Civilization defined
Coverdale
My two dictionaries seem to generally agree that a civilization is an
"advanced stage of social development".
Right so take any point in history - 1000 BCE, 500 BCE, 500 AD or
whatever.
Surely at any particular point in ancient history only a small
percentage of nations can be considered to be in an "advanced stage of
social development" ?
Only the MOST advanced nations can be called "civilizations" because
the rest are lagging behind to differing degrees and could therefore
be said to be NOT "advanced".
So with this in mind how can it possibly be claimed that there have
been hundreds of "civilizations" based on small islands. It doesn't
fit. How many small islands were one of the most "socially advanced"
nations in the world during any particular ancient historical era? -
hardly any. The term "civilization" by definition implies that the
particular nation in question would have to be one of the most
advanced nations in the world.
I still say that "civilization" tends to only be used by historians to
describe ancient, famous nations like Egypt, Greece, Roman etc.
Perhaps historians use it almost as a way of elevating these
particular nations above the rest, after all the term does have a
rather "grand" sound to it, and to me doesn't sound right when applied
to islands or any nation that was not one of the most famous in world
history. It sounds overblown when applied to these. Saying "the
civilization of Hawaii", or the "civilization of Easter island" just
doesn't work for me.
That's my view anyway.
--
Rob
Conrad Dunkerson
news:80ht0p$e8h$2...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> My two dictionaries seem to generally agree that a civilization is
> an "advanced stage of social development".
My dictionary lists that one too... as the fourth definition right
after "the total culture of a particular people".
> Right so take any point in history - 1000 BCE, 500 BCE, 500 AD or
> whatever.
Today.
> Only the MOST advanced nations can be called "civilizations"
> because the rest are lagging behind to differing degrees and could
> therefore be said to be NOT "advanced".
So... by this definition the vast majority of the modern world does
not qualify for the term 'civilization'. Doesn't seem to make alot
of sense. Set the bar high enough and England isn't 'civilization'.
Douglas Henderson
Warm beer and no central heating? Since when did England EVER qualify?
(j/k, sometimes me oirish ancestry gets the better of me sassenach side)
--
Douglas Henderson
Shrike
>
> OK lets get this straight....
>
> "advanced stage of social development".
Social development is the key phrase. We don't have to include
technology, etc.
Social patterns have not gotten very more complicated than that of the
Mesopotamians in the last few thousand years.
Subsistence: Farming, non self-sufficient members of society, neccessity
of organization for large projects, protection, leads to political
organization, non self-sufficient members of society, traders, priests,
craftsmen leads to barter/economy communication involving an abstract
system, recording of histories etc etc etc.
These things can all develop on small land surfaces, such as islands.
But Agriculture is usually the key to complexity, therefore
'civilization.'
--
Bill
Go filter yourself
Douglas Henderson
SNIP
> PS The ancient Kelts weren't civilized either.
>
> the softrat
I beg your pardon, but I think you meant to write
"PS The ancient Kelts weren't kivilized either."
consistency above all.
:-)
--
Douglas Henderson
the softrat
It is very PC to refer to cultures of savages or near savages as
'civilizations'. In my book (the one I may write) the only Amerind
(PC-correct-word) 'civilizations' were the Aztec, the Maya, and the
Inca: large, concentrated populations, monumental buildings, and
written media (however sparse). But writing is difficult: even
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons did pictographs.
The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They just
built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
PS The ancient Kelts weren't civilized either.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
Cian
> the softrat wrote:
> SNIP
> > PS The ancient Kelts weren't civilized either.
> >
> > the softrat
>
> I beg your pardon, but I think you meant to write
>
> "PS The ancient Kelts weren't kivilized either."
>
> consistency above all.
Don't you mean Konsistency? ;)
--
Cian
Conrad Dunkerson
news:M4QsOC7i2S=YJHZtUfifYwWn=s...@4ax.com...
> It is very PC to refer to cultures of savages or near savages as
> 'civilizations'. In my book (the one I may write) the only Amerind
> (PC-correct-word) 'civilizations' were the Aztec, the Maya, and
> the Inca: large, concentrated populations, monumental buildings,
> and written media (however sparse). But writing is difficult: even
> Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons did pictographs.
So... the Anasazi / Chaco culture don't qualify? They had all of
the things you listed above - not to mention agriculture, widely
spaced cities connected by a system of roads, and trade connections
reaching across two continents.
Coverdale
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:80i4b6$fdf$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
In my Archaeological dictionary the term civilization is not used at
all in the fairly comprehensive entries for these two >cultures< .
And yes, it is a good dictionary because all of the contributors are
archaeologists from the top universities around the world.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They
> just built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
There is no evidence that the Maui were made by the natives
of Easter Island at all.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Shrike <shr...@spam.buster> wrote in message
news:382C7D...@spam.buster...
> But Agriculture is usually the key to complexity, therefore
> 'civilization.'
There is evidence of animal domestication and agriculture in
the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ? No.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80ht0p$e8h$2...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
> > an "advanced stage of social development".
>
> after "the total culture of a particular people".
My Oxford dictionary lists the point first.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> > whatever.
>
> Today.
No. You're talking about "civility". I'm talking about "civilizations"
They are two completely different things. Most of the world is
"civilized" today so it is inappropriate to refer to individual
countries as "civilizations".
The "Civilization" of Brazil ?
The "Civilization" of Germany ?
The "Civilization" of Australia ?
Yes they are "civilized" of course but they are not referred to as
"civilizations" .
> > Only the MOST advanced nations can be called "civilizations"
> > because the rest are lagging behind to differing degrees and could
> > therefore be said to be NOT "advanced".
>
> So... by this definition the vast majority of the modern world does
> not qualify for the term 'civilization'. Doesn't seem to make alot
> of sense. Set the bar high enough and England isn't 'civilization'.
See Above.
--
Rob
Shrike
Agriculture is the instigator for most of the social, political, and
economical changes which resulted in civilization.
That's a fact. That there is evidence of animal domestication and
agriculture in a time/place where civilization did not spring up is
incidental. The possibilities as to why this did not lead to
civilization are myriad, but again, incidental. I am not using the
definition of civilization in any argument here, I was referring to the
initial question before I saw the thread from which it sprang.
The entire argument is extremely muddy, as the defintion of civilization
seems to be liquid and very subjective. But have at it.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message news:80htr1$mc2$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>> My dictionary lists that one too... as the fourth definition
>> right after "the total culture of a particular people".
> You're talking about "civility". I'm talking about "civilizations"
Heh... no, "civility" is something else ENTIRELY - and I must say
that it amuses me to no end that you aren't familiar with the
meaning of the term. :)
Victor Michael Ganata
> Technical Contemporary Sociological Note
> It is very PC to refer to cultures of savages or near savages as
> 'civilizations'. In my book (the one I may write) the only Amerind
> (PC-correct-word) 'civilizations' were the Aztec, the Maya, and the
> Inca: large, concentrated populations, monumental buildings, and
> written media (however sparse). But writing is difficult: even
> Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons did pictographs.
What about the Mound-Builders? (Even though we don't know a lot about
them)
Pictography is generally not considered writing by mainstream
linguists, so it isn't too bad of a criterion, but the debate still
rages on.
> The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They just
> built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
Yes they still do, but not in ways that we can't figure out. The rock
that the statues are made of doesn't seem indigenous to the island,
and the technical engineering aspects involved still lack a clear
explanation. I admit, this doesn't mean that they had to have a
civilization, but I don't think you can dismiss it off-hand.
Coverdale
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net>
>
> > You're talking about "civility". I'm talking about "civilizations"
>
> Heh... no, "civility" is something else ENTIRELY - and I must say
> that it amuses me to no end that you aren't familiar with the
> meaning of the term. :)
Oh grow up for christs sake it was just a simple mistake.
If you find that amusing then you're a sad person.
I meant to be "civilized" OK.
--
Rob
abadonn
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Shrike <shr...@spam.buster> wrote in message
>news:382C7D...@spam.buster...
>
>> But Agriculture is usually the key to complexity, therefore
>> 'civilization.'
>
> There is evidence of animal domestication and agriculture in
> the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ? No.
I'm sure they thought they were.....
abadonn
abadonn
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>OK lets get this straight....
>
>My two dictionaries seem to generally agree that a civilization is an
>"advanced stage of social development".
>
> ...SNIP VARIOUS WAFFLE
>
>That's my view anyway.
I'm beginning to wonder about you Coverdale... u seem very keen to pin
things down in a definative fashion.
Lets see.....even your first definition is dubious...
To assess whether a people have reached an "advanced stage of social
development" needs a viewpoint ...And that viewpoint is wholly
dictated by ones own 'level' of civilisation.
As such there is no strict criteria to even start to define this. To
people in the year 3000 they may well contend that "civilisation'
didn't start until 2450AD. To people in Rome THEY were civilisation
and the rest of the world wasn't..except the Greeks and maybe the
Egyptians.
<<Surely at any particular point in ancient history only a small
percentage of nations can be considered to be in an "advanced stage of
social development" >>
I must tell my Tonga friend that his people were not-civilised...
before the West came along. (with their world wars, inquisitions,
atomic bombs, nerve gas, gulags....etc..etc..)
God...this is pointless.... Civilisation is a Subjective assessment.
It means what you want it to mean. To Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens were
civilised ....or maybe even the other way around...and to an earthworm
all primates are civilised...
abadonn
Rob
abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > There is evidence of animal domestication and agriculture in
> > the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ?
>> No.
>
> I'm sure they thought they were.....
Doubt it. Read some history.
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> contains these words:
> the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:M4QsOC7i2S=YJHZtUfifYwWn=s...@4ax.com...
> > The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They
> > just built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
> There is no evidence that the Maui were made by the natives
> of Easter Island at all.
Sorry, but there's quite a lot. Who else is supposed to have made them?
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown, out now -- The Singer & The Sea
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net>
contains these words:
> So... the Anasazi / Chaco culture don't qualify? They had all of
> the things you listed above - not to mention agriculture, widely
> spaced cities connected by a system of roads, and trade connections
> reaching across two continents.
There's a difference between a culture and a civilization. The A/C
had these things, but at a very elementary stage -- a stage Europe
and Egypt and the Far Eastern cultures had been in thousands of years
earlier, trade-routes and all. Anasazi "cities" were small villages
by comparison with the European or Chinese model, or for that matter
the great trade-route culture of Timbuktoo which flourished around their time.
I remember seeing incredibly PC exhibits at various Anasazi sites I
visited last year, which tried to prove that Anasazi culture was
"superior" -- a racist concept in itself -- to that of Anglo-Saxon
England at the same time. Except for little things like ships,
sophisticated metalworking, large-scale agriculture, writing,
scholarship and literature, an international religion and attached
academic culture, geographical knowledge, true and extensive
international trade...
I don't think that kind of overstatement does the Anasazi any
favours, or anyone like them. They were no doubt every bit as smart
as anyone else, they undoubtedly had the roots of a civilization, but
they didn't have the time or stability it needed to develop -- and,
more arguably, probably not the resources or motivation. They would
have needed something like political unity or rampant imperialism,
like the Benin Empire or Chaka's Zulus in Africa, or religious racism
like the Arabs. They may have been nicer people for not having that,
but they were not, as such, a civilization.
the softrat
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:28:52 -0000, "Coverdale"
><cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Shrike <shr...@spam.buster> wrote in message
>>news:382C7D...@spam.buster...
>>> But Agriculture is usually the key to complexity, therefore
>>> 'civilization.'
>> the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ? No.
>
>I'm sure they thought they were.....
>
Naaah! I bet they didn't even know the word!
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
-----
mummering sadly in the drowning C++'s of muddy earth
Victor Michael Ganata
> There's a difference between a culture and a civilization. The A/C
> had these things, but at a very elementary stage -- a stage Europe
> and Egypt and the Far Eastern cultures had been in thousands of years
> earlier, trade-routes and all. Anasazi "cities" were small villages
> by comparison with the European or Chinese model, or for that matter
> the great trade-route culture of Timbuktoo which flourished around their time.
I won't comment on the "culture/civilization" debate anymore. This
debate is probably 3000 years old at least, so I'm sure I can't add
anything useful. It is all a matter of perspective. While the
Anasazi culture was definitely not within the league of
contemporaneous European and Asian cultures, I think they were very
similar (if not more advanced than) the earliest civilizations in
Mesopotamia. So I think it depends if you narrow the comparison to
contemporaneous cultures, or if you take all known human history as a
whole.
Victor Michael Ganata
> from "Coverdale" <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> contains these words:
>> the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:M4QsOC7i2S=YJHZtUfifYwWn=s...@4ax.com...
>> > The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They
>> > just built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
>> There is no evidence that the Maui were made by the natives
>> of Easter Island at all.
> Sorry, but there's quite a lot. Who else is supposed to have made them?
Extraterrestrials? :)
Mike Scott Rohan
from Victor Michael Ganata <asw...@earthlink.net> contains these words:
> > The Polynesians of Rapa Nui were not civilized in _my_ book. They just
> > built large statues. Lots of savages did that, and still do.
> Yes they still do, but not in ways that we can't figure out. The rock
> that the statues are made of doesn't seem indigenous to the island,
No offence, but I'm afraid this is a bit testicular, basically. The
rock is entirely the same as the island's -- and the quarry where
they were made, in the centre of the island, is still littered with
incomplete statues in every stage of construction, including at least
one figure still half in the original rock. You haven't been reading
von Daniken, have you?
Or mixing it up with Stonehenge, whose stones may have been brought
from Ireland? (Although one recent researcher suggests they were
deposited by a glacier much nearer to hand.)
> and the technical engineering aspects involved still lack a clear
> explanation.
How they were carved is well established, because the quarry is still
littered with the tools they used, and the statues are covered in the
marks they made. In the 1950s Thor Heyerdahl paid a crew of his
native friends to begin carving a statue with such tools, and in only
a few days they had carved the outline. A larger group of labourers,
especially serfs or slaves such as tradition says was employed, could
have done one in less than a year, at that rate. Later studies have
confirmed this.
How they were raised is slightly less certain, but again Heyerdahl's
native friends demonstrated one technique that worked perfectly, and
I have seen another tried that worked almost as well. It's just a
choice of simple possibilities, and there is no mystery about them all.
I admit, this doesn't mean that they had to have a
> civilization, but I don't think you can dismiss it off-hand.
They had an interesting culture, for a while, till their own caste
system, warfare, disease and slave raids wiped it out. But it
involved only a few thousand people on an isolated island, and it had
nowhere to go. A civilization is something larger and more complex than that.
abadonn
>
>abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
>> > There is evidence of animal domestication and agriculture in
>> > the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ?
>>> No.
>>
>> I'm sure they thought they were.....
>
>Doubt it. Read some history.
Really...so History books will tell me that someone in a proto-town in
the Near East in 9500c would have looked at the barbarians to the
north/south/east/west and thought that they themselves WEREN'T
civilised. You should stop reading History books and experience
life...only then will you understand people. And words come from
people.
abadonn
Michael Martinez
>I won't comment on the "culture/civilization" debate anymore. This
>debate is probably 3000 years old at least, so I'm sure I can't add
>anything useful. It is all a matter of perspective. While the
>Anasazi culture was definitely not within the league of
>contemporaneous European and Asian cultures, I think they were very
>similar (if not more advanced than) the earliest civilizations in
>Mesopotamia. So I think it depends if you narrow the comparison to
>contemporaneous cultures, or if you take all known human history as a
>whole.
I'm no expert on the Anasazi but when I moved to New Mexico a few years ago I
did take in some of the sights, and that includes Anasazi ruins. They lived
in a much greener land than New Mexico now is, but they had nothing like the
Mesopotamian cultures' resources. There were relatively few people in this
region and that is what worked against their achieving a great civilization
more than anything else. The American civilizations supported populations
comparable to the civilizations of Europe, Asia, and Africa, but they all
occurred south of what is now the United States/Mexico border.
Some very significant and advanced cultures developed in the north,
particularly east of the Mississippi river, but no civilizations arose.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\// FREE! Watch Internet TV shows at Xenite.Org!
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Jonas Thorell
abadonn wrote:
(almost read your name wrong there...thought it said abandon first ;)
Abandon hope all ye who writes here...)
> Really...so History books will tell me that someone in a proto-town in
> the Near East in 9500c would have looked at the barbarians to the
> north/south/east/west and thought that they themselves WEREN'T
> civilised.
That would be some history-book...one deserving to go to the
garbage-bin.
> You should stop reading History books and experience
> life...only then will you understand people. And words come from
> people.
Actually, he should perhaps READ a history-book and trying to understand
what's written in it instead of just blindly accepting what his teachers
and/or the Discovery Channel is telling him. And while I'm at it:
he should get a life too.
/Jonas
simonh...@my-deja.com
"Jonas Thorell" <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote:
> That would be some history-book...one deserving to go to the
> garbage-bin.
>
> > You should stop reading History books and experience
> > life...only then will you understand people. And words come from
> > people.
>
> Actually, he should perhaps READ a history-book and trying to
understand
> what's written in it instead of just blindly accepting what his
teachers
> and/or the Discovery Channel is telling him. And while I'm at it:
> he should get a life too.
It would have been nice if this post had actualy contributed to the
debate in a meaingfull way rather than just contain abuse.
Main Entry: civ搏損i暘a暗ion
Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1772
1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological
development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which
writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture
characteristic of a particular time or place
2 : the process of becoming civilized
3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban
comfort
If they didn't keep written records, they weren't a civilisation.
This leaves the definition of what constitutes writing an open
question. Bear in mind that any term is only as true as it is
usefull.
Simon Hibbs
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
paulh
>
>
>Main Entry: civ搏損i暘a暗ion
>Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
>Function: noun
>Date: 1772
>1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological
>development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which
>writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture
>characteristic of a particular time or place
>2 : the process of becoming civilized
>3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban
>comfort
>
>If they didn't keep written records, they weren't a civilisation.
>This leaves the definition of what constitutes writing an open
>question. Bear in mind that any term is only as true as it is
>usefull.
Well no.... Either A or B can apply. I would tend to agree that
writing may be a good pointer...but I can't accept that this is
totally exclusive to non-writing civilisations.
abadonn
Tony Durran
Cian wrote in message <382C9053...@mediaone.net>...
>Don't you mean Konsistency? ;)
>--
> Cian
Tony.
Tony Durran
Mike Scott Rohan wrote in message
<199911141...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk>...
>> There is no evidence that the Maui were made by the natives
>> of Easter Island at all.
>Sorry, but there's quite a lot. Who else is supposed to have made them?
The Elves!
I thought everyone knew that.
Tony.
Cian
Heh, I was Kounting on that. oK I'll Kut it out! Kian
Jonas Thorell
<simonh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It would have been nice if this post had actualy contributed to the
> debate in a meaingfull way rather than just contain abuse.
Well, yes. But I couldn't stop myself. He had it coming...
> If they didn't keep written records, they weren't a civilisation.
I'm not so sure about that myself. The written word is a tool
to express ideas and conserve history. It's not a thing that
in and of itself defines that some culture is civilised.
Speaking of which...does it really need to be written?
I've heard for instance that the wall-paintings in caves pretty
much was used for the same purpose. Does that make the
people who painted them a civilisation? Hardly, but the
beginning of one.
> This leaves the definition of what constitutes writing an open
> question.
Certainly.
/Jonas
Tamfiiris
> The Elves!
> I thought everyone knew that.
well yes, but they wouldn't have managed without the aid of the valar.
--
**Tamfiiris C. Gloruloke **** bouncy yellow dragon of TEUNC **** eh?
* Hi! I'm a mutating .sig virus! *
* Copy me into yours and join the fu#!+&; *
Mata-Ki-Te-Rani
Jonas Thorell <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote :
>Actually, he should perhaps READ a history-book
I've read more history books than you've had wanks.
>instead of just blindly accepting what his teachers
Teachers ? I left school yonks ago. Oh you mean those
people that whisk me off to their planet in a spaceship
and teach me how to save the Earth from the scourge
of working class scum..heh heh (only joking Aly babe )
>and/or the Discovery Channel is telling him.
Satellite TV 's for the working class. I've never seen it.
>And while I'm at it: he should get a life too.
While your at what ? Trying to get a life ?..
(laughs manically into oblivion..)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>Or mixing it up with Stonehenge, whose stones may have been brought
>from Ireland? (Although one recent researcher suggests they were
>deposited by a glacier much nearer to hand.)
As I recall it only one stone actually was from Ireland; the others are of
dolerite, which was quarried in England. Of course, my information may be
out of date.
Öjevind
Rob Coverdale
Mike Scott Rohan did verily scribe :
> How they were raised is slightly less certain, but again Heyerdahl's
> native friends demonstrated one technique that worked perfectly, and
> I have seen another tried that worked almost as well. It's just a
> choice of simple possibilities, and there is no mystery about them
>all.
The natives claim that 'great magicians' moved the Moai around with
'mana' which means 'sorcery'. Apparently the king or other chieftains
made use of a round stone called Te Pito Kura to focus their mana
power and so command the statues to 'walk'.
Sounds daft but it's interesting that there are almost identical
claims for the megalithic statues, walls and pyramids at Tiahuanaco
in the Bolivian Andes and at some Mayan cities. Some of the
monuments in Egypt have similar claims made about them by the
Ancients. The Egyptians called this force of mental power 'hekau'
rather than 'mana'.
Hey, who are we to argue ?
--
Rob
Victor Michael Ganata
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:48:40 GMT, simonh...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>Main Entry: civ搏損i暘a暗ion
>>Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1772
>>1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological
>>development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which
>>writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture
>>characteristic of a particular time or place
>>2 : the process of becoming civilized
>>3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban
>>comfort
>>
>>If they didn't keep written records, they weren't a civilisation.
>>This leaves the definition of what constitutes writing an open
>>question. Bear in mind that any term is only as true as it is
>>usefull.
> Well no.... Either A or B can apply. I would tend to agree that
> writing may be a good pointer...but I can't accept that this is
> totally exclusive to non-writing civilisations.
Were there any civilizations that didn't write? (I realize we really
haven't figured out what a civilization is in the first place, but
let's say something arbitrary, like a people who had mastered
agriculture and traded with outsiders.)
I think the dictionary definition is a pretty good practical
definition if you're a historian, since you can't really study
someone's history if there are no records to study.
As to the definition of writing, isn't it pretty much limited to
systems that were used to convey speech? So a lot of linguists
typically don't consider pictographs as writing. Pictographs are more
like art, since they do convey messages, but they don't convey precise
words.
abadonn
wrote
>
>Jonas Thorell <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote :
>
>>Actually, he should perhaps READ a history-book
>
>I've read more history books than you've had wanks.
I didnt there were that many history books...!
I think the point is understanding them....not just reading them.
You've done the latter, failed the former.
abadonn
Alatar
Öjevind Lång wrote in message ...
The stones at stonehenge came from england to the north of stonehenge (I
can't remember the exact place though I'd have a rough idea on a map). They
had to get the stones across a stretch of water, which is where the
confusion about Ireland may have come in.
--
Alatar
Rob Coverdale
Yeah...your contributions to the history threads were stunningly
insightful....NOT.
Tony Durran
>I've read more history books than you've had wanks.
"Apes *do* read philosophy; they just don't understand it"
--A fish called Wanda.
Tony.
Jon
Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The stones at stonehenge came from england to the north of stonehenge (I
> can't remember the exact place though I'd have a rough idea on a map). They
> had to get the stones across a stretch of water, which is where the
> confusion about Ireland may have come in.
The blue stones came from the Prescilly (sp) hills in Wales.
Across the Bristol Channel.
Jon.
--
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/fairport/fc.html
Home of the Fairport Convention mailing list FAQs
abadonn
<coverdal...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:3832cf67...@news.bigpond.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:13:19 -0000, "Mata-Ki-Te-Rani" <n...@email.com>
>> wrote
>> >
>> >Jonas Thorell <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote :
>> >
>> >>Actually, he should perhaps READ a history-book
>> >
>> >I've read more history books than you've had wanks.
>>
>> I didnt there were that many history books...!
>> I think the point is understanding them....not just reading them.
>> You've done the latter, failed the former.
>
>Yeah...your contributions to the history threads were stunningly
>insightful....NOT.
>
Almost as insightful as your loudly-espoused thoughts on civilisation,
intelligence and class.
snigger....
abadonn
YOU SUCKERS!
abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote :
> >
> Almost as insightful as your loudly-espoused thoughts on
>civilisation, intelligence and class.
>
You're such a FUCKWIT that you're the only one still responding to me.
Ermanna
"YOU SUCKERS!" wrote:
Are we feeling grumpy and ignored? Now, now, let us all
be polite, and not flame.
Ermanna the Elven Jedi Knight
"No! No, stay and help you I will!"
Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back
Andrea Wojtewicz
Mike Scott Rohan <mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:199911142...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk...
> The message <80kf3f$kcg$3...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> from Victor Michael Ganata <asw...@earthlink.net> contains these words:
> They had an interesting culture, for a while, till their own caste
> system, warfare, disease and slave raids wiped it out. But it
> involved only a few thousand people on an isolated island, and it had
> nowhere to go.
I thought they had all eventually starved to death after using up the
island's natural resources. I could be mistaking Easter Island for another
island, though, I just thought I remembered hearing that this happened
there.
--
Andrea Wojtewicz
"Mountains of endless falling, for all my days remaining."
Öjevind Lång
>Mike Scott Rohan wrote in message:
[snip]
>> They had an interesting culture, for a while, till their own caste
>> system, warfare, disease and slave raids wiped it out. But it
>> involved only a few thousand people on an isolated island, and it had
>> nowhere to go.
>
>I thought they had all eventually starved to death after using up the
>island's natural resources. I could be mistaking Easter Island for another
>island, though, I just thought I remembered hearing that this happened
>there.
It cannot be Easter Island, because it was still populated when Europeans
discovered it. However, the inhabitants were almost exclusively descended
from the slaves, the so-called "shortears", because they had rebelled some
cenuries previously and wiped out the overclass, the "longears", being fed
up with the drudgery of constantly erecting more of those statues. At least
that is what Thor Heyerdahl claims about them.
Öjevind
Andrea Wojtewicz
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:%ozY3.121$kb....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> It cannot be Easter Island, because it was still populated when Europeans
> discovered it. However, the inhabitants were almost exclusively descended
> from the slaves, the so-called "shortears", because they had rebelled
some
> cenuries previously and wiped out the overclass, the "longears", being fed
> up with the drudgery of constantly erecting more of those statues. At
least
> that is what Thor Heyerdahl claims about them.
Oh, then I wonder which island I'm confusing it with? That's going to bug me
now until I think of it.
--
Andrea Wojtewicz
Michael O'Neill
[...]
Mike Scott Rohan
from "Andrea Wojtewicz" <and...@tm.net> contains these words:
You may still be thinking of Easter Island, Andrea, because they did
devastate the place, use up all the trees etc., (and almost certainly
have some kind of a war, such as Heyerdahl describes). All that had a
considerable effect on their population and living standards -- but
not to the point of extinction. They were brought close to it by
contact with South American slavers and imported diseases, smallpox
especially; but the population never wholly vanished, and is still there today.
Cheers,
Mike
--
mike.sco...@asgard.zetnet.co.uk
From Little, Brown, out now -- The Singer & The Sea
Visit my site at www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mike.scott.rohan
Robert B. Marks
news:80ht0p$e8h$2...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> OK lets get this straight....
>
> My two dictionaries seem to generally agree that a civilization is an
> "advanced stage of social development".
>
> Right so take any point in history - 1000 BCE, 500 BCE, 500 AD or
> whatever.
>
> Surely at any particular point in ancient history only a small
> percentage of nations can be considered to be in an "advanced stage of
> social development" ?
>
> Only the MOST advanced nations can be called "civilizations" because
> the rest are lagging behind to differing degrees and could therefore
> be said to be NOT "advanced".
>
> So with this in mind how can it possibly be claimed that there have
> been hundreds of "civilizations" based on small islands. It doesn't
> fit. How many small islands were one of the most "socially advanced"
> nations in the world during any particular ancient historical era? -
> hardly any. The term "civilization" by definition implies that the
> particular nation in question would have to be one of the most
> advanced nations in the world.
Ah yes...the great generalization of dictionaries...
In my studies, I have found that a group of people can be called a
"civilization" so long as they have permanent settlements (as I recall,
"civilization" is derived from the latin "civis," which means "city").
So, for example, a group of nomads who live in tents and migrate every
couple of months to follow their herds would not be a civilization, but a
group of farmers, no matter how primitive, would be one, as they have
permanent settlements.
At this point I think that a distinction must be made between a
"civilization" and a "culture." The above mentioned group of nomads might
not be a civilization, but they are a culture. As for that definition, I
consider a group of people to have a culture when they have a shared
mythology (but that's just me...).
Robert Marks
--
The future has not been written, / The past is set in stone,
And I am but a lonely wanderer, / With time my only home.
-- From Magus Draconum
Robert B. Marks
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:10:10 -0000, "Rob" <r...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >abadonn <dee...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > the Near East as far back as 9500 BC. Were they civilizations ?
> >>> No.
> >>
> >> I'm sure they thought they were.....
> >
> >Doubt it. Read some history.
>
> Really...so History books will tell me that someone in a proto-town in
> the Near East in 9500c would have looked at the barbarians to the
> north/south/east/west and thought that they themselves WEREN'T
> civilised.
I think we have to draw a line here between what is "civilization" and what
is "civilized." When I was in the ancient history course at Queen's
University I came to a couple of conclusions, the most important of which
was that a civilization is not necessarily "civilized."
The basic line I think is best illustrated by the ancient Mesopotamian
civilizations of Catal Huyuk and Sumer. We would not call either one of
them particularly civilized, but they were civilizations, by the strictest
sense of the word. They were living in permanent cities, as a pose to the
nomadic tribes around them.
However, I think the saddest trait of human nature is that we always try to
see how we're better than the next group over. We see ourselves as more
"civilized" than the third world, and yet some of those countries (such as
Ethiopia) have been around as civilizations for thousands of years longer
than we have. I think that a couple of millennia in the future some
students will look back at 20th/21st century western civilization and marvel
at how barbaric we are.