Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Oldest civilization in the world?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 9>
Author
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Oldest civilization in the world?
    Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 07:27
LOL Why is this upsetting you so much, I don't understand your frustrations.
 
and you lived through these years to witness this? why dont you ask Greek members here if they think their current civilization if a phantom of what it was three millenia ago
 
That really doesn't matter, today's Greece is not connected to the Ancient City States, they don't really have anything in common except a small minority of today's Greeks who may have somehow managed to keep a descendance from them.
 
 
obviously nothing is static, and "civilizations" do evolve over time,
 
They can evolve "naturally" which means they are in control of their civillisation, or they can "be" evolved by other civillisations who conquer and become the dominant power.
 
 
but you cant say that just because they did not have self rule, they lost their civilization.
 
Why not? they may not have "completely" lost it but they would have been changed so drastically that there not left with anything really in common with the past except some details.
 
Is it possible for me to say that today's English are the direct continuation of the people who built Stonehenge, the Mesolithic Britains or Neolithic Britains?
 
Unless you accept were all from North Eastern Africa originally and so all share the civillisations of the world as afterall were all "human" Big smile
 
 
Armenia has been under a muslim rule for a close thousand years and guess what I am still Christian...
 
I don't know why your suprised or think its somthing amazing, the Muslims weren't interested in self-conversion and as much as you hate the Turks they treated you better than the Byzantines.
 
If they wished to, they could have forcefully converted Armenians and totally assimilated them like what happened in Africa and the America's by the Europeans. 
 
and the Armenian Church more or less still carries the traditions it had aquired at the time of its creation..
It does but Armenian civillisation has been under the dominance of others for nearly two thousand years, it was changed by the dominant powers in the region.
 
What makes you think Armenians didnt?
 
Aha, I see your problem, you only care about this because it would affect your notion of what Armenian is.
 
There is no subjectiveness involved in this, its literally a fact, Armenia has been under dominance of foreign civillisation for nearly two thousand years, Armenian culture today was shaped by this.
 
as a matter of fact I would; read Barricades and Borders, (plus my European History professor said so
 
I'm still waiting to hear that 90% of people in today's Itally didn't actually speak Itallian when modern Itally was formed Confused
 
Greece traces its historical nation lineage back to the Etruscans.
 
LOL  How on Earth did you get to that Confused
 
Etruscans were non Indo-European, they were not Hellenic, why would Greece trace its history to non-Hellenic people when there were plenty of other Hellenic states like the one that destroyed Troy.
 
Infact the Etruscans have been a mistery, more information is only recently beginning to surface. There is alot of evidence building up linking them to Proto-Turkic/Altaic people's.
 

The Etruscan People and culture

Fred Hamori

 
 
Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of. Hungarian with extensive Turkic borrowings
 
 
no one did? I dont see "Roman Empire" on today's world map, do you?
 
The Roman Empire collapsed but was not conquered by a foreign people and civillisation, it evolved "naturally" the people of the heartland and foundation of the Empire evolved into today's Itallians on their own accord and never had other Empires and civillisations rule them. As the people were never conquered they kept their civillisation, language, culture etc and evolved into today's Itally via themselves.
 
 
 
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 08:52
Originally posted by bulldog

Why is this upsetting you so much, I don't understand your frustrations.


Au contraire, I find your posts quite amusing.

And, are you as tired as I am from calling me a Turk hater...I got to tell you, its getting old.

Great, Sumer is not enough, now you claim Etruscans are Altaic/proto-Turkic? whats next; life itself originiated in the steppes?

Originally posted by bulldog

I'm still waiting to hear that 90% of people in today's Itally didn't actually speak Itallian when modernItally was formed


I gave you the title of the book, go read

now you are just being silly. Your whole post makes assumptions about civilizations of whom you know absolutely nothing about
    

Edited by mamikon - 12-Jul-2006 at 08:53
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 09:51
And, are you as tired as I am from calling me a Turk hater...I got to tell you, its getting old.

Great, Sumer is not enough, now you claim Etruscans are Altaic/proto-Turkic? whats next; life itself originiated in the steppes?
 
Take ten deep breaths, try to relax and cool off and then be a little more rational. Who called you a "Turk hater", man your suffering from some extreme form of paranoia, usually paranoid people think they hear things but you seem to think your reading things that just arn't there.
 
I never wrote that its a "definite" fact regarding the Sumerians, just that more research is needed to either proove or disproove the theory, there is a connection to Turkic-Altaic languages and a religous one. Why is it such a crime to even mention this, let the historians do their work and not extremists Wink
 
The Etruscans were non-Indo European, I didn't write these theories, if you actually cared to look at the links I provided they are not some warped Turkic fantasy but rather studies not conducted by Turks which are trying to discover more about the Etruscans because little is known. There seems to be a linguistic connection, mythology similarities, governance similarities and so on.
 
I gave you the title of the book, go read
 
LOL Yeah sure and there's another book called, "The Brittish Bulldog" it explains the situation of Itally in full, its a great read go and find it.
 
Now if we all gave sources like this we wouldn't have much credibility, what is this, if you don't have a source make it up, yes were very used to those sort of historical inventions and fetish fantasies of pain some certain extremists have, wouldn't you agree Mamikon Smile  
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 16:44
Ermm...why do I try to reason with you...

anyway...http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199253005/sr=8-1/qid=1152736669/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6256451-8346560?ie=UTF8

its a good read...maybe you will learn the basics.


Edited by mamikon - 12-Jul-2006 at 16:45
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2006 at 03:22

   U can find the Gundastrep cludorn and the Indus valley civilizationseals of  Pashupathi imges side by side and decide for ur self waht can be infered from this following link
http://www.lugodoc.demon.co.uk/CERNUNOS.HTM


Scientific American Magazine Digs Up A Cross-cultural Artifact Controversy

The Gundestrup Cauldron is one of the enigmas of European archeology. The large silver bowl was uncovered May 28th, 1891, in a peat bog adjacent to the town of Gundestrup in Denmark. Held to be Celtic in origin, the various figures hammered in the metal are described as Cernunnos, lord of the underworld, Taranis, the sky-god and other deities of the Celtic pantheon. And there are Indian elephants - poorly done with pointed shoulders, ears too high on their head and other incongruous details indicating the silversmith had never seen an elephant. One of the first archeologists to examine the artifact did indeed conclude the vessel's carefully crafted scenes were connected to India. Unfortunately, his reasoning was faulty and both his wrong reasons and his right conclusion were thrown out.

But in the March issue of Scientific American, British expert Timothy Taylor convincingly resurrects the cauldron's Indian connection. "I saw that the Gundestrup scene showing a pair of elephants flanking a central female figure clearly depicted the ritual bathing of Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of good fortune."

The most striking image on the cauldron is that of a horned man in a yogic pose with reindeer and animals beside him, a pose and setting very similar to that of a 4,000-year-old seal from the Indus valley site of Mohenjo-Daro in India. [below]. The cauldron was not made in India, for the man on it has laces on his shoes, placing him not only in Europe, but specifically in ancient Thrace, a Roman province which encompassed modern Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece. The cauldron likely arrived in Denmark as booty from a military expedition, probably around 100CE. The cauldron was evidently hidden at the spot it was finally found, and buried as a peat bog formed.

Taylor concludes that the silversmiths had contact, perhaps extensive contact, with India and may even have been an itinerant caste of metal workers from India similar to the Romany or Gypsies who left India about 1,000CE for the Middle East and Europe. What is most surprising to a Hindu, however, is the remarkable relationships between the horned man on the cauldron and the Indus Valley Seal - remembering that these artifacts are themselves separated in time by 2,000 years.

There are the obvious similarities - the horns, the animals on each side and the pose. The Mohenjo-Daro figure is a man, but is dressed in the clothes of an Indus valley female. The yogic pose with the soles of the feet pressed together is commonly practiced today and known to channel the sexual energy. The Indus Valley figure has often been identified as Siva in the form of Pasupati, Lord of Animals. The newly revealed information about the seal - the yogic pose and androgynous sexuality - further correspond to the attributes of Siva.

The cauldron figure has the legs in a slightly different, but equally common hatha yoga pose - one heel pressed against the perineum, which is also used to channel sexual energy. Furthermore, says Taylor, "within the pictorial grammar of the cauldron, on which males are shown bearded and breastless and females beardless and breasted, the horned figure is of ambiguous gender." That is, it has neither beard nor breasts.

One can easily speculate on the significance of Taylor's analysis. First, his ideas contradict the concept that the horned image is the Celtic God Cernunnos indicating a much more direct relationship to India. Similarity between the religion of the Druids and Hinduism was already noted. The Encyclopedia Britannica states, "Celtic religion, presided over by the Druids (the priestly order), presents beliefs in various nature deities and certain ceremonies and practices that are similar to those in Indian religion, they also shared certain similarities of language and culture, thus indicating an ancient common heritage." Perhaps the Celts, the original people of most of Europe, were part of an ancient continuous cultural milieu extending from India to England

Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Lonce De Peon

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2967
  Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 23:32
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

When we can say that this city was very old or had a very large population that Archaeologists have found something there.


Do you know how many thousands of people were needed to build it: The 7,500-year-old ziggurat of Silak




    Hah! That object looks so simple that i could have made it with my eyes closed!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 06:57

Ha, Mamikon theres still no proof of your audacious claim that 90% of Itally's population didn't speak Itallian. Its not in the book, its not in the records maybe its just all in your head.

Could you source this claim, I'm still waiting, thanks.

      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 10:24
The Sumerian civilization is supposed to be the oldest- dating back to around 3500 BC. That's why the ancient near east is called "The cradle of Civilization"
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 17:43
Ha, Mamikon theres still no proof of your audacious claim that 90% of Itally's population didn't speak Itallian. Its not in the book, its not in the records maybe its just all in your head.

Could you source this claim, I'm still waiting, thanks.

Confused I gave you the title of the book, the author and where to find it...the rest is up to you



Edited by mamikon - 19-Jul-2006 at 17:44
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 10:19
What on earth??? In Modern times? Of course around 90% of Italians speak Italian!
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 12:16
I thought so too...before I took a class on Europe in the 18th century...it does seem counterintuitive doesnt it?
    
Edited: I meant to say 18-19th centuries

Edited by mamikon - 20-Jul-2006 at 18:22
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 14:41
Wait.  There's got to be more to this.   I don't claim any true knowledge about this subject, so I'm going to try to reason this out.  Italy was not unified until the 19th century.  It then goes to reason that the people of the various states did not refer to their language as "Italian" but as a derivation of the name of their state.  Ah, wait!!!  I seem to remember reading that modern Italian is based mainly on the Tuscan dialect, in the same way that modern Spanish is based on the Castilian dialect of Spain, dating from a time when Spain was not a unified country.  But, I also seem to remember that Tuscan was merely one of several dialects of Italian.  Italian as a language may have been spoken since the Middle Ages but in the form of its dialects, and referred to by a multiplicity of names (except "Italian") based on region or state, and only became the standard language in the 19th century.  Italy was unified by Sicily.  I wonder why the Sicilian dialect did not become the standard Italian.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:14
I supposed based on the turbulence that it has suffered over history- Germanic tribes invading, the Greeks occupying it for a lengthy period of time and after that- Small city states being fought over by Hapsburger Austria and Borbon France for the seemingly never ending power struggle in Europe- it's hardly suprising that the language has got somewhat mixed up! Allow me to Apologize- i thought that you were speaking about modern Italian!
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 18:26
well. I dont know that much about the origins of the language (maybe some Italian members can help out). But the langauges in Italy about 150 years ago were similar enough to be called italian (which I am assuming meant languages of Italia, a geographical term) but different enough so they couldn't have been mutually understandable (however related).

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Italy was unified by Sicily. I wonder why the Sicilian dialect did not become the standard Italian.


I believe it was unified under Sardinia (Piedmont Sardinia to be exact)

Edited by mamikon - 21-Jul-2006 at 16:39
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2006 at 22:51
I had to look it up.  You're right, Italy was unified under Sardinia/Piedmont.
Back to Top
boomajoom View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
  Quote boomajoom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jul-2006 at 17:14
Samuel Noah Kramer, in his book entitled "The Sumerians", claims that there was most likely a civilization that existed in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians. He points to several words in the Sumerian language for things like agriculture and so on that he says don't match other Sumerian words and can't be linked to the Semitic languages. Kramer claims that these "Proto-Sumerians" (I think that's the term he used, I don't remember for sure) most likely invented agriculture and the first civilization before the Sumerians did, and that if we dig further, we should find remains of them. He also claims that most Assyriologists/Sumerologists agree that this is a serious possibility.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 02:06
I have that book.  The term he uses is "proto-Euphrateans", a term which was coined by Benno Landsberger in 1944.  However, since 1963, when the book had been published, Sumerologists, having a better understanding of the Sumerian language have demonstrated that virtually all of those Sumerian terms, said to have been of non-Sumerian origin did have Sumerian roots.  Of the 16 Sumerian words Kramer said were not of Sumerian origin, I was able to find Sumerian roots for 9 of these from a page on this site:
 
 
There are other pages which have other Sumerian words, but all of the nine that I found are what the page calls "complex logograms".  It may be that the earlier scholars may have thought that many Sumerian words expressed as logograms may have had non-Sumerian origin. 
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:34
Well, it's more than possible- keeping in mind that there is still much to be done in the field of Sumeriology and with the large migrations that took place, who knows?
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 09:39
Here's the problem.  Since the occupation (or reoccupation) of southern Mesopotamia, c. 5300 BC (until that time much of s. Mesopotamia was underwater), the culture of the region can be shown to not have outside influences, and was such, into the Early Dynastic Period, of Sumerian history.  Linguistically, Sumerian shows no relationship with the surrounding languages, hence it was an isolate.  Most of the names of the cities can now be shown to have Sumerian roots.  It then becomes difficult to try to detect outside migrations.  There probably was, but they got assimilated.  The Akkadians were amongst these.  They inhabited the region north of Nippur, and Semitic presence can only be glossed from the Sumerian Kinglist, where names of Semitic origin can be discerned from the later group of names of rulers of the First Dynasty of Kish.  Studies of Sumerian show only a brief borrowing from Akkadian, but Akkadian show much more borrowing from Sumerian.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 02:15
Jerico, estimated 10.000 b.c.
 


Edited by catch22 - 14-Sep-2006 at 02:16
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.