Numenor / Crete
Coverdale
Crete and the civilization of the Minoans - the earliest civilization
in Europe. There are some subtle similarities. For example the most
famous name that people remember from this civilization is the
Minotaur which is remarkably similar phonetically to (Tar) Minyatur.
Also, the Minoan civilzation came to an end after Crete suffered a
cataclysm probably caused by a volcanic erruption leading to tidal
waves and earthquakes. After this the people apparently migrated
eastward (like some of the Numenoreans) and settled on the coast of
the Levant. Some of the place names of Numenor also have that 'Greek'
feel to them particularly Armenelos and Nindamos.
--
Rob
Robert Brady
No. Numenor was modelled on Atlantis, (which recently, some people have
identified with Minoan Crete). Any phonetic resemblances in the names is
coincedental, as the phonology and vocabulary those names were based on
were established long before Tolkien started on his Numenor myth.
--
Robert
Aris Katsaris
Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk.NOCHOPPEDPORKANDHAM> wrote in message
news:80bkd2$22dd$3...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> Also, the Minoan civilzation came to an end after Crete suffered a
> cataclysm probably caused by a volcanic erruption leading to tidal
> waves and earthquakes. After this the people apparently migrated
> eastward (like some of the Numenoreans) and settled on the coast of
> the Levant.
That's not exactly correct. The volcanic eruption just caused the Minoan
decline - A Mycenean invasion which soon followed would lead to a
hybrid civilisation which still lasted for many centuries until the
Myceneans
themselves were destroyed.
Aris Katsaris
Coverdale
Robert Brady <rwb...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Numenor was modelled on Atlantis, (which recently, some people have
> identified with Minoan Crete). Any phonetic resemblances in the
>names is coincedental, as the phonology and vocabulary those names
>were based on were established long before Tolkien started on his
Numenor myth.
I knew that Atlantis was an influence on Numenor but I still think
that many of the names of the Kings and place names have a Greek feel
to them which I'm sure can't be just coincidental. Anyway, Atlantis
would have only provided the influence for the final cataclysmic
sinking of the island because there are basically no other
similarities to the Atlantis of Plato's myth.
By the way - Atlantis has been identified with most parts of the
world at some time or another. There may well have been ancient
advanced civilizations but I think that Atlantis itself is just a
myth.
Rob.
Coverdale
Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:80ciqa$emu$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr...
I didn't say that they left immediately.
R. Vink
Robert Brady wrote:
> In rec.arts.books.tolkien Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk.nochoppedporkandham> wrote:
> >I wonder if Tolkien took as an influence for Numenor, the island of
> >Crete and the civilization of the Minoans - the earliest civilization
> >in Europe. There are some subtle similarities. For example the most
> >famous name that people remember from this civilization is the
> >Minotaur which is remarkably similar phonetically to (Tar) Minyatur.
> >Also, the Minoan civilzation came to an end after Crete suffered a
> >cataclysm probably caused by a volcanic erruption leading to tidal
> >waves and earthquakes. After this the people apparently migrated
> >eastward (like some of the Numenoreans) and settled on the coast of
> >the Levant. Some of the place names of Numenor also have that 'Greek'
> >feel to them particularly Armenelos and Nindamos.
>
> No. Numenor was modelled on Atlantis, (which recently, some people have
> identified with Minoan Crete). Any phonetic resemblances in the names is
> coincedental, as the phonology and vocabulary those names were based on
> were established long before Tolkien started on his Numenor myth.
>
Do you really mean to say `Atalantė' was coincidence?
Renée V.
--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html
Gordon Nash
>world at some time or another. There may well have been ancient
>advanced civilizations but I think that Atlantis itself is just a
>myth.
Calling Atlantis a myth is like calling Thomas More's Utopia a myth. Its not,
people believed myths, they were not deliberate fabrications. Atlantis was
created by Plato to serve and pedogigic purpose in his dialogues, (Kritias I
believe, but Its been a long time and I'm not sure that's right.) In any event
it was not part of the traditional mythology of Greece.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
Arkady
Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk.NOCHOPPEDPORKANDHAM> wrote in message
news:80bkd2$22dd$3...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> Crete and the civilization of the Minoans - the earliest civilization
> in Europe. There are some subtle similarities. For example the most
> famous name that people remember from this civilization is the
> Minotaur which is remarkably similar phonetically to (Tar) Minyatur.
> Also, the Minoan civilzation came to an end after Crete suffered a
> cataclysm probably caused by a volcanic erruption leading to tidal
> waves and earthquakes. After this the people apparently migrated
> eastward (like some of the Numenoreans) and settled on the coast of
> the Levant. Some of the place names of Numenor also have that 'Greek'
> feel to them particularly Armenelos and Nindamos.
I don't thinl the civilisations are very comparable. Except in being more
advanced than their contempory civilisations.
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A5vW3.4722$An.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> I don't think the civilisations are very comparable. Except in being
>more advanced than their contempory civilisations.
I still think there must have been a bit of influence from Crete on
Tolkien's Numenor. After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete is the
only island-specific one in history (not including the probably
mythical Atlantis). Numenor was the first civilization of men on
Middle-earth, prior to it they'd just sort of hung around with the
elves or in groups on their own in forests etc. Minoan Crete was the
first and only 'golden' civilization that was island-specific in
mankind's history. With the Greek sounding names of the King's and
places on Numenor, I think there must have been a an influence there -
it can't just be totally coincidence. I'm sure when Tolkien was in the
process of inventing Numenor, he must have considered some kind of
loose historical basis for it beyond the 'Atlantis' thing.
--
Rob.
Coverdale
Gordon Nash <gord...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991110232342...@ng-xb1.aol.com...
>
> Calling Atlantis a myth is like calling Thomas More's Utopia a myth.
Its not,
> people believed myths, they were not deliberate fabrications.
Atlantis was
> created by Plato to serve and pedogigic purpose in his dialogues,
(Kritias I
> believe, but Its been a long time and I'm not sure that's right.) In
any event
> it was not part of the traditional mythology of Greece.
You're nitpicking over terms.
My dictionary definition of myth :
1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
supernatural events.
2) imaginary person or thing
Atlantis could be said to be an 'imaginary thing' could it not?
--
Rob
Tribimat
> I'm sure when Tolkien was in the process of inventing Numenor, he must
> have considered some kind of loose historical basis for it beyond the
> 'Atlantis' thing.
The early versions of the story suggest that he was trying to tie in
Atlantis with northern legends of men from over the sea such as
Scyld/Sheave (one or the other) from 'Beowulf'.
"The Lost Road" has the most information on this subject.
--
Tribimat
The Titled One of TEUNC
Ancient Mariner
Michael Martinez
>Gordon Nash <gord...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991110232342...@ng-xb1.aol.com...
>
>>
>> Calling Atlantis a myth is like calling Thomas More's Utopia a myth.
>> Its not, people believed myths, they were not deliberate fabrications.
>> Atlantis was created by Plato to serve and pedogigic purpose in his
This is absolute nonsense. No one has been able to show whether Plato made it
all up or merely passed on something he heard.
>> (Kritias I believe, but Its been a long time and I'm not sure that's
>> right.) In any event it was not part of the traditional mythology of
>> Greece.
>
>You're nitpicking over terms.
>
>My dictionary definition of myth :
>1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>supernatural events.
This fits the Atlantis story well enough.
--
\\ // 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...............................................
Coverdale
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
Rob Coverdale wrote:
> > My dictionary definition of myth :
> > 1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
> > supernatural events.
> This fits the Atlantis story well enough.
I'm not so sure. The Atlantis tale was not a "traditional" Greek one
before Plato as far as I know, although I admit to not having
studied the legend in much detail.
--
Rob
Conrad Dunkerson
news:80eac4$tbk$3...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete is the only island-
> specific one in history (not including the probably mythical
> Atlantis).
Well... other than (possibly mythical) Atlantis and a few hundred
other island civilizations, yeah.
> Numenor was the first civilization of men on Middle-earth, prior
> to it they'd just sort of hung around with the elves or in groups
> on their own in forests etc.
Again, no. There were kingdoms of Men from the far east through to
Beleriand. There is a great deal written about the interaction of
Khazad-dum with these cultures, which were sufficiently advanced to
supply the Dwarves with all of their food as part of a close trade
alliance.
the softrat
Yup, Tweren't tradition. Twere fiction from Plato.
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
-----
mummering sadly in the drowning C++'s of muddy earth
Gordon Nash
>1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>supernatural events.
>
>Atlantis could be said to be an 'imaginary thing' could it not?
Would you call David Copperfield a mythological Charactor? Or even Gandalf?
They are charactors in Novels. This is not what most people mean when they use
the word myth. The first definition is the common usage.
Feanole aka DrWhoFru
R. Vink
Gordon Nash wrote:
Most people I know use the word myth to denote an old tale or idea that isn't
true.
the softrat
>
>> >My dictionary definition of myth :
>> >1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>> >supernatural events.
>> >2) imaginary person or thing
Definition 2) ?? Is an honest R. Nixon or a smart R. Reagan a myth or
a lie? Are all myths lies? Is Harvey a myth?
OK! Your dictionary sucks!
Coverdale
Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:80fhk5$6jn$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete is the only island-
> > specific one in history (not including the probably mythical
> > Atlantis).
>
> Well... other than (possibly mythical) Atlantis and a few hundred
> other island civilizations, yeah.
I suspect you knew what I meant but couldn't resist the wise guy
comment Conrad. I do consider my knowledge of history to be
pretty good. I expect it's at least as good as yours maybe better.
I prefer to spend the majority of my time learning about real life
things like science and history rather than a fantasy world that
never actually existed and is merely the product of one man's
imagination.Becoming a so called "expert" on an imaginary land is
not really something that people should aspire to in my opinion.
Read on.....
Notice I said island *specific* - meaning that the Minoan civilization
was confined to Crete and wasn't just a branch of a neighbouring
mainland one, which historically many others have been.
Also, I realise my statement was a bit sweeping and I didn't make
myself clear but I was really referring to ancient (BCE) history.
So there have been hundreds of other seperate island based
civilizations around the world have there? No, huge exaggeration
there Conrad. I'm not talking about every little Pacific island
populated by a few thousand primitive people who could not be
considered to have been an independant and seperate*civilization*.
At least not in the typical use of the term by historians and
archaeologists.
> > Numenor was the first civilization of men on Middle-earth, prior
> > to it they'd just sort of hung around with the elves or in groups
> > on their own in forests etc.
>
> Again, no. There were kingdoms of Men from the far east through to
> Beleriand. There is a great deal written about the interaction of
> Khazad-dum with these cultures, which were sufficiently advanced to
> supply the Dwarves with all of their food as part of a close trade
> alliance.
Ok so my statement was a little vague, but again - I meant a high,
*golden* civilization. I think it's fair to say that Numenor was the
first one of these in Middle-earth is it not? So the people in
Beleriand killed a few deer and sold them to the dwarves, and baked
a few loaves of bread for them too - so what ? That hardly qualifies
them as being a great "civilization".
I await the wise guy response to this post. I'll be surprised if you
can't dig one up from somewhere.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Rob coverdale wrote:
> >My dictionary definition of myth :
> >1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
> >supernatural events.
> >2) imaginary person or thing
> >
> >Atlantis could be said to be an 'imaginary thing' could it not?
> Would you call David Copperfield a mythological Charactor? Or even
> Gandalf? They are charactors in Novels.
Yes...and Novels are the product of what?...someone's *imagination* as
far as I know.
>This is not what most people mean when they use
> the word myth. The first definition is the common usage.
Just because one particular definition is the most common doesn't make
other definitions of the term any less valid. Why would they be
included in an Oxford dictionary otherwise?
--
Rob
Conrad Dunkerson
> I suspect you knew what I meant but couldn't resist the wise guy
> comment Conrad.
Actually, I assumed you meant that Crete was the only island
specific culture in history. If that ISN'T what you meant... well,
it wasn't readily apparent from the words you used.
> I prefer to spend the majority of my time learning about real life
> things like science and history rather than a fantasy world that
> never actually existed and is merely the product of one man's
> imagination.Becoming a so called "expert" on an imaginary land is
> not really something that people should aspire to in my opinion.
Does this fall under that category of "irrelevant" which you are so
fond of? Where exactly did this come from anyway? Doesn't seem to
have any connection to the discussion at hand.
> Notice I said island *specific* - meaning that the Minoan
> civilization was confined to Crete and wasn't just a branch of a
> neighbouring mainland one, which historically many others have
> been.
Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the only
culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be Rapa
Nui and Hawaii.
> Also, I realise my statement was a bit sweeping and I didn't make
> myself clear but I was really referring to ancient (BCE) history.
Actually, the modern era has eroded the distinctiveness of island
specific cultures. The majority of them WERE of ancient origin.
> So there have been hundreds of other seperate island based
> civilizations around the world have there? No, huge exaggeration
> there Conrad. I'm not talking about every little Pacific island
> populated by a few thousand primitive people who could not be
> considered to have been an independant and seperate*civilization*.
> At least not in the typical use of the term by historians and
> archaeologists.
Now you've lost me. How are these not civilizations? I >was<
talking about 'every little Pacific island civilization' (amongst
others) and thus stick by the figure of hundreds. If however these
are somehow not 'civilizations' by your definition (yet Crete was)
then we are dealing with a matter of semantics. However, the term
civilization in reference to a culture is generally defined;
"the total culture of a particular people, nation, period, etc.".
You seem to be combining that with connotations that would have been
better expressed as 'advanced' / 'civilized' / 'high' / et cetera
civilization.
> Ok so my statement was a little vague, but again - I meant a high,
> *golden* civilization.
> I think it's fair to say that Numenor was the first one of these
> in Middle-earth is it not?
Well, as they were the most 'advanced' human culture to that time it
is just a matter of raising the bar on what qualifies as a 'golden'
civilization to exclude everything except Numenor. However, your
original characterization of 'just hanging out in the woods and
following the Elves around' was a far cry from 'not a golden
civilization'. That original characterization was what I assumed
you were referring to and it was not true of the human cultures in
JRRT's stories prior to Numenor.
> So the people in Beleriand killed a few deer and sold them to the
> dwarves, and baked a few loaves of bread for them too - so what ?
> That hardly qualifies them as being a great "civilization".
Adding the word "great" does change the equation somewhat. Further,
they did considerably more than that. They developed iron-working
(though nowhere near the Dwarves' level of skill), domesticated
animals, developed agriculture, built defenses against Morgoth's
creatures, et cetera.
> I await the wise guy response to this post. I'll be surprised if
> you can't dig one up from somewhere.
Not my department. I took your statements at face value and noted
that they were incorrect on that basis. If you mean something other
than you are writing it needs to be fully spelled out to be
comprehensible in a text based medium.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the only
>culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
>neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be Rapa
>Nui and Hawaii.
Is Rapa Nui another name for Easter Island?
Öjevind
lurker@home
R. Vink wrote in message <382BD89D...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>
>
>Gordon Nash wrote:
>
>> >My dictionary definition of myth :
>> >1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>> >supernatural events.
>> >2) imaginary person or thing
>> >
>> >Atlantis could be said to be an 'imaginary thing' could it not?
>>
>> Would you call David Copperfield a mythological Charactor? Or even
Gandalf?
they use
>> the word myth. The first definition is the common usage.
>
> Most people I know use the word myth to denote an old tale or idea that
isn't
>true.
>
Do we actually know that people believed them, or just assume it? John Henry
and Paul Bunyan would probably qualify as modern myths, but nobody takes
them seriously. I've always thought they'd be seen as tall tales, even in
the time when they originated.
Conrad Dunkerson
news:1lWW3.1770$r_....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Is Rapa Nui another name for Easter Island?
Yep, that's the one. It's Tahitian, meaning 'Great Rapa' (Rapa
being a polynesian island that Easter Island was apparently similar
to). Seems a better 'name source' than Easter (for the day they
landed there).
Arkady
>
> Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:A5vW3.4722$An.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> > I don't think the civilisations are very comparable. Except in being
> >more advanced than their contempory civilisations.
>
> I still think there must have been a bit of influence from Crete on
> only island-specific one in history (not including the probably
> mythical Atlantis).
What?
Japan.
England.
100's in the Pacific.
Chris Kern
the following:
>>My dictionary definition of myth :
>>1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>>supernatural events.
>>2) imaginary person or thing
>>
>>Atlantis could be said to be an 'imaginary thing' could it not?
>
>Would you call David Copperfield a mythological Charactor? Or even Gandalf?
>They are charactors in Novels. This is not what most people mean when they use
>the word myth. The first definition is the common usage.
Another common usage is to denote a commonly believed thing that is
not true. For instance, "The idea that anybody recommends drinking 8
glasses of water a day is a myth."
-Chris
Ron Ploeg
The great civilisations of the Indonesian Archipelago...
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your service!
Coverdale
>
> > I suspect you knew what I meant but couldn't resist the wise guy
> > comment Conrad.
>
> Actually, I assumed you meant that Crete was the only island
> specific culture in history. If that ISN'T what you meant... well,
> it wasn't readily apparent from the words you used.
One thousand apologies.
> > I prefer to spend the majority of my time learning about real life
> > things like science and history rather than a fantasy world that
> > never actually existed and is merely the product of one man's
> > imagination.Becoming a so called "expert" on an imaginary land is
> > not really something that people should aspire to in my opinion.
>
> Does this fall under that category of "irrelevant" which you are so
> fond of? Where exactly did this come from anyway? Doesn't seem to
> have any connection to the discussion at hand.
Every word of a post doesn't have to be relevant to the subject
heading but it's preferrable if arguments are relevant to the initial
point that was made.
> > Notice I said island *specific* - meaning that the Minoan
> > civilization was confined to Crete and wasn't just a branch of a
> > neighbouring mainland one, which historically many others have
> > been.
>
> Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the only
> culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
> neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be Rapa
> Nui and Hawaii.
Oh yeah...the world famous civilization of Easter Island. I think
you'll find that Easter Island is more famous for its statues than the
people who lived there.
Right that's a couple of historically insignificant ones where are the
hundreds more?
You can't say every little island was a "civilization" because the
definition of the term changes as you go through history. There are
very few pacific islands that would have been as advanced and
civilized as much of Europe at any particular time in the last 4000
years so can they be considered a "civilization" when you look at
their European counterparts? Not really.
> > Also, I realise my statement was a bit sweeping and I didn't make
> > myself clear but I was really referring to ancient (BCE) history.
>
> Actually, the modern era has eroded the distinctiveness of island
> specific cultures. The majority of them WERE of ancient origin.
Nope. Don't agree although it depends on your definition of Ancient.
> > So there have been hundreds of other seperate island based
> > civilizations around the world have there? No, huge exaggeration
> > there Conrad. I'm not talking about every little Pacific island
> > populated by a few thousand primitive people who could not be
> > considered to have been an independant and seperate*civilization*.
> > At least not in the typical use of the term by historians and
> > archaeologists.
>
> Now you've lost me. How are these not civilizations? I >was<
> talking about 'every little Pacific island civilization' (amongst
> others) and thus stick by the figure of hundreds.
As I've already stated in another post, in the history books that I
read the term "civilization is usually only applied to well known and
influential nations that were ahead of their time. You don't read
about the civilization of the Yahooans on the little pacific island of
Yahoo or things like that. For some reason historians only tend to use
the term "civilization" when referring to the biggest and most well
known ones in history, at least they do in the books on this side of
the pond.
If however these are somehow not 'civilizations' by your definition
(yet Crete was)
> then we are dealing with a matter of semantics. However, the term
> civilization in reference to a culture is generally defined;
> "the total culture of a particular people, nation, period, etc.".
> You seem to be combining that with connotations that would have been
> better expressed as 'advanced' / 'civilized' / 'high' / et cetera
> civilization.
Ok so my statement was a little vague, but again - I meant a high
civilization.
> > So the people in Beleriand killed a few deer and sold them to the
> > dwarves, and baked a few loaves of bread for them too - so what ?
> > That hardly qualifies them as being a great "civilization".
>
> Adding the word "great" does change the equation somewhat. Further,
> they did considerably more than that. They developed iron-working
> (though nowhere near the Dwarves' level of skill), domesticated
> animals, developed agriculture, built defenses against Morgoth's
> creatures, et cetera.
No they only did all that in the algorithms of one man's mind.
> > I await the wise guy response to this post. I'll be surprised if
> > you can't dig one up from somewhere.
>
> Not my department.
Oh really ?
>I took your statements at face value and noted
> that they were incorrect on that basis.
I'll return the favour by nitpicking you when neccesary in future.
> If you mean something other than you are writing it needs to be
> fully spelled out to be comprehensible in a text based medium.
Don't patronise me.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> > > I still think there must have been a bit of influence from Crete
on
> > > Tolkien's Numenor. After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete
is the
> > > only island-specific one in history (not including the probably
> > > mythical Atlantis).
I'll repace here what Mr Dunkerson removed to reestablish the meaning
of my original post - "Minoan Crete was the first and only *golden*
civilization that was island specific..."
By *golden* I meant a world famous high civilization of antiquity. I
didn't mean recent "civilizations" if that's what you want to call
them because for the past 500 years or so most of the world, apart
possibly from Africa, could be said to come under that heading. That's
probably why historians only use the term to apply to the great
civilzations of ancient history (at least in English history books I
don't know about foreign ones).
> > Japan.
I was referring to ancient history.
> > England.
See above. And you don't here the term " great civilization of
England" used at all.
> > 100's in the Pacific
100's of great civilizations in the pacific? Yeah right...they must
have missed all of those out of my history books...
Seriously, historians tend not to use the actual term "civilization"
very much, other than for the obvious like Egypt, Rome, Greece etc. I
think you and Mr Dunkerson are getting a little confused you poor
dears. The term "civilization", in my experience, is generally used to
describe an influential nation that was ahead of it's time in that
particular era. It isn't generally used to describe every farty little
island in the world that had elements of civilization at a particular
point in history. The term actually means "advanced stage or system of
social development", however like I said it's usually only applied to
the MOST advanced nations of a certain era.
Subject finito.
--
Rob
Coverdale
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Pf8rODtEZotar1...@4ax.com...
> >Gordon Nash wrote:
No I wrote actually.
> >> >My dictionary definition of myth :
> >> >1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
> >> >supernatural events.
> >> >2) imaginary person or thing
> Definition 2) ?? Is an honest R. Nixon or a smart R. Reagan a myth
> or a lie?
Neither
> Are all myths lies?
They're not intended to mislead, so I suppose not.
> Is Harvey a myth?
Harvey who?
> OK! Your dictionary sucks!
No. My Oxford dictionary does not "suck" (which numbskull invented
that stupid phrase?)
Since some people seem to disagree with definition 2, I suggest they
contact Oxford University Press and explain why, in their wise and
learned opinion, this definition is inappropriate.
--
Rob
Conrad Dunkerson
> Seriously, historians tend not to use the actual term
> "civilization" very much, other than for the obvious like Egypt,
> Rome, Greece etc.
Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I've got dozens of books on Native
American cultures, and every one of them refers to the
"civilization" of these cultures. If you only read history books on
the cultures which formed the basis for so-called 'Western'
civilization then you are only going to hear about those cultures...
but that hardly changes the fact that the term 'civilization' is
commonly used to refer to virtually every human culture in the
history of the world.
> I think you and Mr Dunkerson are getting a little confused you
> poor dears.
If you want to use a limited definition of a term, that is fine...
it goes a long way towards validating your original claim (though
Japan still seems to disprove it even after all the new
qualifiers). However, pretending that others are somehow 'confused'
or 'incorrect' because they assumed you were using a broader and
more common >dictionary< definition of the term is just silly.
Douglas Henderson
Did the Polynesian island groups in the citation posses urban centers?
The root of civilization I would think lies in civitas or city, so
possessing and advanced urban or highly ordered social structure.
The problem with using " society in an advanced state of development "
is that it begs the questions of what constitutes and "advanced" state
of development.
For instance, although I would tend to limit it to cultures possessing
cities, it is used, for instance in Hallstat civilization which is not
on the same level as cultures possessing a polis (for what its worth,
when I studied Celtic Civilization, the term used for Halstatt was
culture, not civilization, despite the course title). If this citation
is right, then my criterion falls on its face.
Did the Mongols posses a "civilization" before they conquered China, or
only a "culture"
Was there a Viking "civilization"?
If that term is accepted for those groupings, than the Polynesians
certainly might qualify.
--
Douglas Henderson
Raven
nyhedsmeddelelse:80hpje$bdo$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> > Definition 2) ?? Is an honest R. Nixon or a smart R. Reagan a myth
> > or a lie?
> Neither
Oxymorons, then? >;-}
Harabanar.
David Sulger
>This is absolute nonsense. No one has
>been able to show whether Plato made it
>all up or merely passed on something he
>heard.
Agreed. I've always read that he got the idea from some sort of
Egyptian legend.
--Dave
the softrat
That's what _Plato_ said of Solon whom he said he was quoting. It like
the Red Book of Westmarch that Tolkien quotes.....
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
>
>Rob Coverdale wrote:
>> > 1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
>> > supernatural events.
>
>
>I'm not so sure. The Atlantis tale was not a "traditional" Greek one
>before Plato as far as I know, although I admit to not having
>studied the legend in much detail.
No "traditional" story is "traditional" before the first time it's told.
Homer's account of the Trojan War didn't become traditional until after he
told it.
Arkady
Ron Ploeg <hobb...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:382C436D...@wxs.nl...
> > >
> > > Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:A5vW3.4722$An.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> > >
> > > > I don't think the civilisations are very comparable. Except in being
> > > >more advanced than their contempory civilisations.
> > >
> > > Tolkien's Numenor. After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete is the
> > > only island-specific one in history (not including the probably
> > > mythical Atlantis).
> >
> >
> > Japan.
> > England.
> > 100's in the Pacific.
>
> The great civilisations of the Indonesian Archipelago...
Indiginous cultures of ancient Ceylon....
Arkady
>
> > > > I still think there must have been a bit of influence from Crete
> on
> > > > Tolkien's Numenor. After all, the Minoan civilization on Crete
> is the
> > > > only island-specific one in history (not including the probably
> > > > mythical Atlantis).
>
> of my original post - "Minoan Crete was the first and only *golden*
> civilization that was island specific..."
>
> By *golden* I meant a world famous high civilization of antiquity. I
> didn't mean recent "civilizations" if that's what you want to call
> them because for the past 500 years or so most of the world, apart
> possibly from Africa, could be said to come under that heading. That's
> probably why historians only use the term to apply to the great
> civilzations of ancient history (at least in English history books I
> don't know about foreign ones).
>
> > > Japan.
>
> I was referring to ancient history.
So was I. Learn alittle Japanese history, then get back to me.
> > > England.
>
> See above. And you don't here the term " great civilization of
> England" used at all.
You don't live in England then?
> > > 100's in the Pacific
>
> 100's of great civilizations in the pacific? Yeah right...they must
> have missed all of those out of my history books...
You think in a very Western way. It saddens me to see it.
> Seriously, historians tend not to use the actual term "civilization"
> very much, other than for the obvious like Egypt, Rome, Greece etc. I
> think you and Mr Dunkerson are getting a little confused you poor
> dears.
Are you trying to be provocative? Or are you naturally an arrogant little
shit?
The term "civilization", in my experience, is generally used to
> describe an influential nation that was ahead of it's time in that
> particular era. It isn't generally used to describe every farty little
> island in the world that had elements of civilization at a particular
> point in history. The term actually means "advanced stage or system of
> social development", however like I said it's usually only applied to
> the MOST advanced nations of a certain era.
And we are all supposed to accept this misinformation? Get real.
> Subject finito.
You state supposition and personal opinion as fact. You cannot be a member
of a serious debate, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. Unless provoked
further my contribution to this thread ends here.
Arkady
Coverdale mewed:
> > Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the only
> > culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
> > neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be Rapa
> > Nui and Hawaii.
>
> Oh yeah...the world famous civilization of Easter Island. I think
> you'll find that Easter Island is more famous for its statues than the
> people who lived there.
And the Ancient Egyptians are remembered for the people rather than the
pyramids?
Coverdale
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80hpjk$bdo$7...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
> > "civilization" very much, other than for the obvious like Egypt,
> > Rome, Greece etc.
>
> American cultures, and every one of them refers to the
> "civilization" of these cultures.
No way were the Native Americans a civilization.
> If you only read history books on
> the cultures which formed the basis for so-called 'Western'
> civilization then you are only going to hear about those cultures...
I don't only read Western history.
> but that hardly changes the fact that the term 'civilization' is
> commonly used to refer to virtually every human culture in the
> history of the world.
Not in my experience. Historians tend to only use the term when
referring to an influential people/nation that were ahead of their
time. You're talking about cultures with some elements of civility or
civilization.
> > I think you and Mr Dunkerson are getting a little confused you
> > poor dears.
>
> If you want to use a limited definition of a term, that is fine...
> it goes a long way towards validating your original claim (though
> Japan still seems to disprove it even after all the new
> qualifiers).
Japan was not particularly advanced compared to the rest of the
world at any particular time in history as far as I know. Anyway
Japan is spread over "islands" that's plural - I was referring to an
"island" - singular. Subtle but significant difference.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Coverdale mewed:
>
> > > Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the
only
> > > culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
> > > neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be
Rapa
> > > Nui and Hawaii.
> >
> > Oh yeah...the world famous civilization of Easter Island. I think
> > you'll find that Easter Island is more famous for its statues than
the
> > people who lived there.
>
the
> pyramids?
Yes.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Indiginous cultures of ancient Ceylon....
Not a civilization.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
news:80ijfp$3h8...@news.uswest.net...
> In article <80ffq2$1pmr$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>, "Coverdale"
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote:
> >
> >Rob Coverdale wrote:
> >> > My dictionary definition of myth :
> >> > 1) Traditional tale containing beliefs about ancient times or
> >> > supernatural events.
> >
> >> This fits the Atlantis story well enough.
> >
> >I'm not so sure. The Atlantis tale was not a "traditional" Greek
> >one before Plato as far as I know, although I admit to not having
> >studied the legend in much detail.
>
> No "traditional" story is "traditional" before the first time it's
> told. Homer's account of the Trojan War didn't become traditional
> until after he told it.
I see where you're coming from but can a legend like Atlantis be
considered "traditional" when it's basically become a global legend?
I think a "global traditional tale" is a bit of a contradiction in
terms isn't
it?
--
Rob
Coverdale
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:32:24 -0500 (EST), or...@webtv.net (David
> Sulger) wrote:
>
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >>This is absolute nonsense. No one has
> >>been able to show whether Plato made it
> >>all up or merely passed on something he
> >>heard.
> >
> >Agreed. I've always read that he got the idea from some sort of
> >Egyptian legend.
> >
> >--Dave
>
> That's what _Plato_ said of Solon whom he said he was quoting. It
> like the Red Book of Westmarch that Tolkien quotes.....
Apparently Critias told Plato that Solon had been told the tale in
Egypt.
--
Rob
Coverdale
> In article <80h02k$2pnb$2...@quince.news.easynet.net>, "Coverdale"
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Gordon Nash <gord...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:19991111225053...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> >
> > > Rob coverdale wrote:
> > > even Gandalf? They are charactors in Novels.
> >
> So are mythologies
Like I said - "myth"(ology) can mean "imaginary thing".
> and scientific theories.
Are they "imaginary" ?, surely imagination is the product of the
creative part of the brain where as scientific theories derive from
the logical part.
--
Rob
Coverdale
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:6hktOKmfhd3tFQ...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:32:24 -0500 (EST), or...@webtv.net (David
> Sulger) wrote:
>
> >Michael Martinez wrote:
> >
> >>This is absolute nonsense. No one has
> >>been able to show whether Plato made it
> >>all up or merely passed on something he
> >>heard.
> >
> >Agreed. I've always read that he got the idea from some sort of
> >Egyptian legend.
> That's what _Plato_ said of Solon whom he said he was quoting. It
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> So was I. Learn alittle Japanese history, then get back to me.
You haven't got a clue about what's "ancient history".
> > See above. And you don't here the term " great civilization of
> > England" used at all.
> You don't live in England then?
Yes, and the term "civilization of England" is not used.
> > 100's of great civilizations in the pacific? Yeah right...they
> >must have missed all of those out of my history books...
> You think in a very Western way. It saddens me to see it.
The statement was true. I stand by it.
> Are you trying to be provocative? Or are you naturally an arrogant
> little shit?
Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
> > The term "civilization", in my experience, is generally used to
> > describe an influential nation that was ahead of it's time in that
> > particular era. It isn't generally used to describe every farty
> > little island in the world that had elements of civilization at a
> > particular point in history. The term actually means "advanced
> > stage or system of social development", however like I said it's
> > usually only applied to the MOST advanced nations of a certain
era.
> And we are all supposed to accept this misinformation? Get real.
I said "in my experience" if you actually read it. I stand by this.
> You state supposition and personal opinion as fact.
Nope, not at all. See above.
> You cannot be a member
> of a serious debate, as you have repeatedly demonstrated
At least I'm willing to get involved in a debate. You're obviously
not intelligent enough to be able to- no wonder you're in MM's
killfile.
> Unless provoked further my contribution to this thread ends here.
No your contribution ends here.
P
L
O
N
K
(Splash)
--
Rob
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
>> And the Ancient Egyptians are remembered for the people rather than
>> the pyramids?
> Yes.
For historians and people with interest in archeology, perhaps. The ordinary
guy from the street knows the pyramids and perhaps the Sfinx.
/Jonas
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>Did the Polynesian island groups in the citation posses urban centers?
>The root of civilization I would think lies in civitas or city, so
>possessing and advanced urban or highly ordered social structure.
>
>The problem with using " society in an advanced state of development "
>is that it begs the questions of what constitutes and "advanced" state
>of development.
>
>For instance, although I would tend to limit it to cultures possessing
>cities, it is used, for instance in Hallstat civilization which is not
>on the same level as cultures possessing a polis (for what its worth,
>when I studied Celtic Civilization, the term used for Halstatt was
>culture, not civilization, despite the course title). If this citation
>is right, then my criterion falls on its face.
>
>Did the Mongols posses a "civilization" before they conquered China, or
>only a "culture"
>
>Was there a Viking "civilization"?
>
>If that term is accepted for those groupings, than the Polynesians
>certainly might qualify.
I would say that the Mongols and Vikings of course had "cultures" before
their respective periods of expansion (all peoples do), but that they had
not evolved the higher kind of culture called "civilization". Still, it is
arguable that Tahiti and Easter Island (or Rapa Nui - thanks for the
information, Conrad) had evolved civilization - erecting all those statues
on Easter Iisland definitely demanded a very high degree of organization. As
for Japan, Bali, Celebes, Java, Britain and so on - they must definitely be
described as civilizations.
My favourite Civilization, by the way, is the one produced by Microprose.
"Civilization III" is scheduled for Christmas, though I have no doubt it
will be delayed. Still, I am looking forward to it.
Öjevind
Alatar
Coverdale wrote:
<snip>
>Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
>
Please keep your personal flames and your severly innacurate and unfounded
ideas about class out of discussions in this group. (I am refering to both
this post and the one about higher class people being more intelligent)
--
Alatar
Conrad Dunkerson
> No way were the Native Americans a civilization.
Even by your rather limited definition of 'civilization' they
definitely were. Your 'vast' knowledge of history apparently
doesn't extend to include the name "Teotihuacan".
> Not in my experience. Historians tend to only use the term when
> referring to an influential people/nation that were ahead of their
> time. You're talking about cultures with some elements of civility
> or civilization.
Civility is something individuals have, not cultures. And the
cultures of Japan and Teotihuacan were certainly influential and
'ahead of their time'.
> Japan was not particularly advanced compared to the rest of the
> world at any particular time in history as far as I know.
So much for your knowledge of non-western history. If nothing else
they seem to have come up with pottery a couple thousand years
before the rest of us... making them "advanced", and "ahead of their
time".
> Anyway Japan is spread over "islands" that's plural - I was
> referring to an "island" - singular. Subtle but significant
> difference.
Subtle but previously unstated difference... which unfortunately
also rules out the Minoans, who habitted Crete and its surrounding
islands.
Coverdale
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote :
> I would say that the Mongols and Vikings of course had "cultures"
> before their respective periods of expansion (all peoples do), but
> that they had not evolved the higher kind of culture called
>"civilization". Still, it is arguable that Tahiti and Easter Island
>(or Rapa Nui - thanks for the information, Conrad) had evolved
> civilization - erecting all those statues on Easter Iisland
> definitely demanded a very high degree of organization.
It's a bit of a stretch to call Easter island a civilization and
there is no evidence that the Moai statues were erected by them.
Anyway getting a bunch of men together to carve statues and
hoist them upright does not require the social infrastructure
of a civilization to do it.....Stonehenge for example ?
Civilization is really a difficult term to pin an exact definition on
which is I think where the problem lies. Is a civilization any
nation that has moved beyond primitive hunter gathering ? Or
does it take much more than that to qualify for the label ? (As it
would seem to with historians).
> As for Japan, Bali, Celebes, Java, Britain and so on - they must
> definitely be described as civilizations.
That's a little imprecise isn't it ? Was Britain a civilization
before the Roman occupation ? Or before the Saxon invasion ?
>My favourite Civilization, by the way, is the one produced by
>Microprose.
>Civilization III" is scheduled for Christmas, though I have no
>doubt it will be delayed. Still, I am looking forward to it.
Is that the one where you get to play at little insignificant (ahem)
"civilizations" on little pacific islands? Or has it more to do with
Romans, Greeks, Babylonians etc...
I wonder.....
--
Rob
Victor Michael Ganata
> No way were the Native Americans a civilization.
True, they were not a single civilization. But can you truly say that
the Aztec, Maya, and Inca empires were not civilizations? Or how about
the people who built those enormous mounds in the present day U.S.?
> I don't only read Western history.
But there's still an important distinction: do you read non-Western
history written by non-Westerners? If not, you aren't really getting a
good perspective.
Victor Michael Ganata
> Oh yeah...the world famous civilization of Easter Island. I think
> you'll find that Easter Island is more famous for its statues than the
> people who lived there.
True, but this doesn't discount the idea that it was a product of a
civilization that has since vanished. You don't look at Italy and
scoff at the idea that a great civilization once thrived there. No
one has come up with a conclusive theory as to how these statues got
there. At the least, setting them up seemed to involve some sort of
technology and engineering skills, which many take to imply that the
builders must've had a civilization.
> You can't say every little island was a "civilization" because the
> definition of the term changes as you go through history. There are
> very few pacific islands that would have been as advanced and
> civilized as much of Europe at any particular time in the last 4000
> years so can they be considered a "civilization" when you look at
> their European counterparts? Not really.
I find it a little provincial that you insist on comparing
other world civilizations with those in Europe. Civilization didn't
even start in Europe, and two of the most successful and long-lived examples
of civilizations are in Asia.
On the matter of the definition of civilization: I think the only
useful way to discuss this is to use the definition that is in current
usage. To insist on using outdated, non-mainstream definitions is
like insisting that astronomers use the Ptolemaic theory of the solar
system. You're not going to get much useful work done, and no one
else in your field will know what the hell you're talking about.
Quickly scanning a dictionary, the only requirement for a civilization
is that they documented their history. Although the following points
can easily be contested, the fact that a culture can write has great
implications. One of which is the assumption that they were no longer
hunter/gatherers and had made the transition to agriculture. This
transition to agriculture probably mandated the formation of cities,
leading to laws, religion, city/states, armies, conquest, etc., etc.
The other implication of writing is that there was probably
significant trade going on--most writing systems arose for accounting
purposes. I think that most of the posters have been using the term
in this sense, not just arbitrarily.
It's quite possible that the only reason we can't compare the ancient
Pacific civilizations to those of Europe is because we can't recover
any records. Large slabs of rock are not as easy to find on a Pacific
Island, so most records were probably made on very biodegradable
substances. And while paper in the Middle East survived, this was
because of the lack of humidity. What little we Westerners do know
could indicate that they were in fact more advanced than their
European counterparts in some ways--in ancient times, the Malays and
other Pacific Island peoples had likely spread from Madagascar all the
way to near South America. Compare this to how Europe had just
managed to cross the Atlantic and establish surviving colonies just
barely five centuries ago. And from what little I know about it,
sailing across an ocean is not trivial and requires a lot of
knowledge, which again implies some of the criteria for a
civilization.
>> > Also, I realise my statement was a bit sweeping and I didn't make
>> > myself clear but I was really referring to ancient (BCE) history.
>>
>> Actually, the modern era has eroded the distinctiveness of island
>> specific cultures. The majority of them WERE of ancient origin.
> Nope. Don't agree although it depends on your definition of Ancient.
I find it a little silly to use 1 CE as some sort of demarcation
point, just because one of several world civilizations finds it so
important. I imagine somewhere close to 75% of the world wouldn't
care less if this ridiculous count of time hadn't been imposed on them
in quite recent history (often within just this past century--yay,
just in time for Y2K)
> As I've already stated in another post, in the history books that I
> read the term "civilization is usually only applied to well known and
> influential nations that were ahead of their time. You don't read
> about the civilization of the Yahooans on the little pacific island of
> Yahoo or things like that. For some reason historians only tend to use
> the term "civilization" when referring to the biggest and most well
> known ones in history, at least they do in the books on this side of
> the pond.
Well, I imagine these must be European historians and not world
historians. They also sound a little out of date, as I have never
come across a current history book that uses this definition. And how
do you measure how "ahead of its time" a civilization was? To describe
only "well-known" civilizations seems a little too arbitrary to be a
useful criterion. If that were the case, several (not "ancient" BCE)
civilizations which the West is not familiar with would easily be
excluded, simply because of an arbitrary distinction, even though they
meet the other criteria quite readily.
> Ok so my statement was a little vague, but again - I meant a high
> civilization.
How do you measure whether a civilization is "high" or "low"? Amount
of written documentation (which is somewhat useless because of the
difference in quality of media)? Territory? Population? Number of
people they killed?
The only use that I have seen for the distinction of "high" or "low"
is by people who want to make excuses for massacaring other people.
Let's just wipe them out, they're only a "low" civilization. Or
they're not a civilization at all. Forgive me if I'm a little wary of
such labelling.
Coverdale
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:80jku7$1mao$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
>
> definitely were. Your 'vast' knowledge of history apparently
> doesn't extend to include the name "Teotihuacan".
Thats in Mexico. I assumed you were talking about North
American Indians. You probably where I expect. I'll bet
I know more about Teotihuacan than you.
> > Not in my experience. Historians tend to only use the term when
> > referring to an influential people/nation that were ahead of their
> > time. You're talking about cultures with some elements of civility
> > or civilization.
>
>And the cultures of Japan and Teotihuacan were certainly
influential and 'ahead of their time'.
Japan at which point in history. You're being IMPRECISE.
Teotihucan was not particularly ahead of its time on a world scale.
> > Japan was not particularly advanced compared to the rest of the
> > world at any particular time in history as far as I know.
>
> So much for your knowledge of non-western history. If nothing else
> they seem to have come up with pottery a couple thousand years
> before the rest of us... making them "advanced", and "ahead of their
> time".
Pottery for christs sake???...oh yeah....that's the essential part
of a social infrastructure. Get real man.
Anyway I said compared to the rest of the world. Or more precisely
compared to the most advanced nations in Europe.
> > Anyway Japan is spread over "islands" that's plural - I was
> > referring to an "island" - singular. Subtle but significant
> > difference.
>
> Subtle but previously unstated difference
No - my original statement said "island". Can't you read ?
>..which unfortunately also rules out the Minoans, who
> habitted Crete and its surrounding islands.
The Minoans were based on Crete and the civilization arose
on Crete. It was the centre of their civilization.
Right.... try again Conrad you might beat me...but don't bet on it..
--
Rob
Coverdale
Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:80k9vp$gk4$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Coverdale wrote (after being provoked severely):
> >Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
> This is no place for class predjudice (or any other kind of
predjudice).
I was provoked into that one. I couldn't resist it.
You're the one with the inaccurate and naive opinions not me.
--
Rob
Coverdale
Victor Michael Ganata <asw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:80kdvk$kcg$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I find it a little provincial that you insist on comparing
> other world civilizations with those in Europe.Civilization didn't
> even start in Europe, and two of the most successful and
> long-lived examples of civilizations are in Asia.
I was only using Europe as an example to compare to insignificant
little pacific islands. I didn't need the mini history lesson either.
[Snip of long rambling epistle]
> >> Actually, the modern era has eroded the distinctiveness of island
> >> specific cultures. The majority of them WERE of ancient origin.
>
> > Nope. Don't agree although it depends on your definition of
> > Ancient.
>
> I find it a little silly to use 1 CE as some sort of demarcation
> point, just because one of several world civilizations finds it so
> important.
I didn't say 1CE was the boundary if you look. I think the boundary
line for "ancient" civilizations is around the fall of the Roman
Empire and the beginning of a swing to Northern European
dominance away from the Mediterranean.
> > As I've already stated in another post, in the history books that
> >I read the term "civilization is usually only applied to well
>>known and influential nations that were ahead of their time.
>>You don't read about the civilization of the Yahooans on the little
>>pacific island of Yahoo or things like that. For some reason
>>historians only tend to use the term "civilization" when referring
>>to the biggest and most well known ones in history, at least they
>>do in the books on this side of the pond.
> Well, I imagine these must be European historians and not world
> historians. They also sound a little out of date, as I have never
> come across a current history book that uses this definition.
It's not a "definition" as you put it, I just find that more
insignificant nations get referred to as "peoples" or "cultures".
>And how do you measure how "ahead of its time" a civilization was?
I generally mean "in an advanced stage of society compared
to other nations of the world at that point in time".
> > Ok so my statement was a little vague, but again - I meant a high
> > civilization.
> How do you measure whether a civilization is "high" or "low"?
>Amount of written documentation (which is somewhat useless
>because of the difference in quality of media)? Territory?
> Population? Number of people they killed?
This is just ridiculous nitpicking. High as in "advanced compared to
other nations of the world in that period of time".
And written documentation is certainly not the definition of a
civilization Victor. Wherever you got that from is just plain wrong.
> The only use that I have seen for the distinction of "high" or "low"
> is by people who want to make excuses for massacaring other people.
> Let's just wipe them out, they're only a "low" civilization. Or
> they're not a civilization at all. Forgive me if I'm a little wary
> of such labelling.
No you've got totally the wrong idea. I meant high as in "famous"
civilization. It wasn't some kind of racial thing. Don't you start
for crying out loud. I've got enough on my plate with the class thing.
Why do people keep picking me up on every single thing I write ?
I'm getting pissed off with it. Just pack it in will you all ? I want
to discuss interesting things without someone pathetically nitpicking
every word I write and thus starting a long and pointless argument.
--
Rob
the softrat
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:6hktOKmfhd3tFQ...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:32:24 -0500 (EST), or...@webtv.net (David
>> Sulger) wrote:
>> >Michael Martinez wrote:
>> >>This is absolute nonsense. No one has
>> >>been able to show whether Plato made it
>> >>all up or merely passed on something he
>> >>heard.
>> >Agreed. I've always read that he got the idea from some sort of
>> >Egyptian legend.
>> That's what _Plato_ said of Solon whom he said he was quoting. It
>> like the Red Book of Westmarch that Tolkien quotes.....
>
>Apparently Critias told Plato that Solon had been told the tale in
>Egypt.
Yeah, but the dialogue was written by Plato! It expresses
philosophical 'truths', not necessarily historical 'truths'. (It's
just a nice story.)
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
the softrat
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Like I said - "myth"(ology) can mean "imaginary thing".
>
>> and scientific theories.
>
>Are they "imaginary" ?, surely imagination is the product of the
>creative part of the brain where as scientific theories derive from
>the logical part.
Scientific theories originate in the 'imaginary' part and are tested
in the 'logical' part.
the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
Coverdale
> in the 'logical' part.
>
That's just an old wives tale.
--
Rob
D. Henderson
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology: 1980
"...possessed at an early date what most theorists regard for the
emergence of civilization:efficient methods of food production, and
environment favourable to the large scale use of these methods and a
developed manufacturing technology."
The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilizations: 1980 (edited by Arthur
Cottrell)
"Indeed the concept of "civilization i s perplexingly difficult to
define adequately.
...It is important to realize that many of the features which we think
of as typical of civilization such as the existence of writing,
monumental architecture or a developed art style, does not need to be
accompanied by large urban settlements. The culture of the Maya of
Mesoamerica, like that of Khmer Cambodia in the eleventh century AD
has sometimes been called a "civilization without cities". Conversly
early settlements of large size, such as Jericho and Catal Huyuk, many
not show accompanying features such as to justify the term
"civilization".
..."It was perhaps for this reason the anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn
suggested a much simpler, rather unsophisticated but eminently usable
definition...characterized by at least two of the following features:
Towns upward of, say, 50000 inhabitants, a written language and
monumental ceremonial centres."
Pp 265-266.
If you say that Japan in the Nara or Heian (7th to 12th century)
period was not civilized or was not a civilization then Arkady is
right and there is no point in talking to you.
--
\/ \/ \/ \/
Sindamor Pandaturion
Alatar
Coverdale wrote:
>
>Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:80k9vp$gk4$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>
>> >Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
>
>> This is no place for class predjudice (or any other kind of
>predjudice).
>
>I was provoked into that one. I couldn't resist it.
That excuses the flame, but not the expression of predjudice. There's no
need to bring up social generalisations when insulting an individual.
>You're the one with the inaccurate and naive opinions not me.
One of my character traits is that I rarely express serious _opinions_ about
anything. In my discussions with you about class I have stated nothing but
previously proven, widely accepted facts.
--
Alatar
the softrat
Henderson) wrote:
>The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilizations: 1980 (edited by Arthur
>Cottrell)
>
>"Indeed the concept of "civilization i s perplexingly difficult to
>define adequately.
Yeah! So let's all us geniuses waste bandwidth bickering about it!
May the Farce Be With You
the softrat
-----
mummering sadly in the drowning C++'s of muddy earth
the softrat
Well, old rats believe it too!
Flame of the West
> >
> >> This is no place for class predjudice (or any other kind of
> >predjudice).
Besides, name me three working-class people as intolerably stupid
as Donald Trump. Anyone thinking of voting for him for President
should have his or her registration revoked.
--
-- FotW
"Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes."
JRR Tolkien
Randy Simcox
> >Besides, name me three working-class people as intolerably stupid
> >as Donald Trump. Anyone thinking of voting for him for President
> >should have his or her registration revoked.
>
>
rotflol
David Sulger
>No way were the Native Americans a
>civilization.
The Mayans, who possesed knowledge of mathematics and astronomy greater
than that of Europe of the time were certainly a civilization. I would
also credit the Aztecs and Incans with having developed civilizations as
well. All three groups are considered to be Native American peoples.
--Dave
David Sulger
>Or how about the people who built those
>enormous mounds in the present day
>U.S.?
I believe they are referred to a the Hopwell culture.
--Dave
Joe Bader
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 19:19:59 -0000, "Coverdale"
<cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
<<snip>>
j...@primary.net
Joe Bader
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>> No "traditional" story is "traditional" before the first time it's
>> told. Homer's account of the Trojan War didn't become traditional
>> until after he told it.
>
>I see where you're coming from but can a legend like Atlantis be
>considered "traditional" when it's basically become a global legend?
Yes. It's tradition. :)
--
\\ // 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...............................................
Michael Martinez
>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:32:24 -0500 (EST), or...@webtv.net (David
>Sulger) wrote:
>
>>
>>Agreed. I've always read that he got the idea from some sort of
>>Egyptian legend.
>
>the Red Book of Westmarch that Tolkien quotes.....
No one has been able to show that Plato was making it up.
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez <Mic...@xenite.org> wrote in message
>> and scientific theories.
>
>Are they "imaginary" ?, surely imagination is the product of the
>creative part of the brain where as scientific theories derive from
>the logical part.
One cannot theorize if one cannot imagine.
Michael Martinez
Prembone
<jsol...@erols.com> wrote:
>Besides, name me three working-class people as intolerably stupid
>as Donald Trump. Anyone thinking of voting for him for President
>should have his or her registration revoked.
Funny you should mention "The Donald." (Does he really deserve to be
given an honorific title similar to The Elton's, though? I think not.
For one thing, The Elton **does** have intelligence.) When I saw the
threads referring to intelligence and wealth, I thought, "Huh. Donald
Trump. Proof the two don't always go hand in hand."
This is a little frightening, Flame. Next thing you know, it's world
peace, and then where will we all be? Unemployed.
"I **really** wish I'd burnt the Red Book." -- Frodo's Ghost
MythTakes: Tolkien Parody http://mythtakes.tsx.org
Ole and Sven and the Lutefisk of Doom http://olesven.tsx.org
Arkady
> > >must have missed all of those out of my history books...
>
> > You think in a very Western way. It saddens me to see it.
>
> The statement was true. I stand by it.
>
> > Are you trying to be provocative? Or are you naturally an arrogant
> > little shit?
>
> Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
Working class, yes. University degree, yes.
> > You cannot be a member
> > of a serious debate, as you have repeatedly demonstrated
>
> At least I'm willing to get involved in a debate. You're obviously
> not intelligent enough to be able to- no wonder you're in MM's
> killfile.
Fool.
> > Unless provoked further my contribution to this thread ends here.
>
> No your contribution ends here.
>
> P
>
> L
>
> O
>
> N
>
> K
>
> (Splash)
*spank*
Arkady
> <snip>
> >Oh! This sounds like working class, no brain, numbskull talk to me.
> >
> ideas about class out of discussions in this group. (I am refering to both
> this post and the one about higher class people being more intelligent)
Seconded.
Arkady
>
> Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eEcX3.14021$bp3.6...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >
> > Coverdale mewed:
> >
> > > > Ok... that's what I assumed you meant. Crete is FAR from the
> only
> > > > culture which was island specific and not just a branch of a
> > > > neighboring mainland one. The obvious / best known would be
> Rapa
> > > > Nui and Hawaii.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah...the world famous civilization of Easter Island. I think
> > > you'll find that Easter Island is more famous for its statues than
> the
> > > people who lived there.
> >
> the
> > pyramids?
>
> Yes.
Well there goes your credibilty.
Arkady
>
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:80kcjk$6nf$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > No way were the Native Americans a civilization.
> >
> > definitely were. Your 'vast' knowledge of history apparently
> > doesn't extend to include the name "Teotihuacan".
>
> Thats in Mexico. I assumed you were talking about North
> American Indians. You probably where I expect. I'll bet
> I know more about Teotihuacan than you.
*guffaw*
> > > Not in my experience. Historians tend to only use the term when
> > > referring to an influential people/nation that were ahead of their
> > > time. You're talking about cultures with some elements of civility
> > > or civilization.
> >
> >And the cultures of Japan and Teotihuacan were certainly
> influential and 'ahead of their time'.
>
> Japan at which point in history. You're being IMPRECISE.
Hypocrite.
> >..which unfortunately also rules out the Minoans, who
> > habitted Crete and its surrounding islands.
>
> The Minoans were based on Crete and the civilization arose
> on Crete. It was the centre of their civilization.
The Japanese were based on Honshu and the civilization arose on Honshu. It
was the centre of their civilization.
> Right.... try again Conrad you might beat me...but don't bet on it..
Fool. You have no argument, no supporters and no credibility. Your arrogance
in the face of defeat beggars belief.
Coverdale
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > And the Ancient Egyptians are remembered for the people
>>> rather than the pyramids?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Well there goes your credibilty.
You really haven't got a fucking clue have you? Unintelligent little
plebs think that all there is to Ancient Egypt is the Pyramids and the
Sphinx. Academics and other intelligent people think somewhat
differently. TW@T
Intellectual me
Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote :
> > Thats in Mexico. I assumed you were talking about North
> > American Indians. You probably where I expect. I'll bet
> > I know more about Teotihuacan than you.
>
> *guffaw*
OK THEN. Teotihuacan Test for you and Conrad. Level : Difficult
1) At it's peak how many individual dwellings in how many apartments
did the city have ?
2)How many subsidiary temples ?
3) How many factories ?
4) What is the inclination of the street of the dead east of north ?
5)What are the estimated weights of the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon ?
6)What is the angle of the sides of the Pyramid of the Sun
7)What is the perimeter of the base of the Pyramid of the Sun
8)What is situated around a thousand feet south of the west face of
the Pyramid of the Sun ?
9)What is the estimated workforce used to construct the Pyramids of
Sun and Moon
10)What is the estimated time of the construction of the Pyramids of
Sun And Moon ?
11) What is the height of the Pyramid of the sun ?
12) Name seven things that the 'factories' specialized in.
Right then. Give it your best shot guys. I'll be watching other
newsgroups to check that you don't cheat. I'll give you a few hours.
(guffaw in advance)
--
Rob.
Alatar
Intellectual me wrote:
<snip>
>OK THEN. Teotihuacan Test for you and Conrad. Level : Difficult
>
>1) At it's peak how many individual dwellings in how many apartments
>did the city have ?
<snip questions requiring nothing but numbered aswers>
>12) Name seven things that the 'factories' specialized in.
>
Oh please. Put that book away. Anyone can pull a dozen simple questions out
of couples of pages. The sheer simplicity of the questions makes me doubt
that you have access to any in-depth information.
>Right then. Give it your best shot guys.
I seriously doubt anyone will waste time answering your below GCSE level
questions.
> I'll be watching other newsgroups to check that you don't cheat.
I wouldn't call that an intelligent use of time.
> I'll give you a few hours.
This is usenet. People don't sit here constantly. And since Cornrad lives in
America he was most likely still alseep when you wrote this.
>(guffaw in advance)
You sound as confident as the balrog that flew off a cliff.
--
Alatar
abadonn
<sons...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Did the Polynesian island groups in the citation posses urban centers?
>The root of civilization I would think lies in civitas or city, so
>possessing and advanced urban or highly ordered social structure.
>
Perhaps the root of civilisation may have been in "cities" in the west
but in this case you have it the wrong way around. Civilisations
PERMIT cities to exist...because without one a city wouldnt work. But
they are not NEEDED for cities.
The reason that Polynesian Island Groups didn't have "urban centres"
is because the very nature of these small(ish) islands precluded large
urban areas becoming easy to function. Civilisation does NOT mean..any
bunch of people who live in defined urban areas of 10000 people or
more.
>The problem with using " society in an advanced state of development "
>is that it begs the questions of what constitutes and "advanced" state
>of development.
Agreed
abadonn
Henderson) wrote:
>
>Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology: 1980
>
> SNIP !!
>
>>right and there is no point in talking to you.
Oh thank you...a voice of intelligence in the face of Coverdales
ignorance and prejudice...
abadonn
grimgard
Coverdale wrote:
> You really haven't got a fucking clue have you? Unintelligent little
> plebs think that all there is to Ancient Egypt is the Pyramids and the
> Sphinx. Academics and other intelligent people think somewhat
> differently. TW@T
These are the kinds of posts that are making you so popular on this
newsgroup. Conrad is right, whatever your thoughts on civilization, you
apparently have no grasp
whatsoever on the concept of civility. I've never actually killfiled
anyone before, but you may very well be the first.
grimgard
Jonas Thorell
Coverdale wrote:
> You really haven't got a fucking clue have you? Unintelligent little
> plebs think that all there is to Ancient Egypt is the Pyramids and the
> Sphinx. Academics and other intelligent people think somewhat
> differently. TW@T
Correction: people who knows nothing about ancient Egypt does
not know of all the details and thus only sees the most
obvious things, i.e. The Pyramids and the Sphinx. Most people
don't know how the Egyptians religious beliefs were, or how
the class-system worked or the names of the Gods. That doesn't
make them unintelligent, just not knowledgable in how things
were in Ancient Egypt. A bit like you really, which has no
concept whatsoever how things are NOW.
If you're so intelligent you're not showing it very well. But to
quote Isaac Azimov (from memory so it is not perfect):
"I'm very good at writing essays and books and to take
a known theory and extrapolate it into the future and
make it plausible but if my car brakes down I wouldn't
know how to fix it. Does that then make me a genious
or a retard? As for all people, neither. Rather somewhere
in the middle and I have my strengths and weaknesses."
/Jonas
Flame of the West
> Funny you should mention "The Donald." (Does he really deserve to be
> given an honorific title similar to The Elton's, though? I think not.
> For one thing, The Elton **does** have intelligence.) When I saw the
> threads referring to intelligence and wealth, I thought, "Huh. Donald
> Trump. Proof the two don't always go hand in hand."
They say that "great minds run in the same channel," and also that
"fools think alike." I wonder which one applies here? ;-)
> This is a little frightening, Flame. Next thing you know, it's world
> peace, and then where will we all be? Unemployed.
Even scarier scenario: JRRT comes back from the grave, sent by
Ilúvatar to keep an eye on PJ, and settles all outstanding questions.
("OF COURSE they have wings. Can't you read?") He'd put both
NGs out of business!
--
-- FotW
"'Gandalf!' I said at last . . . Did he say, 'Hullo, Pippin!
This is a pleasant surprise!'? No, indeed! He said:
'Get up, you tom-fool of a Took!'"
Rob
>
> Intellectual me wrote:
> <snip>
> >OK THEN. Teotihuacan Test for you and Conrad. Level : Difficult
> Oh please. Put that book away.The sheer simplicity of the
questions makes me doubt that you have access to any in-depth
information.
Simple questions hey ? HAH ! Hardly. Give me the answers then.
I decided on short but difficult questions to save typing time
actually.
> >Right then. Give it your best shot guys.
> I seriously doubt anyone will waste time answering your below
>GCSE level questions.
ROTFLMAO !....
Oh yeah! ...the exams must have been a real pig at your school then.
> > I'll be watching other newsgroups to check that you don't cheat.
>
> I wouldn't call that an intelligent use of time.
I wouldn't call spending all your spare time learning about a daft
fantasy kingdom intelligent use of your time.
> > I'll give you a few hours.
>
> This is usenet. People don't sit here constantly. And since Cornrad
>lives in America he was most likely still alseep when you wrote this.
I am fully aware of the time difference with the States darling and I
didn't put a definition on "few hours" did I ?
I'm still waiting CONRAD & RUSKY.Struggling are we???
--
Rob
D. Henderson
Do not feed the trolls,
howsoever they morph.
--
\/ \/ \/ \/
Sindamor Pandaturion
Alatar
Rob wrote:
>
>Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:80mes8$vob$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Intellectual me wrote:
<snip>
>
minutes to look up the answers to all your questions on the internet. Thats
doesn't make me intelligent, it means I can use a search engine.
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Congratulations for becoming the
first person I've ever killfiled. Don't bother replying to me, even if you
morph your nick again.
and grow up
--
Alatar
Victor Michael Ganata
> I was only using Europe as an example to compare to insignificant
> little pacific islands. I didn't need the mini history lesson either.
What do you mean by "significant" anyway (with respect to
culture/civilization/whatever-you-want-to-call-it)? That is probably
the crux of the misunderstanding.
> I didn't say 1CE was the boundary if you look. I think the boundary
> line for "ancient" civilizations is around the fall of the Roman
> Empire and the beginning of a swing to Northern European
> dominance away from the Mediterranean.
I had thought that by ancient, you meant BCE, that's all. The fall of
which Roman Empire? What makes it so special that it should be a
demarcation point?
> It's not a "definition" as you put it, I just find that more
> insignificant nations get referred to as "peoples" or "cultures".
I'm not claiming to be particularly well read, but most of the history
books I've read (textbooks not withstanding) use all those terms
somewhat interchangeably. I find that most respectable historians
don't write overviews of world history anymore; they just concentrate
on the area and time-period the interests them. So like I mentioned
before, the definition of "significance" still perplexes me.
> I generally mean "in an advanced stage of society compared
> to other nations of the world at that point in time".
Maybe I've just taken you're statement in a previous post to an absurd
extreme, but it seems that by your "definition" (or whatever you want
to call it), that would mean that the only civilization on Earth up
until this past century was China, since they have been the most
"advanced" when compared to other nations of the world.
> This is just ridiculous nitpicking. High as in "advanced compared to
> other nations of the world in that period of time".
I'd really like to know what you mean by "advanced."
> And written documentation is certainly not the definition of a
> civilization Victor. Wherever you got that from is just plain wrong.
Yes it's not a definition, but a criterion. Not in of itself,
either--it's because it implies all those other things. I don't think
you can say that it's plain wrong. Contestable, perhaps, or weak
maybe. But I didn't just make it up. It is in a few books here and
there. But like I said, I don't claim to well-read, however.
> No you've got totally the wrong idea. I meant high as in "famous"
> civilization. It wasn't some kind of racial thing. Don't you start
> for crying out loud. I've got enough on my plate with the class thing.
Sorry, "famous" is just a useless criterion to me. It is
extraordinarily arbitrary. I don't see why we should even bother to
make a distinction if that's the case.
> Why do people keep picking me up on every single thing I write ?
> I'm getting pissed off with it. Just pack it in will you all ? I want
> to discuss interesting things without someone pathetically nitpicking
> every word I write and thus starting a long and pointless argument.
You brought it up first. I (and others) disagree. Feel free to skip
over it or use your killfile.
Flame of the West
> > Scientific theories originate in the 'imaginary' part and are tested
> > in the 'logical' part.
>
> That's just an old wives tale.
My goodness, isn't it enough to insult the entire working class?
Now you're picking on old wives too? ;-)
--
-- FotW
"If your pack has not been found, then you must send for the
herb-master of this House. And he will tell you that he did not
know that the herb you desired had any virtues, but that it is
called *westmansweed* by the vulgar, and *galenas* by the noble,
and other names in tongues more learned, and after adding a few
half-forgotten rhymes that he does not understand, he will
regretfully inform you that there is none in the House, and he will
leave you to reflect on the history of tongues."
Victor Michael Ganata
> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:07:32 -0000, "Coverdale"
> <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Scientific theories originate in the 'imaginary' part and are tested
>>> in the 'logical' part.
>>>
>>That's just an old wives tale.
> Well, old rats believe it too!
It's true! You've got to take a leap of imagination somewhere.
Theories don't just naturally come from observations.
Arkady
>
> Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >
> > > > And the Ancient Egyptians are remembered for the people
> >>> rather than the pyramids?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Well there goes your credibilty.
>
> plebs think that all there is to Ancient Egypt is the Pyramids and the
> Sphinx. Academics and other intelligent people think somewhat
> differently.
The primary area of interest in the study of the Ancient Egyptain
Civilization is their architecture.
Deny it.
>TW@T
as @ = 'at', your 'T' was unneccesary.
TW@
Arky.
PS: Fool.
Arkady
Intellectual me <intelle...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80m5q0$f9n$3...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
> Arkady <Reda...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Coverdale <cove...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote :
>
> > > Thats in Mexico. I assumed you were talking about North
> > > American Indians. You probably where I expect. I'll bet
> > > I know more about Teotihuacan than you.
> >
> > *guffaw*
>
*sigh*
Sorry, my area of speciality is 20th Century Eurasian Political History.
But give me 10 minutes and I will find it on the web.
> Right then. Give it your best shot guys. I'll be watching other
> newsgroups to check that you don't cheat. I'll give you a few hours.
And the fact that I read this message at 8:00 means I am stupid, right?
> (guffaw in advance)
Fool.
Arkady
Rob <r...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80mrdj$1070$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
>
> Alatar <everle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:80mes8$vob$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Intellectual me wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> questions makes me doubt that you have access to any in-depth
> information.
>
>
> actually.
Lazy are we? Isn't that a working class trait?
> > >Right then. Give it your best shot guys.
>
> > I seriously doubt anyone will waste time answering your below
> >GCSE level questions.
>
> ROTFLMAO !....
>
> Oh yeah! ...the exams must have been a real pig at your school then.
Your maturity continues to impress.
> > > I'll be watching other newsgroups to check that you don't cheat.
> >
> > I wouldn't call that an intelligent use of time.
>
> I wouldn't call spending all your spare time learning about a daft
> fantasy kingdom intelligent use of your time.
a) Why are you reading and posting to theTolkien groups then?
b) There is more to this group than that (threads like this for one thing).
> > > I'll give you a few hours.
> >
> > This is usenet. People don't sit here constantly. And since Cornrad
> >lives in America he was most likely still alseep when you wrote this.
>
> I am fully aware of the time difference with the States darling and I
> didn't put a definition on "few hours" did I ?
Perhaps you should have been more clear? Or do you prefer to make vague
statements that you can then try to correct later?
> I'm still waiting CONRAD & RUSKY.Struggling are we???
Fool. You have insulted the people of two nations, a newsgroup and a whole
social class in a matter of days. Your posts show a level of immaturity,
ignorance and bigotry that would normally only be found coming from Web
TV'ers on the religion groups. You and your arguments have been torn to
shreds in at least three threads. You have lied about killfileing me. You
have resorted to morphing and petty trollery, and have lost all credibility.
Can I suggest you make a quiet retreat, wrapped in the last shreds of your
dignity? For there are people here who you have made your enemies, and they
will not hesitate you deliberately crack down on every little fuck-up you
make in this group.
By the way, some more free advice. When you finish your GCSE's, and if you
have managed to pass enough to do A levels in a respectable institution,
take Sociology.
Alternatively, live your whole life as an arrogant little fuoco.
Signing off,
Arkady Nickolaiovich.
Aris Katsaris
Jonas Thorell <jon...@bahnhof.se> wrote in message
news:iCAX3.1987$Jr5....@dummy.bahnhof.se...
>
> Coverdale wrote:
>
> > You really haven't got a fucking clue have you? Unintelligent little
> > plebs think that all there is to Ancient Egypt is the Pyramids and the
> > Sphinx. Academics and other intelligent people think somewhat
>
> Correction: people who knows nothing about ancient Egypt does
> not know of all the details and thus only sees the most
> obvious things, i.e. The Pyramids and the Sphinx. Most people
> don't know how the Egyptians religious beliefs were, or how
> the class-system worked or the names of the Gods.
Most people would recognize the name of Ramesses and Cleopatra
and most probably have heard about the mummies. Some of them
may have even heard of the Jews exodus from it and I still think that
if someone says the names "Ra" "Isis", "Osiris" "Anubis" a number of
people will recognize them as Egyptian deities.
Aris Katsaris
Alatar's Secret Lover
Alatar freed her fingers up sufficiently long to key this in :
> I'm not going to explain the meaning of 'simple' to you. It took me
>5 minutes to look up the answers to all your questions on the
>internet. Thats doesn't make me intelligent, it means I can use a
> search engine.
Oh babe! you spent 5p with BT on my behalf...wow!...I think you
must like me really. We've got a lot in common actually...Tolkien,
musical taste..hmm you never know...stranger things have happened..
> I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Congratulations for
>becoming the first person I've ever killfiled.
Cool
>Don't bother replying to me, even if you morph your nick again.
I'll let you into a little secret Aly babe. I can actually morph my
dick...yep that's right....any shape and size you want lover...and
it's always best when there's a bit of friction isn't it Aly ? like
their is between you and me... you know...a little 'violent' so to
speak.
> and grow up
Oh now don't be uptight honey bun. You know you love me really. If you
don't start being nice to me I'll steadfastly refuse to swing from the
rafters with you when we start going out - a girl can't survive on a
bilbo and a hot water bottle you know. And stop emailing me love
letters. I know you're getting a little damp honey babe but you'll
just have to be patient for now....bye bye (blows kisses).
--
Rob 'Middle class Stud' Coverdale
Michael O'Neill
The usual TROLL shite.
This is your one and only warning.
Your duet with other FLamers here at the beginning of your appearances
didn't distract the regulars here. I've merely been waiting for you to
sTROLL through a few threads and reveal your true colours so all can
see.
You are, in responding to Alatar like this, abusing a Newsgroup Regular.
You're not a regular. You're a Fuckwit.
Now disappear before I Netcop you.
M.
Michael O'Neill
What shreds of his dignity are those?
Those yokes are the long threads of sputum and excrement that are the
result of an extended period spent talking through an anal orifice.
You've been here long enough Arkady. Surely you recognise them. ;-D
[And yes, I know you're names not Surely]
M.
Michael O'Neill
<snip>
> *spank*
Cuuld we get this one straight, Arkady?
--------space reserved for Hogarth/SuzieFLame/Window Pane comments----
--------space reserved for Hogarth/SuzieFLame/Window Pane comments----
A Spank can only be claimed after the "Spankee" has not posted to the
Newsgroup in which the spank is claimed for an extended period, usually
a week. THis fuckwit is still posting here AFAICS.
Unspank.
M.