Why do we still call Mesopotamia the "cradle of civilization"?

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,150
Lisbon, Portugal
Regarding the idea of a ‘pristine civilisation’, by your reasoning it would seem that only Mesopotamia could be considered a ‘pristine civilization’ because Mesopotamian farmers happened to stay in the (arbitrarily defined) near east, whereas other early farmers migrated into Egypt, Europe and India. That doesn’t really make sense. As I said agriculture is not the same thing as civilisation.
As I repeat over and over again: I know that agriculture is not the same thing as civilization. I really hope I don't have to repeat that again.

And again, to my understanding, determining the "cradle of civilization" is totally different than determining the existence of "pristine civilizations". Those are different questions.

The Fertile Crescent is "a cradle of civilization" that laid off the creation of several pristine advanced civilizations.
 
Aug 2018
192
America
[QUOTE="Escritor, post: 3188787, member: 53602] everyone finds the Latin alphabet the greatest thing ever and what "civilised" Germanic "barbarians".
That’s not what everyone thinks... a more likely theory might be that Germanic runes originate from the venetic alphabet. There are some rune-like symbols on Bronze Age artefacts too.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about Germanic runes. I'm talking about how the Germanics adopted the Latin alphabet itself after their conquest of the Western Roman Empire, and how many treat this as a "civilising" force for what were otherwise "barbarians" (I don't agree with this notion that they needed the Latin alphabet, but that's what many in the West believe).
 
Aug 2018
494
london
As I repeat over and over again: I know that agriculture is not the same thing as civilization. I really hope I don't have to repeat that again.

And again, to my understanding, determining the "cradle of civilization" is totally different than determining the existence of "pristine civilizations". Those are different questions.

The Fertile Crescent is "a cradle of civilization" that laid off the creation of several pristine advanced civilizations.
Yes it’s a cradle of civilisation but not necessarily *the* cradle... it would be more precise to say its the cradle of agriculture.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,150
Lisbon, Portugal
Yes it’s a cradle of civilisation but not necessarily *the* cradle... it would be more precise to say its the cradle of agriculture.
One of the cradles, the earliest one, and also the most consequential as well. All pristine civilizations in West Eurasia, and many places in Sub-Saharan Africa, were created mainly from crops, livestock, technology and populations directly descendant and hailed from that innovate region of the world.
 
Dec 2015
247
NYC
Once again, you evidently don't know the meaning of this term. Though the person who first used the term seems to call everything he disagrees with ''chauvinist'' when he can't actually refute it.
And Ario calling anyone "Anti-European" just because someone who trys to highlight the early influences Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians has on early Greece.


Where has he said this? Or do you say this because he doesn't subscribe to your biased, black and white thesis of evil Europeans not having a civilisation of their own and getting all their achievements because some other civilisation did something. Whether it would be Egypt and Greek civilisation or the ''Dark Ages'' ending because the Mongols invaded Asia.
Interesting how you bring up my old posts regarding the ascension of Western Europe and comments regarding Ancient Greece learning from Near Easterners and Egyptians and claiming me to be biased and having an agenda on Europeans when I have not suggested such a thing.

He has provided sources for his claims, and besides I don't see him ''ignoring'' influence so much as you overrating it and attributing Greek civilisation in almost its entirety to Egyptian influences.
I looked into his sources he provided and some of them cites Egyptian and Levantine influence on the Minoans and tries to prove how Europe is "older" than Egypt, and none of his sources prove that Europe is "older" than Egypt. I never overrated Egyptian influence on Greek civilization, but it's a historical fact that Egyptians in part, together with the early Near East set the stepping stone for Ancient Greek civilization.

If we're being honest: You are extremely anti-European. From the 3 threads you have recently participated in, including this one, you have constantly tossed about biased and straight up false claims to malign Europe and their achievements. Refusing to advance discussion when presented with claims that counter you and dancing around the argument, also resorting to fallacies.
If we're being honest, and you even bothered looking at much older threads of mine and not threads I made recently this year and using them to accuse me of being somehow "Anti-European", I have made threads highlighting the modern day achievements of Western Europe and questioning the factors of what led to Western Europe to create advance technology and science as well as politics and economics. And if we're going to bring up my old thread on the whole Mongol thing, it is a fact that Western Europe had a head start in becoming the center of civilization due to the Mongols setting the chain of events that lead to Western Europe's ascension (btw, we're not bringing that thread up, else it will derail the entire topic at hand right now). I never for one tried to take away the achievements of Europe. I acknowledge the contributions of all societies and I know that all societies/civilizations has dark pasts. But we cannot deny the contributions that early non-European civilizations had on Europe.

They were somewhat influenced and I didn't see anyone deny that. But claiming that the Greeks gained most of their civilisation because of Egyptian influences and that all the Greeks did was somehow inherited from Egypt is nonsensical.
I never claimed that Greece gained most of their civilization from Egyptian influences. But it's a fact that early Egypt and Near East influenced the cultural aspects, mathematical and early scientific knowledge, alphabet and even influences on Greek politics and philosophy in early Greeks. Of course they built off of what they learned, made it uniquely Greek and eventually surpassed their Near Eastern and Egyptian predecessors, but they were still the foundation for Greek civilization, the same as how Greeks laid the foundations for most of Europe.
 
Dec 2015
247
NYC
First of all agriculture isn't the same thing as civilisation. Agriculture spread from the middle east but then civilisation developed in different places. And following your reasoning you could say that Egyptians didn't create their own civilisation because near eastern farmers migrated into egypt... Of course that doesn't make sense because eyptians were/are those near eastern farmers just like europeans were/are those anatolian farmers. It's like saying that white americans didn't build their civilisation because it was actually european colonists. Do you get my point?
One, Egyptians may have been influenced by early Near Eastern farming, but they developed a different culture, developed different writing systems, different mathematical and early scientific concepts from those of the Near East.
Two, Egyptians are a mix of people, with admixtures from the South and Near East. They are not solely a Near Eastern people. And Europeans may have had early influences from Anatolian people, but the admixture is exceedingly old and a vastly small percentage of the vast majority of Europeans today.
Three, Americans and American culture descend from the British and British culture. America's entire civilization is just an extension of Great Britain, just with slight differences.
 
Aug 2018
494
london
And Ario calling anyone "Anti-European" just because someone who trys to highlight the early influences Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians has on early Greece.
Can you stop lying please? You obviously have an extreme anti-european bias.. And you don't know anything about European history, you have never bothered to study it, you have no interest in it.. you are only interested in trying to belittle, denigrate and deny european history and accomplishments, that's all.
 
Aug 2018
494
london
I'm not talking about Germanic runes. I'm talking about how the Germanics adopted the Latin alphabet itself after their conquest of the Western Roman Empire, and how many treat this as a "civilising" force for what were otherwise "barbarians" (I don't agree with this notion that they needed the Latin alphabet, but that's what many in the West believe).
They already used the Runic alphabet and Gothic alphabet. The use of the Latin alphabet has to do with conversion to christianity and the dominance of the Latin church.
 
Aug 2018
494
london
And Europeans may have had early influences from Anatolian people, but the admixture is exceedingly old and a vastly small percentage of the vast majority of Europeans today.
again just demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about and don't bother to do the slightest bit of research. Neolithic Anatolians are one of the major ancestral populations of modern Europeans. Southern Europeans are predominantly of Neolithic Anatolian descent, and they are the most similar to Neolithic Anatołians.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Runa

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,150
Lisbon, Portugal
They already used the Runic alphabet and Gothic alphabet. The use of the Latin alphabet has to do with conversion to christianity and the dominance of the Latin church.
The Runic alphabet is a derivation of the Old Italic scripts of antiquity, and the Gothic alphabet is basically Greek alphabet written in capital letters and with some new letters to account for specific Germanic phonology that doesn't exist in Greek. I think you already know this, right?
 
Likes: Iraq Bruin