History

Re: The best and worst civilizations

John Ess — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:24:28 GMT

"Generally, writing is considered a defining characteristic of a "civilization". And writing is generally believed among scholars to have originated in Sumer."

I think moreso it seems to be agriculture. But primitivists add the definition that it includes cities large enough that they must important resources.

I think the first is why a lot of people think Mesopotamia is the beginning.

As for the original question... I would say the US today is probably the best civilization. USA#1!

The worst: probably Saudi Arabia. I mean I like the people in all the different 'civilizations', but for the life of me... I just don't get this one.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:29:59 GMT

Not Sitchin himself, really. The 12th planet is really pretty sketchy.

But if it were to come out that the gods of the ancients were extra-terrestrials, I wouldn't be surprised. I just stick to Ocham's razor, and don't tend to speculate.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Merlin — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:25:26 GMT

Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:

Writing is generally a paragon of developed civilization, but there are numerous evidences where it was not necessary; the Nazca people in Peru (the ones with the lines) and the chicago culture of north america both come to mind.

If you want to think of an atlantis there are a few different ways to think about it.

1. A culture amongst hunter-gatherers that stretches many miles, but has no concept of central management. This actually has a lot of evidence if you look at pre-neolithic art-styles, weaponry, and trade (ranging from europe to india at the least). There is no people in control, there is just a widespread similar culture and language. Eventually, as shamans took note of the growing of plants, these people settled down at holy religous sites and began to perfrom agriculture in its primitive form. Early thinkers and actors from this period would later be known as gods, and givers of life and plenty.

2. The same cultural phenomena with a lost capital, probably made out of long-gone wood, or sunk beneath the ocean. The same chicago culture mentioned above built large, complex cities with no use of stone-building or metal works. There is scant evidence to take it this far save mythologies, tower of Babel stories, evidence of a proto-indo-european language. Trying to go down this road leads to the problem of timing tho. To be consistent it would have to have existed for 100's of 1000s of years as a centralized society with no remaining evidence, nor any seemingly complex technology or agriculture developed. Not quite as likely. Tho, I anxiously await the development of underwater-archaeology.

3. Aliens came and used us as gold-mining slaves around 10-20k years ago and from there we learned the mechanisms of civilization through people who claimed to be descended from these techno-gods.

4. Plato was talking about an island in the mediteranean off the coast of Greece, and the explosion of one of the many volcanoes in the area, and he accidentally said 10k, when he meant to say 1k.

5. It is coincidence that many weapons and art styles look the same, also that agriculture developed independantly across eurasia and africa at roughly the same time, along with God myths saying they were given the knowledge. This is the mainstream opinion, admittedly with the most evidence.

I'll personally stick with 5 for now, but I find 1 very plausible, and 4 very likely.

No love for Sitchin? Such a shame realy!

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:01:51 GMT

Writing is generally a paragon of developed civilization, but there are numerous evidences where it was not necessary; the Nazca people in Peru (the ones with the lines) and the chicago culture of north america both come to mind.

If you want to think of an atlantis there are a few different ways to think about it.

1. A culture amongst hunter-gatherers that stretches many miles, but has no concept of central management. This actually has a lot of evidence if you look at pre-neolithic art-styles, weaponry, and trade (ranging from europe to india at the least). There is no people in control, there is just a widespread similar culture and language. Eventually, as shamans took note of the growing of plants, these people settled down at holy religous sites and began to perfrom agriculture in its primitive form. Early thinkers and actors from this period would later be known as gods, and givers of life and plenty.

2. The same cultural phenomena with a lost capital, probably made out of long-gone wood, or sunk beneath the ocean. The same chicago culture mentioned above built large, complex cities with no use of stone-building or metal works. There is scant evidence to take it this far save mythologies, tower of Babel stories, evidence of a proto-indo-european language. Trying to go down this road leads to the problem of timing tho. To be consistent it would have to have existed for 100's of 1000s of years as a centralized society with no remaining evidence, nor any seemingly complex technology or agriculture developed. Not quite as likely. Tho, I anxiously await the development of underwater-archaeology.

3. Aliens came and used us as gold-mining slaves around 10-20k years ago and from there we learned the mechanisms of civilization through people who claimed to be descended from these techno-gods.

4. Plato was talking about an island in the mediteranean off the coast of Greece, and the explosion of one of the many volcanoes in the area, and he accidentally said 10k, when he meant to say 1k.

5. It is coincidence that many weapons and art styles look the same, also that agriculture developed independantly across eurasia and africa at roughly the same time, along with God myths saying they were given the knowledge. This is the mainstream opinion, admittedly with the most evidence.

I'll personally stick with 5 for now, but I find 1 very plausible, and 4 very likely.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:31:34 GMT

Grayson Lilburne:
Generally, writing is considered a defining characteristic of a "civilization". And writing is generally believed among scholars to have originated in Sumer.

Meh, writing, shmiting. You're just letting the patriarchial, dominator culture bias get to you.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Daniel James Sanchez — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:41:27 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Sumer? You want to talk first to the party, you gotta give Catal Hyuk, Neolithic Jericho, and the pre-desertification Saharan Culture (which has a name I can't find).

Generally, writing is considered a defining characteristic of a "civilization". And writing is generally believed among scholars to have originated in Sumer.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:07:32 GMT

Merlin:
Come on, no math, no astronomy, no long-range trade relations. These places would appear to be rural towns, not cities as in places where the people survive only through specialization and the division of labor.

Jeez, you think you've found a place where decentralized agrarian villages would be preferred over absolutist god-kings holding sway over all the food in the land...

But again, even the Sumerians where discovered lately, who know which civilization lies yet undiscovered.

40% of World's population within 100km of coastline

World during Last Glacial Maximum:

Lots of places for Atlantis to hide. Check out the Sunda Shelf!

these guys practically invented everything on their out of the top of their heads.

Which seems rather suspicious, to me at least.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Merlin — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:07:27 GMT

Come on, no math, no astronomy, no long-range trade relations. These places would appear to be rural towns, not cities as in places where the people survive only through specialization and the division of labor. But again, even the Sumerians where discovered lately, who know which civilization lies yet undiscovered. But as far as we know now, these guys practically invented everything on their out of the top of their heads.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

yuberries — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:05:11 GMT

I'm waiting for Civilization V to come out first before I decide.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:53:44 GMT

Sumer? You want to talk first to the party, you gotta give Catal Hyuk, Neolithic Jericho, and the pre-desertification Saharan Culture (which has a name I can't find).

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Laotzu del Zinn — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:28:46 GMT

Both of the civ-revolutions imo; neolithic africa and eurasia, and enlightenment/industrial euro-america. Never had the world seen so much progress as in roughly 3k bce and around 1500s Europe.

I have a certain respect for Rome and ancient China for showing that wide-scale cooperation is feasable, but other than that they are just lessons in power.

Re: The best and worst civilizations

Merlin — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:11:21 GMT

Form the sheer number of ‘firsts’ I’d go with the Sumerians as the greatest, in comparative terms, civilization ever. Such a switch from sparsely populated villages to urban societies was revolutionary, and begun civilization as we know it.

Second, in order of magnitude, comes the European civilization, more specifically the Dutch and their ofshot, the brits. The industrial revolution was the second greatest thing to ever happen to us humans as a species.

The Chinese get honorable mention too.

As for the worst, sure Rome would appear high on the list, and in general any Empire that incorporated civilized (i.e. ambitious) people, destroying inter-statal competition. Thus, the Chinese emperors who halted china’s development would appear to be major culprits.

Its funny how the same civilization appear as the best and the worst: often they have achieved much, but could have achieved far more hadn’t it been for centralization. But that cannot be helped, I’m afraid.

The best and worst civilizations

Fephisto — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:18:01 GMT

Highly subjective question, I know, but this is just for fun. It's a spin-off of the old "Who was the best president?" threads that keep coming up on here from time to time.

What do you think were the most best (productive/however you define the term) civilizations (leaving 'civilization' loosely defined as well)? The worst (I assume that the Nazis will be stuck under the 'worst' for many for example)?

For me, I'd stick ancient Greece near the top. Giving us mathematical proofs and Socrates go pretty high up on my list. After that, the Italian city-states during the medieval ages.

For the worst, actually, I've been thinking recently....ancient Rome. The burning of the library of Alexandria (I've heard that library had anything from the formula to Greek Fire and concrete, to Archimedes' discourses on the infinitesimal), the murder of Archimedes and Hypatia, the subjugation/brutal killings/genocidal tendencies against/of the Greeks/Carthaginians/Basques/Gauls/Celts/Egyptians/etc. etc., the salting of Carthaginian fields, the homogenization and tyrannical control of the entirity of Western civilization at that time (basically, 1984 became true for a few centuries), installation of ideological/patriotic warfare on a scale not yet seen, apply the "Seen and Not Seen" argument to all of the massive public construction projects that Rome embarked on (aqueducts/roads), collapse of Carthaginian trade, almost every heroic figure is either a politician or a warmonger (Caesar, Augustus, Cicero, Crassus, Trajan, etc., etc.), the gradual degradation of money, and this isn't bringing in the crazy shit that Nero did.