city, well, you really need to brush up on what entails cities.
I would think that collaborative labor is the very essence of what makes it a "city" instead of just a bungle of houses.

While many contend that Humanity evolved in Africa(though a chink in this theory was found in South America, when an even older corpse was found the oldest ever found)...

The oldest form of Civilization and Government occurs in the Middle East around the Tigris and Euphrates...

I thought that was known everywhere...

The oldest form of Civilization and Government occurs in the Middle East around the Tigris and Euphrates...

I thought that was known everywhere...

This is correct, therefore Mesopotamia is the closest answer in the poll. I looked into this recently on Wikipedia and rather than argue about it (other people), go and have a look there in 'civilizations'.

Persia! Actually I think it's Babylon.

I would think that collaborative labor is the very essence of what makes it a "city" instead of just a bungle of houses.

Okay, so if I get say 50 people together, we build a wall around a bunch of huts, we can officially be called a civilization or city?

Sweetness.

A city is almost always considered such with two very important factors in mind:

Social stratification and craft specialization. Otherwise, it is usually considered a town, village, or hamlet. Remember, Jericho wasn't that big. Only a few hundred people at most.

Compare that to Harappa, Ur, Teotihuacan, or even Memphis(which was TINY compared to Ur), or any other early city, and you can see a STARK difference. A MASSIVE difference, really.

This is correct, therefore Mesopotamia is the closest answer in the poll. I looked into this recently on Wikipedia and rather than argue about it (other people), go and have a look there in 'civilizations'.

And really, "Mesopotamia" is a pretty broad term. There are many civilizations that emerged from there, and a each city was really akin to the Greek City states, although often controlling far less land. But yes, the emergence of the first "true" civilizations did have their origins in Mesopotamia.

wasn't, i'm not entirely certain about this at the moment, but wasn't mohenjo daro located somewhere near the indian ocean on the indian sub continent?

they seem to have had/been a trading city there, and also woven cloth, somewhat before mesopotamia, which in turn predates egypt's first kingdomes.

ethiopia/nubia may have had something going on before aegypt as well.

i think the most INTERESTING early civilization was minoen crete, that and some of the ruins on malta. mazelike monolithic constructions and the so called 'cart ruts' (which might not all be one thing, each of the theories about them might all be true, each about different places where they occur)

petra, zimbabwe and timbuctoo are all interesting, but not, as far as i know, in the running for earliest.

then of course theres the question of deffinican. the maritime archaic seem to have carried on intercontinental trade, possibly before the rise of any cities, and then there's the linguistinc evidence of early trade among south pacific islands.

i'm far from anywhere near to up to date on what's been discouvered in the past decade or two in answer to the question.

but as of the last time i was, it was mohenjo daro in the lead.

=^^=
.../\...

wasn't, i'm not entirely certain about this at the moment, but wasn't mohenjo daro located somewhere near the indian ocean on the indian sub continent?
[quote]

Eh, Mohenjo Daro was was in the Indus Valley, actually, not really near the Indian Ocean. You may be thinking of Lotho(I think that's the name).

[quote]
they seem to have had/been a trading city there, and also woven cloth, somewhat before mesopotamia, which in turn predates egypt's first kingdomes.

Eh, there were settlements before the Mesopotamian city states, sure, but the most of these are pre-Harrapan, I think. Don't have the time to look into it.


but as of the last time i was, it was mohenjo daro in the lead.

=^^=
.../\...
Nope. Mohenjo Daro is preceeded by Mesopotamians by at least half a millenia, if I remember correctly.

If one is true to the etymology, the oldest "civilisation" will inevitably be African. OEDonline, an excellent resource incidentally, defines civilisation, for our purposes, as "Civilized condition or state; a developed or advanced state of human society; a particular stage or a particular type of this.". If this is so, the earliest human settlement is by proxy the earliest civilisation.