Which civilization is most ancient according to contemporary historian consent?

Oldandeasilycofused said:

Probably because it's been verified as around 60,000 years old. There are no other continuous cultures which come close as far as I'm aware. Really wasn't aware this topic is still an issue/uncertainly. Always willing to be corrected if I've made an error in fact.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that the culture has been verified as around 60.000 years old. There are no existing remains of any material culture that dates to that era, and this is way too long of a time for a society with no writing to maintain its own immaterial culture and traditions for that long.

Oldandeasilycofused said:

That claim has also been verified by studies which l am not allowed to discuss here . I searched "is Australian aboriginal culture the oldest on earth" .There are over 2 million hits to that question. The first answer is "YES"

Click to expand...

Those studies that you are not allowed to discuss do not study culture, it studies the movement of populations. Yes, that means that today's Australian Aborigines inhabit the same geographical area as most of their deep ancestors (who arrived mostly 40,000 kya, not 60,000), but that doesn't mean that they maintained the same culture throughout those tens of thousands of years. Quite probably they didn't.

Oldandeasilycofused said:

Probably because it's been verified as around 60,000 years old. There are no other continuous cultures which come close as far as I'm aware. Really wasn't aware this topic is still an issue/uncertainly. Always willing to be corrected if I've made an error in fact.

That claim has also been verified by studies which l am not allowed to discuss here . I searched "is Australian aboriginal culture the oldest on earth" .There are over 2 million hits to that question. The first answer is "YES"

Click to expand...

What you are saying is actually that there were Austrialian Aboriginees back 60,000 years ago and they had a culture (or a bunch of different cultures). And then you arbitrarily assume that Austrailian aboriginee culture remained the same for all of those 60,000 years until outsiders arrived to record details of their culture(s). So what planet do you assume that your version of Australian Aboriginees came from since they clearly don't behave like members of .... sapiens?

specul8 said:

Any specific borders you choose to draw .

I am an advocate for 'the big first 5 ' * that all happenned around the same similar time period ... sorta .

I am also an advocate of being flexable ; multi- hypotheseis , 'a multiple cause of reasons', the 'perfect storm', 'back migration' and 'they ran out of water ' - which answers a whole lot of other questions people often argue about in human history .

*
(in no specific order ....... or isit ?
NVC
IVC
T&E VC
MADFC
YRVC

or if you prefer ; Egypt, India, Mesopotamia, BMAC, China.

Click to expand...

I guess that NVC is Egypt, IVC is India, T&E VC is Mesopotamia, and YRVC is China. So what early civilization is MADFC or BMAC supposed to be?

Silesius Smithee said:

Hard to say "UNdisputed" because someone is always going to dispute it.

Generally, not really Sumerian but pre-Sumerian Ubaid,though I think I can make a case that Sumerian and Ubaid were one and the same. That gets us back to ~6,000 BCE. Ancient China gets us to about 5th century BCE.

Click to expand...

About China, it seems obvious that at least part of "China" was civilized at least a millennium before "about 5th century BCE". The Shang Dynasty was reportely founded about 1766 BCE, about 1556 BCE, or about 1500 BCE. And Chinese civilization probably began some time before the Shang dynasty began.

Oldandeasilycofused said:

Probably because it's been verified as around 60,000 years old. There are no other continuous cultures which come close as far as I'm aware. Really wasn't aware this topic is still an issue/uncertainly. Always willing to be corrected if I've made an error in fact.

That claim has also been verified by studies which l am not allowed to discuss here . I searched "is Australian aboriginal culture the oldest on earth" .There are over 2 million hits to that question. The first answer is "YES"

Click to expand...

Well, ' here is the rub' : There where over 600 different cultures and languages . Sure some where and still are very close and similar but some are very different . So not one single culture . Yet no one seems to refer to 'Aboriginal Cultures' .

You can discuss culture here .

But is that the right term ? How is single culture proved by the 'forbidden subject ' , it isnt .

What we are talking about here is 'a people' and its to do with first arrival ; current one is a single event and the older one isn't .

The current one is probably politically fuelled and any 'science' ( I should say 'intepretation of data ' ) , especially i the forbidden field may well reflect that . We all know how even the experts in a field can argue about results ( hence the relevant ban here ; none of us is expert enough , and the deeper you go down the worm hole, the more the data seems 'flexible' .... I mean, look what has just happened in Queensland with forensis testing labs and its effect on the judiciary , police, victims .... what a mess !

MAGolding said:

I guess that NVC is Egypt, IVC is India, T&E VC is Mesopotamia, and YRVC is China.

Click to expand...

I wrote it out for you, no need to guess .

Egypt started after NVC , I won't even start on how 'India' got its modern name , 'China' is a recent concept as well, and HUGE and they are still calling BMAC both Margiana Complex and Turkmenistan Complex . Which actually was all under Soviet control, so westren archaeology had to deal with that , now they are gone , it has to deal with several different countries , all with their own agenda, that the complex spans .... isnt archaeology fun ? (from a distance )

Oh, if you want a look into the area be prepared for intense weather extremes , war zones , feuding militia, land mines ....

MAGolding said:

So what early civilization is MADFC or BMAC supposed to be?

Click to expand...

BMAC is not 'supposed' to be something , it IS something ..... its well, known; look t up on this site or on Wiki

or better yet

Start here , this is more fun ;

MAGolding said:

About China, it seems obvious that at least part of "China" was civilized at least a millennium before "about 5th century BCE". The Shang Dynasty was reportely founded about 1766 BCE, about 1556 BCE, or about 1500 BCE. And Chinese civilization probably began some time before the Shang dynasty began.

Click to expand...

" that all happenned around the same similar time period ... sorta . "

specul8 said:

Yet no one seems to refer to 'Aboriginals Cultures' .

Click to expand...

The term 'culture' is correct and was use when I was at university reading 'aboriginal studies' as part of my degree course in Social anthropology This is a broad term used for all behaviours, beliefs, customs which are not innate. It includes language, kinship terms, religion and myths, the position of women, the arts; painting, music, and song, common musical instruments , and common tools.

Yes I'm aware we may discuss culture. I was referring to genetics and DNA.

Of course you may use your definition. I'd be most interested to learn where you got the idea, or if you just reached your conclusion by yourself.

MAGolding said:

I guess that NVC is Egypt, IVC is India, T&E VC is Mesopotamia, and YRVC is China. So what early civilization is MADFC or BMAC supposed to be?

Click to expand...

Thanks for decoding these abbreviations for me. Regarding MADFC I do suppose A stands for Avval, F for Fergana, and M for Mingtepa. Fergana valley ancient cities had been populated since the copper age. I do like however Mutual Assured Destruction Football Club more.

Oldandeasilycofused said:

The term 'culture' is correct and was use when I was at university reading 'aboriginal studies' as part of my degree course in Social anthropology This is a broad term used for all behaviours, beliefs, customs which are not innate. It includes language, kinship terms, religion and myths, the position of women, the arts; painting, music, and song, common musical instruments , and common tools.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the definition , I did anthropology too, as you know . And I specialised in Aboriginal Culture and still 'keep up ' .... not just by being spoon fed by the media either .

But you just totally walked over what I explained to you and am sorry , but wrote something rather nonsensical ; that is , of course culture means that as that is its definition , but of course we need to differentiate cultures as ... well , need I say ? All of us would be one culture . We all 'have culture' but all have different cultures .

. The first division of the Cultures are two ATSI sound familiar ?

Even those that define a single culture, their markers are not universal ; one is rainbow serpent myth / creation stories , but not all groups have that .

I could go on, but does it matter ? I have noticed before you are pretty set in your ways.

- and besides there has already been a complaint about this subject taking over here .

Oldandeasilycofused said:

Yes I'm aware we may discuss culture. I was referring to genetics and DNA.

Click to expand...

and I explained about that , it is 'a current view' ... that might change ya know ? The latests 'experts' that support this idea and evidence looked at all the other old evidence and dismissed it , or interpreted in line with their own ideas .

It is not even the Aboriginals fault, its our fault, and our system and our courts and ideas about legal definitions of 'ownership' and land rights and lawyers saying say this and dont say that and Land Councils and ....

Oldandeasilycofused said:

Of course you may use your definition. I'd be most interested to learn where you got the idea, or if you just reached your conclusion by yourself.

Click to expand...

I am now even less sure what you mean ... what definition ? Do you mean Aboriginal Cultures ?

Are you going to try and dispute that there where not multiple Aboriginal languages and cultures ?


And no I didnt " just reached your conclusion by yourself " , I studied Cultural Anthropology at Sydney Uni ( I have told you this several times and we talked about that ) and been studying it ever since ... including 'in the field' . I also have studied the morphing of theories and the influences behind it ... some of that is rather shocking ! Especially our early 'famous' anthropologists .

At Each Kilometer said:

Thanks for decoding these abbreviations for me. Regarding MADFC I do suppose A stands for Avval, F for Fergana, and M for Mingtepa. Fergana valley ancient cities had been populated since the copper age. I do like however Mutual Assured Destruction Football Club more.

Click to expand...

Did you like that one ?

Margiana Alluvial Desert Fan Culture .

Each one of these 'first 5 ' has different types of river systems for agriculture , it seems possible that these alluvial fan oasis formed an integral part of trade routes (as the ones north of the Himalayas do, going through huge alluvial fan settlements like Hotan ) and this geographical position is at a trade route crossroads north-south and east-west .... and further east at that extent of their Empire in Pamirs they had what I call 'Falling Water Agriculture' ( and it also appears they held territory there that enabled a 'short cut' into the Tarim Basin, * instead of having to go further north through 'Turan' and Samarkand , Sogdiana area - the idea got all the way to Media , then a homesick Queen bought it to Babylon









*



BMAC along the route SE Bactria . Cross roads in Pamirs (Tajikistan)

BOAC, BEA?

“ . . The findings indicated their ancestors had diverged from Eurasians 57,000 years ago, following a single exodus from Africa around 75,000 years ago. . ”

======

Now, about 10K years ago, because of the most recent ice age and therefore a lower sea level, there was a land bridge between Papua New Guinea and Australia.

And, very interesting.

Gobekli Tepe and Tiwanaku

DanAlquati said:

Gobekli Tepe and Tiwanaku

Click to expand...

Those are sites, not civilizations. No one knows enough about Gobekli to know if it was the product of a civilization or not, let alone be able to define a civilization in relation to it. As for Tiwanaku, it's dated on wiki to 110 AD. Unless that's off by many millennia, it's even close to being in the running.

specul8 said:

... The current one is probably politically fuelled and any 'science' ( I should say 'intepretation of data ' ) , especially i the forbidden field may well reflect that . We all know how even the experts in a field can argue about results ( hence the relevant ban here ; none of us is expert enough , and the deeper you go down the worm hole, the more the data seems 'flexible' .... I mean, look what has just happened in Queensland with forensis testing labs and its effect on the judiciary , police, victims .... what a mess !

Click to expand...

Oh lord, Down Under as well?

In the US, starting in 1998, the FBI crime lab has had a number of scandals that in total put into question 30+ years of court cases and verdicts.

The effects linger to this day. There are now certain methodologies that were once taken as 'golden' by courts that are no longer even acceptable.

Olleus said:

Those are sites, not civilizations. No one knows enough about Gobekli to know if it was the product of a civilization or not, let alone be able to define a civilization in relation to it. As for Tiwanaku, it's dated on wiki to 110 AD. Unless that's off by many millennia, it's even close to being in the running.

Click to expand...

How do we define a civilization in this context. A collection of multiple sites?

Olleus said:

Those are sites, not civilizations. No one knows enough about Gobekli to know if it was the product of a civilization or not, let alone be able to define a civilization in relation to it. As for Tiwanaku, it's dated on wiki to 110 AD. Unless that's off by many millennia, it's even close to being in the running.

Click to expand...

This is where I start having heartburn, and start laying awake at night watching shows like Ancient Aliens at 2 AM. LOL.

I can account for "Civilization", as we know it, going back to Sumer and even Ubaid.

What throws a monkey wrench into the gearbox, and messes up my nice neat little timeline is that there ARE certain things like Gobekli and/or various Megalithic structures that do an extreme indignity to my timeline. I can't account for this.

Best evidence points to some sort of "Civilization", spanning the globe, that predates even the Ubaids. I've no idea what it was or who they were.

DanAlquati said:

How do we define a civilization in this context. A collection of multiple sites?

Click to expand...

The civilization is the group of people (call it a society or a culture of what have you) that built, lived in, and made the site function. It's not about how many sites there, it's if we know anything about the people behind the site. At Gobekli Tepe, the excavators aren't even sure if it was built seasonally by nomads or by permanent residents! So we don't know enough about the people to say anything about them, let alone to know if they formed a civilization

At the risk of repeating myself for a third time, I'll give my working definition for a civilization again but with different words: A civilization is a culture that lived in an urban settlement fed by an agricultural surplus with specialised labour, maintained by structures and/or institutions beyond personal relations from individual-to-individual. That's the best way of wrapping up the 4 key conditions as I see them (note that, after more thought, I've loosened my condition on the social structure being beyond-kindship to being anything backed by more than the personal attributes of the leader, such as: kingship, religious authority, elections, etc...).

Silesius Smithee said:

Best evidence points to some sort of "Civilization", spanning the globe, that predates even the Ubaids. I've no idea what it was or who they were.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The evidence points towards piles of stones being one of the very few things that primitive humans could have done that survived thousands and thousands of years. No need to hypothesise some single unifying culture.

Olleus said:

The civilization is the group of people (call it a society or a culture of what have you) that built, lived in, and made the site function. It's not about how many sites there, it's if we know anything about the people behind the site. At Gobekli Tepe, the excavators aren't even sure if it was built seasonally by nomads or by permanent residents! So we don't know enough about the people to say anything about them, let alone to know if they formed a civilization

At the risk of repeating myself for a third time, I'll give my working definition for a civilization again but with different words: A civilization is a culture that lived in an urban settlement fed by an agricultural surplus with specialised labour, maintained by structures and/or institutions beyond personal relations from individual-to-individual. That's the best way of wrapping up the 4 key conditions as I see them (note that, after more thought, I've loosened my condition on the social structure being beyond-kindship to being anything backed by more than the personal attributes of the leader, such as: kingship, religious authority, elections, etc...).



Absolutely not. The evidence points towards piles of stones being one of the very few things that primitive humans could have done that survived thousands and thousands of years. No need to hypothesise some single unifying culture.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just "piles of stones". stonework cut to a precision that even I can't duplicate this day. Not to mention being able to lift it and place it.

Formative years in southern Indiana USA , not far from Bloomington and Bedford. Home of the quarries that built most of DC. I can grok that. Before moving to Indiana, lived in northern Ohio where my mentor was "Hank" who was a retired quarry worker at the aptly named town of "Limestone, OH" . I can 'grok' this sort of thing.

What I *DON'T* have is an understanding of whomever was responsible for the "Megalithic" structures. It just doesn't "fit" with all else i know about history.