Talk:Civilization/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Why is Mehrgarh listed? by its description, it sounds like a proto-civilization like Elam, which by the way by some accounts, dates back to 7000BC, and what about Chatal Huyuk? Jericho? The pre-Sumerian Ubaid peoples (According to Samuel Noah Kramer, the Ubaid people weren't simply taken over, the Sumerians continued what the Ubaidians started, that's just an opinion from an expert, although an interesting one)? Maybe there should be a section for proto-civilizations, why not? Keep an eye out for updated information also, Jiroft of modern day Iran is quite interesting, and should be mentioned, also, the Caral, or better named, Norte Chico civilization of Peru, is definitely older than 3000BC, go to the article on Norte Chico, and various sources are cited for evidence of this. Keep up the good work and good luck.

Civilisations through to the present

The topic heading here is "development of Early Civilisations". The extension of these civilisations through to the present is problematic. For instance, in what ways is modern India like Vedic civilisation of 1,700 years ago? Or is China of today like it was in the Shang Dynasty? Such an assumption does violence to the real history of civilisation.

What we find is that these Early civilisations extended only up to the Axial period. I propose we do a different periodisation with the headings

• Pre-Axial Age Civilisations - before about 600-500 BCE
• Post Axial Age Civilisations - 500 BCE to 1750 CE
• Modern Civilisations - since 1750 CE.

This does greater justice to the development of these great cultures, and to their historical evolution. John D. Croft 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mehrgahr

Under the criteria listed here Mehrgahr is not a civilisation. As a result I am deleting it. John D. Croft 02:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics?

This quote seems like an attempt to add a political motif to the article.

"Members of nomadic communities became citizens of governments, of the state and subject to law, or they became slaves in the areas this occurred, as slavery was first widely introduced. Armies first appeared, as did marriage and inheritance, systemic social and sexual inequalities entered history. The positive and negative aspects of the emergence of civilisation are widely debated by academics."

Why is this article limited to Early Civilisations

Are not later civilisations also important? Don't they have a place in this article? Should not we show how early civilisatioons develop into later ones? Thoughts anyone? John D. Croft 00:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of India Theory

The out of India Theory is not supported by the majority of Indo-European linguists. It also needs to be referenced, and if these changes are not made it will deleted.

John D. Croft 10:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the suggested removal99.229.163.64 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on Hebrew Civilisation

This section reads like a POV breaking copywrite from another source. Could the author please cite references, otherwise I feel we should act to delete it. John D. Croft 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlantis Mu and Lemuria

These were not prehistoric civilisations, as apart from Plato, Churchward and the obsolete biological theory of land bridges, there is zero evidence for their existance. To call them pre-historic cvilisations is definitely POV. They are recognised by most scholars as fictitious, and people who claim their existence are falling into the trap of pseudoscience. I know - I've been there and done that. So I am reverting to "Fictitious Civilisations" and ammending appropriately. John D. Croft 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

China

In the article, it says "China 7000 BC–Present." However, at 7000 BCE, there was only culture, and culture does not always equal civilization. Actual Chinese civilization was established much later around 2800 BCE-2500 BCE. Someone change this please. -intranetusa

Samuel Huntington

Is his input so incommensurable (and moreso so NPOV) as to be necessary and valuable in a attempt at a factual definition of civilisation?

"Complexity"

This section troubles me: "Superior vs. less complex societies Another use of civilization combines the first and fourth meanings of the word, implying that a complex society is naturally superior to less complex societies. This point of view has been used to justify racism and imperialism; powerful societies have often believed it was their right to "civilize," or culturally dominate, weaker ones ("barbarians"). (The colonization or 'civilizing' of non-Western peoples was sometimes called the "White Man's Burden" when engaged in by Modern Europeans.) Alternatively, it can be said that most people choose to live in increasingly complex societies because of increased standards of living: one of the major population shifts of the last two hundred years has been the migration of people from outlying rural and undeveloped areas to cities." First, what exactly are the criteria for determining "complexity?" I assume that the author means technological complexity, but this is only one facet. Typical discourse of civilization also assumes that the social structures of "uncivilized" societies are less "complex" than those in "civilized" ones. Tell that to anthropologists who go to hunter gatherer societies and discover the dense matrices of social ritual and decorum that would stupefy most westerners (and it is counterintuitive to suggest that "modern" societies have not had to weed out numerous social codes that impede efficiency or productivity). Secondly, racism is an ideology that arose AFTER colonization to justify maintaining social assymetry and exploitation of technologically less complex societies, not the other way around. Certainly, ethnocentrism must exist for one society to feel itself entitled to conquer another, but this isn't the same as racism, the ideology that "races" can be objectively ranked according to their inherent aptitudes, and that higher-ranked races are justified in benefiting in asymmetrical social relationships with lower-ranked ones. Finally, does the author really want to assert that standards of living are objectively higher in "civilized" areas than in "uncivilized" ones? What are the criteria for establishing these standards of living? Are these criteria universally accepted? Kemet 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole article, nor have i read through the entire discussion so i'm not sure if it's already been discussed, but I believe you can simplify civilization by defining what civilized behaviour is. In my opinion, the use of force to get what you want is barbarism, whereas civilized behaviour is getting what you want through voluntary exchange.

David Wilkinson

David Wilkinson mentioned in this entry is not identical with "David Todd Wilkinson (13 May 1935 – 5 September 2002), a world-renowned pioneer in the field of cosmology, specializing in the study of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) left over from the Big Bang". The one mentioned in the entry is a political scientist from the UCLA. And he is alive. Hence, I have removed [[]] from David Wikinson.

Athkalani

Caral and Olmec - which counts as first 'New World' civilization?

Hi!

Today I had (from another computer) added in the reference to the complex at Caral, as well as the place it has as the earliest known civilization in the Americas. The Caral site dates from c. 3000 BCE onwards, whereas the Olmecs are listed as dating from c.1200 BCE - quite a considerable gap.

I had revised the Olmec article to list it as the oldest known civilization in Mesoamerica (which is still the case) - the use of 'New World' would not be limited to parts of the Western Hemisphere which lie outside the Andean region. Even the New World article specifically lists the term as representing the Americas as a whole - which would favour Caral.

However, it seems that the Olmec entry has been modified to put the 'New World' term back in, which given the existence of Caral is not accurate.

Is the Olmec status as oldest known urban society in Mesoamerica not sufficient? --Nerroth 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gojoseon

Gojoseon is a legend. Please read history of Korea, or Gojoseon, Gojoseon is only a legend, it has no ruin or no evidence of existence. Please read again Wikipedia:Verifiability. Zone101 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

At least to say before Gija Joseon (around 323 BC - 194 BC), Gojosen has no archeological evidence. So we can't say Gojosen is one of early civilizations.Zone101 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing of "Primitive"

I have edited the references to primitive,as they are based upon ethnocentric and culturally biased points of view John D. Croft 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the "end of civilization"

Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Korea (Gojoseon) date of 2333BC is disputed

The 2333BC date for Korea/Gojoseon is legendary, and not considered to be a fact. Here's how the 2333BC date is derived, based on the Dangun (Tangun) legend (which appears in Samguk Yusa).... According to the Tangun article in Merriam-Webster Unabridged Collegiate Encyclopedia:

• Tangun - Mythological first king of the Koreans, whose reign began in 2333 BC. According to one legend, Tangun's father descended from heaven to rule earth from a mountaintop. When a bear and a tiger expressed the wish to become human, he ordered them into a cave for 100 days; after the tiger grew impatient and left, the bear was transformed into the beautiful woman who became Tangun's mother. Buddhism and Taoism credited Tangun with establishing a national religion and originating the Korean maxim Hongik-ingan ("Love humanity"). His birthday is a school holiday.

So there you have it... that's where the 2333BC date comes from, a legend saying that the "first king of the Koreans" was born from a bear. That would not meet the caliber of the other civilizations listed in this article, and a correction is in order. This whole section appears to contain multiple inaccurate assertions and needs to be either corrected or deleted altogether.--Endroit 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Chinese nationalism but early periods like the Mummun Pottery period more than qualify Korea for a place in early civilizations. So I'll see to it that "deleted " does not happen.

China's early dynasty, the Xia dynasty is mythological as well, should we delete China then ?

Freedom skies 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Um well the fact that agricultural society existed in China dateable to around 7000 BC, the Xia dynasty does not seem far-fetched. Also there are at least 2 cultures that existed which coincides with the Xia dynasty. The idea of "Korean" culture existing in 2333 BC doesn't seem plausible. Also I see someone declaring that 2333 BC is a real year even though it says it is legendary. I think Chinese text indicate legendary Chinese rulers from 43,000 BC ... should we put that up there too? How ridiculous. 66.171.76.176 09:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Don't really see how this is 'dubious' --futurebird 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical verification of the Xia dynasty is another thing and the agricultural society existing in China is another. Relating primitive agricultural communities with fictional imperial dynasties is absurd. As for the plausibility of the Korean civilization, advanced pottery has been discovered from 1500 BC, the civilization then surely predated the Mummuen period. _{Freedom skies| talk}  21:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies, you need appropriate citation to claim the 2333 BC date. The sources you provided are failing miserably:

• This citation you gave says Korea is "considered one of the oldest civilizations in the world," but the oldest date is gives is 37 BC.
• This citation you gave (in Korean) says that the 2333BC date is doubtful, and that Samguk Yusa deliberately manipulated this date to make their own kingdom look greater. I translated this passage in your cited source: "《삼국유사》에 전하는 단군신화에서는 기원전 2333년에 단군이 고조선을 건국하였다고 기술하였으나, 그대로 믿기 어렵다. 건국연대를 위로 끌어올린 이유는, 역사가 오래될수록 그 왕조는 권위가 있으며 민족도 위대하다는 인식의 반영에 불과하다. "

If anything, the second source you gave proves that the 2333 BC date is dubious. The first source you gave claims Korea is one of the oldest based on a 37 BC date, hence the {{POV}} tag.

There are some indications that an agricultural society existed in Korea as far back as 2000 BC. However, any mention of "Choson" (for Gojoseon) not related to legend (in reliable sources) are after 1000 BC. It is doubtful whether any distinctly Korean civilization existed prior to 1000 BC. Also, it is somewhere between 1000 BC and 300 BC that "Old Choson" (Gojoseon) really became a civilization in the sense of this article. 400 BC would be an acceptable date for me.--Endroit 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Endroit. I think this 2333 date is too unreliable to be used as some people here want it to be. I think it's better to play it safe rather than try out dubious "facts" just because they might be right. John Smith's 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Gojoseon dating to "4th Century B.C."

From pp. 194-195, Columbia chronologies of Asian history and culture, By John S. Bowman, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0231110049:

• "c 4th Century B.C.: Tribal federations such as Puyo, Yemaek, Old Choson, Imdun, and Chinbon emerge on the model of the Bronze Age's walled town state. Old Choson, the most powerful of these federations, traces its lineage to Tangun, the mythical ruler of 2333B.C. The federation of Chin develops south of the Han River. Iron rapidly replaces bronze in the makin of weapons and tools, particularly among the members of the emergent ruling class. A unique heating system, called ondol, is also developed around this time: It consists of flues running under the floor bearing heat from a fire on one side of a house to a chimney on the other."

--Endroit 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheomseongdae

Cheomseongdae was made in the seventh century. Is this included in the Korean civilization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.3.121.108 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Han Dinasty claimed Koguryo as their part!!!

No matter how old Korean civilization was. Its neighbor tried to claim Koguryo as part of han dinasty. Please read [1] The War of Words Between South Korea and China Over An Ancient .... It's very very unnacceptable!! They are huge, mean, and...right, ridiculous. Please tune into Arirangtv from August 13-18 about this issue (in documentary world program, titled "The past, present and the future of Northeast Asia), you'll find somthing there! So, which is right, which is do you prefer? Changbai or Baekdu?? --back to goguryeo 06:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter? What does it have to do with "civilization"? 151.201.132.210 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neolithic cultures

Should we be including neolithic cultures as the article does in, for example, the India section? If so, should we not include Pengtoushan culture and the other cultures in List of Neolithic cultures of China? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, some define the bronze age saw the birth of civilization.--Ksyrie 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the "early Civilisations" section needs a complete re-write as it mixes claims about pre-civilised neolithic peoples with mythology and later civilisations and does not adequately address the issues of the origins of civilisation. A better chronological sequencing is also required. John D. Croft 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps being "neolithic" shouldn't be a criteria here. Having its own "writing system" or living in large planned cities can be.--Endroit 16:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so.Without writing people are hard to know what had happened.--Ksyrie 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Fall of Civilisations

A new page has been started for those interested in more details of the fall of civilisations. Please help make this page better. John D. Croft 10:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

POV statements?

Hi.

I saw this:

"The current War on Terrorism in this context would seem to be a part of such a transitional pattern, where existing great powers first try to monopolise the declining stock of depleting strategic resources."

Is this biased? Not everyone believes the WoT is for oil. I believe it is, but that is not everyone's belief. Some people still think it is good.

The section has been ammended. And as a result I have deleted the NPOV statement to this section. John D. Croft 11:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 74.38.35.171 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this seems a bit odd:

"Civilizations are more complex again than chieftain societies, as, in addition to a variety of specialist artisans and craftspeople, civilizations are all characterised by a social elite, with status inherited, determined largely from birth."

This would suggest that high levels of social mobility would not be consistent with civilization. Woo! America is NOT a civilization! Woo! Canada is NOT a civilization! Oy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.35.171 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It says "Largely" from Birth. The birth status of parents is still a good predictor of the ultimate status of social and economic children in USA and Canada. The amount of "social mobility" in these "civilisations" is largely overstated in the name of ideology. There has been social mobility in every civilisation, and the USA and Canada are no different.John D. Croft 11:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Economist article on how social mobility in the US has decreased, and the social elite is becoming dynastic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, the problems with our world... Looks like we're heading for a caste system like the one in India... 74.38.35.171 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So is America a civilization or not?! Would a society where one can change their social status even more easily be not considered "civilization" even if it had laws, cities, a central government, etc.? 74.38.35.171 08:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course America is a civilisation, read the list of characteristics of civilisations (above). America fits them perfectly. It is the presence of a social hierarchy between the dominant rulers and the more submissive ruled, amongst other things, that defines a civilisation, not the possibilities of a limited degree of social mobility. For example, Mamluk Egypt and the Delhi Sultanate saw slaves elevated to the highest positions within the state, as part of a system of government - it would be like searching for your rulers from amongst the lowest paid and most dependent parts of your community. And that was a civilisation too.

John D. Croft 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But then why say that the governing group must be determined largely from "birth", anyway? 74.38.35.171 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Any response? Would a "civilization" where this wasn't the case not be a civilization?!?!

Civilisations appear with the appearance of social classes of people in which membership of a social class is determined by "in-group" and "out-group" classification, and social sanctions are put upon people to conform to expected behaviours. These behaviours are learned, predominantly in childhood, largely in one's family of origin, and are hence "largely determined from birth". To "cross the lines" from one social class group to another is a difficult and often painful process. In a civilisation, as a result of its internal complexity, and in its urban structure, these social classes are concentrated in urban areas, geographically separated by place of residence. To "step across the borders" from one geographic location to another can be a risky business. A black youth in a white affluent suburb would be likely to be stopped and questioned by patrolling police. Awhite affluent youth in a black poor suburb could run different though related risks. You can see the difficulties operating at the moment in Baghdad with Shia, Christian and Sunni quarters of the city. You only find "governing groups" not determined by birth in small, non-tribal societies where social status is earned - like the Big-men in the Papua New Guinean Highlands, or in such egalitarian cultures as the Mbuti, San or Australian Aboriginal people. As these are not "civilised" in the anthropological sense, such situations are not found in civilisations. John D. Croft 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So then, basically, you are saying that any and all societies with high levels of social mobility are not civilized nor can they be? 74.38.35.171 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Art, philosophy, science

I'd like to see a bit more emphasis on artistic, philosophical, scientific achievements (of, for example modernist France or Tang China). I know some will disagree and think they should rather be emphasised elsewhere (eg. under 'culture') but to me art, philosophy and science are more important in civilisation than the article seems to suggest. 198.54.202.250 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Human society as a whole

For me, it would be better to replace the section between 'Recently it has been suggested that there are in fact three waves of the globalisation of civilization' and 'It is argued that contemporary global civilization is beginning to undergo yet another transition' with a link to the article on Alvin Toffler's book (with perhaps some editing to tidy up any loose ends.) As it is the section seems to over-emphasise conquest at the expense of other aspects. 198.54.202.250 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to have a go! Tofflers book is only one on this. For more of the "Three Waves of Globalisation" concept see Robertson, Robbie. The Three Waves of Globalization, a History of Developing Global Consciousness. Zed Press, 2003. He shows that each wave was associated with a development of new energy source based technlogies and we have come to the end of the age of oil. End times are associated with World Wars and revolutions. John D. Croft 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

civillisation means...................................

Civilisation means a well behaved society living with believes and disbelieves.Where a person can effect the other person by their sence and thoughts. In greator sense,it is co-living of the cultures in a well organised boundary and sharing there believes and disbelieves.

China 2200 BC-present?

I suppose it depends on ones view of what a continuous civilisation denotes but is this one accurate? Wasn’t China ruled by a Mongol dynasty for about a hundred years starting from at least 1279? Not to mention the Manchu dynasty that lasted for about 350 years? Or do they not count because neither of these interruptions signified a permanent end to China as a distinct civilization? If that is the case then aren’t there a few other ancient civilizations out there that could be considered to be continuing as well (albeit, like China, with interruptions); like the Greek or Persian civilizations? --213.112.53.13 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know a race called Xiongnu?? They are the ancestors of Mongolian. This race was finally emerged into China long before the rise of Genghis Khan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.250.38.49 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you are right; however, both Manchu and Mongol entitled as Emperors of China(not Emperors of Mongol or Emperors of Manchuria) and adopted Chinese cultures, afterwards, instead of interrupting, Chinese cultures expending further into these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.250.38.49 (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than China, can you find ANY other civilization that uses the same language and writing as they did several thousand years ago? China's history is so well dated and recorded and there is no gaps between official records.

Greek --Livinginhaidian 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Han ruled China and Manchu ruled China still represent Chinese. There is no 'disruptions'. Read your history before talking.

Sanskrit is taught in India(www.cbse.nic.in, check publications and then curricula for 2009) and most modern Indian languages derive heavily from it. More importantly Hindu religion began its formation in around 1700 BC and is practiced by around 80% of Indians. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Concern

While I'm on the subject, I'm somewhat concerned that the article as it now stands does not differ substantially from the way it was back in early 2004, when I was a major contributor (see /Archive 2). I was nineteen years old and felt like I knew an awful lot because I had taken, I believe, one cultural anthropology class at the undergrad level from a minor Lutheran university. I'll freely admit that I probably spawned a lousy article at that point. But three years later, the basic framework which I envisioned is still here, as are many of my exact words. It was rated A- and B-class by various people (because of sheer length?) but I think it right now needs a major overhaul. It's currently pretty confused. Reading it, it's hard to even decipher what exactly civilization means. I think that many editors have been using their own personal ideas rather than real sources (I know that's what I did back in '04). At the very least it needs far more sourced statements in the lead section and the definitions section.Fishal 22:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The article surely needs attention, and to be splitted at some parts --Andersmusician VOTE 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a separation between the use of the word civilisation in its normative (i.e. to be cultured and civilised) and its descriptive (i.e to be a culture that possesses towns and cities), could be considered. A disambiguation page could then separate between the uses. What do people think? Regards John D. Croft 08:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

How about splitting out the "Development of early civilizations" section into a separate article? I propose a title of "Early civilisations". I'd bet there's plenty of places that want to link to just that. E.g. industrial revolution and fertile crescent are both only interested in the early civilizations. --kop 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

As one person has mentioned above, I've never expected to see 2200BC - Present until I came across this page. First, Ancient Chinese civilization did end like all the others. Second, to comply with descriptions on other civilizations, we need an end date for this. If not, don't we need put "Present" for Rome and Egypt as their achievements are still flourishing through present days? I'll try to do some research, but if anyone could add a date or more facts, please do. In my opinion, I think the year of Monglian Conquest of China would serve the purpose as the end year like for Persian Empire, which its section says, "When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in 330 BC, Persian civilization experienced fundamental changes." and put the end on 330BC. --Livinginhaidian 09:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Persian civilisation continued after the Hellenistic conquest of Alexander with the rise of the Parthians and later Sassanid Empires. Only when Islam replaced Zoroastrianism did Persia become a part of the Muslim civilisation. In a similar fashion, the Confucian Mandarinate of China survived the Mongol invasion down to the 1911 Chinese revolution. From then perhaps China can be considered as part of the modern Industrial Growth civilisation. John D. Croft 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ancient Chinese civilization DID NOT end, if not I won't be writing this reply silly.

In what ways is modern Chinese civilisation identical to ancient China? John D. Croft 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, it seems silly to put such concrete end dates on civilizations as though they are individuals passing away. Roman civilization did not end at 500 BC; the Roman state continued unaltered in the East at least until Heraclius' constitutional changes of 630 AD. Even then, the Greek-speaking people of the Eastern Mediterranean called themselves "Roman" up to and beyond the 1453 Ottoman conquest. Even after the fall of the Roman state in the West (the presumed reason for selecting AD 500 as an end date), Roman civilization lived on through the religion, language, and culture of Italy, France, Spain, etc. The Pope is still the Pontifex Maximus, a title from the Roman Republic. When you look at the other civilizations which are supposedly "finished," you find similar stories: even after being conquered, their cultures changed but survived and can be detected even today. My point is that putting such unambiguous and authoritative-sounding beginning and end dates next to the civilizations does not reflect the full stories. Fishal 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vedic civilization

I have added Vedic civilization to the list because modern India derives heavily from it. I also do not think that it is fair to say that Greek civilization persists till today. Do Greeks still worship Zeus etc. ?? Greece was completely absorbed by the Ottoman Empire for centuries and this altered Greek culture significantly. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that these dates will never be authoritative because people will always contest them. In some ways, "Vedic" and "Greek" civilization are around today; in other ways they are very altered. I suggest removing the end dates entirely and just have beginning dates, or no dates at all. Fishal 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, u r probably right. Civilizations anyway are always embroiled in a complex process of internal change and interaction with "other" civilizations. So take out the end dates ?? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut back on the equivocal definitions

Reading the lead and the first few sections gives one a very dim idea of what civilization is. Yes, the word has many different shades of meaning, but in its overwhelmingly common usage, it means a complex and at least marginally urbanized society. Simply glancing through the books within my arm's reach, here are some definitions that I find:

• "civilization, the achievement of a culture that is complex enough to sustain a heterogeneity of people and ideas, able both to preserve its past and to sponsor innovation, and possessing the resources to insure the transmission of its style and values as well as the unity of the people who comprise it. Although in popular and some academic usage civilization and culture are synonyms, social science generally holds civilization to be a species of the universal phenomenon of culture... It may be generalized that a civilization is characterized by a diversity within a broad unity of style by which people, from the centre to the periphery of society, identify themselves as belonging to that society... The use of writing is a convenient clue for identifying civilization... Another hallmark of civilization is the heterogeneity of types of people who assume a vastly larger number of roles [[[division of labor]]]... cities also characterize civilization." ("Civilization," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia Vol. II, 1974, p. 956)

• "civilization...: 1a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specif: the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records os attained. b: the culture characteristic of a particular time and place. 2: the process of becoming civilized. 3a: refinement of thought, manners, or taste. b: a situation of urban comfort." ("Civilization," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition, 2004, p. 226.

• "These two earliest examples of civilization-- a word that simply means "living in cities"-- were different in many ways." [refers to Sumerians and Egyptians] (Tom Standage, A History of the World in 6 Glasses, Walker & Company, 25.)

• "If we define a civilization as a kind of political culture or a great tradition associated with populated administrative centers and spread across some portion of a continent, then it is clear that there was a pre-Columbian civilization in the Mississippi valley, or at least the early stages of one." (Timothy R. Pauketat, Ancient Cahokia and the Mississippians, Cambridge University Press, 1.)

I think that this is what should go in the lead section; let the rest of the article sort out the nuances. As it stands, the lead doesn't even give a good definition. Fishal 03:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to our images?

The images seem to have disappeared! John D. Croft 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlantis

It is described as 'first referred to by the Egyptians' while the article on the legendary society itself states 'Other than Plato's Timaeus and Critias there is no primary ancient account of Atlantis, which means every other account on Atlantis relies on Plato in one way or another.'

It would be good to keep some consistency when talking about the almost certainly fictional civilisation, even if proponents of its reality do not. 58.108.225.51 08:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley civilisation needs editing

The Indus Valley article is crawling with POV errors, and needs to be edited to make it consistent with the other civilisations. This area was NOT the site of the earliest farming or horticulture. John D. Croft (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)