| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Civilization
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Civilization

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Civilization
    Posted: 01 Nov 2015 at 07:07
In my research on Ancient Mesopotamia, I found at least three preconditions for civilization: the settled society engaged in farming and livestock rearing; craft specialization; and spiritual orientation (ie the split of the community into the clergy and laymen and empowering the clerics to control the wellfare of the congregation). 

All these processes were enacted in the Ancient Near East at the 5 millennium BCE. Early temples had been built; they gave rise to the emergence of "holy neighborhoods" (a set of households surrounding the temple). The pristine population in Southern Mesopotamia is called the Ubaid, but this is a controversial term. They might as well be the ancestors of the Sumerians. 
MB
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Nov 2015 at 07:33
At the threshold of civilization.
When and where did the first cities show up? Many researches point to Jericho (8th millennium BCE) and Catal Huyuk (7th millennium BCE). In my view, these were gigantic settlements whose population engaged in farming and developed cottage industry of making tools. It also subsisted on hunting and gathering. There were spontaneous contacts with the outside world; some graves reveal luxurious objects not fabricated locally. The religion was focused on family shrines. I'd like to emphasize that the population was leading the same life style: it wasn't split into social statuses yet. They were simple egalitarian societies. 

The first true cities emerge in Southern Mesopotamia. Such places as Eridu, Nippur, and Uruk, which appeared throughout the 5th millennium BCE, followed a different pattern of town planning. Each of them focuses on a sacred site devoted to one of the major Mesopotamian deities. 
MB
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Nov 2015 at 08:25
When I read this it makes me ask if archaeology is anywhere near a "definitive" truth. I doubt very much(I would doubt for most sciences including the natural sciences), and that is not as much because of "relativism" from my side as it is because both methods but "cirkumstances" in particular seems to be so far from perfect. Thus, when reading about archaeology in Israel compared to that of its neighbours I may wionder if israelis find more, simply due to better working conditions for research and more professional researchers and not least better Funding.On the other hand I may ask if not such research has come to a standstill in many countries in the region, because of political and even security. How countries plagued by terrorism, internal wars as well as occupational forces could have done that much is beyond me. (Israels wars and internal problems I see as much more "contained" and in many cases short-term). Then add that the attitude of those with Money and power may not be that friendly towards research in every counbtry (and not that of the populations, not to speak of insurgency-movements, religious Groups etcetera).
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Nov 2015 at 09:50
Is archeology a 'definitive truth'? Only as far as our knowledge base, interpretations, and techniques allow us. Science has improved archeology no end in recent decades with new methods of searching beneath ground level, and recently satellite technology has seriously opened our eyes concerning such things as the spread of Egyptian and Roman civilisation, including new features not previously known about such as the canal between Rome and Portus.

The basic problem is that archeology is a profession that relies on good fortune, as you can generally only dig for something you know about, and unfortunately in many places the site has already been looted by locals aiming to sell for profit, which destroys any context of the finds., or damaged by farming/building.

But definitive truth? That would only apply to something confirmable. Although carbon dating is sometimes a bit vague, with results yielding possible dates over hundreds of years, recent techniques in contextual sampling have shown we can statistically cut down that margin of error to within decades. We can match finds with historical records. If a site has remains of a certain civilisation or culture, then we know that culture had been there. To see archeology as a single definitive truth is the wrong perspective. It's about working toward the sum total of knowledge rather than stating what it is.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Nov 2015 at 10:58
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Is archeology a 'definitive truth'? Only as far as our knowledge base, interpretations, and techniques allow us. Science has improved archeology no end in recent decades with new methods of searching beneath ground level, and recently satellite technology has seriously opened our eyes concerning such things as the spread of Egyptian and Roman civilisation, including new features not previously known about such as the canal between Rome and Portus.

The basic problem is that archeology is a profession that relies on good fortune, as you can generally only dig for something you know about, and unfortunately in many places the site has already been looted by locals aiming to sell for profit, which destroys any context of the finds., or damaged by farming/building.

But definitive truth? That would only apply to something confirmable. Although carbon dating is sometimes a bit vague, with results yielding possible dates over hundreds of years, recent techniques in contextual sampling have shown we can statistically cut down that margin of error to within decades. We can match finds with historical records. If a site has remains of a certain civilisation or culture, then we know that culture had been there. To see archeology as a single definitive truth is the wrong perspective. It's about working toward the sum total of knowledge rather than stating what it is.


You are right, and I was probably not that clear. What I point at is that archaeologists and probably also historians have some problems in addition to what problems they share with other disciplines, in particular the natural sciences. For the later at least they donm´t have to think that much about security issues, politics, and other similar local factors. Plus archaeologists very much depend upon local conditions of preservation, and therefore as well as for other reasons their findings are far from representative. No doubt one of the reasons they have found so much in Egypt and the other countries to the East and South is that those countries made a great legacy. But there is also Little doubt the climate and in particular the deserts had excellent conditions for preservations of a lot of findings.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Nov 2015 at 01:29
Archaeology is somewhat limited to material culture, writing adds a whole new light, and secular literature with alphabetic writing, actually "re-presenting" spoken word (particularly poetry), is entirely another level.  If we didn't have the Bible, then how would we know about YHWH?  A few inscriptions maybe.  The habitual iconoclasm keeps him largely from making an appearance in the material record, or at least it seems so to me.  It is sometimes very easy to tell that some things have spiritual (or mental) import, but at the same time it is often very hard to understand what that importance is.  The plaster skulls from Catal Huyuk come to mind.  Something related to ancestor worship, but having said that, how much can modern man understand ancestor worship the way ancient man did?  I suspect that maybe an American Indian or an Australian aborigine or even a Taiwanese could understand it better than a modern man could, but maybe that is why Archaeology is so often contained in the Anthropology Department in the University.  So could archaeology come with a definitive truth about some thing?!?  Well no, because historical societies have always believed in God(s) and the soul (or the mind), and both of those are not really accessible to scrutiny of the material remains.  Maybe the archaeologist does not believe in God(s) or the soul/mind.  That is fine, but the fact is that most people throughout history have, and you are not going to understand them if you excise a portion of their beliefs (perhaps the greatest part), and dismiss all of religion.
But if you accept archaeology's limitations, you can get quite far.  And the fact is, with even a living tradition, nobody ever gets to know God and the soul (mind) "definitively."  So getting to know God and soul (mind) is not to be found anywhere, at least not completely.  But it is important to understand that, looking at a picture of the past, one does not get (through archaeology or anywhere else), the whole story.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Nov 2015 at 05:55
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Archaeology is somewhat limited to material culture, writing adds a whole new light, and secular literature with alphabetic writing, actually "re-presenting" spoken word (particularly poetry), is entirely another level.  If we didn't have the Bible, then how would we know about YHWH?  A few inscriptions maybe.  The habitual iconoclasm keeps him largely from making an appearance in the material record, or at least it seems so to me.  It is sometimes very easy to tell that some things have spiritual (or mental) import, but at the same time it is often very hard to understand what that importance is.  The plaster skulls from Catal Huyuk come to mind.  Something related to ancestor worship, but having said that, how much can modern man understand ancestor worship the way ancient man did?  I suspect that maybe an American Indian or an Australian aborigine or even a Taiwanese could understand it better than a modern man could, but maybe that is why Archaeology is so often contained in the Anthropology Department in the University.  So could archaeology come with a definitive truth about some thing?!?  Well no, because historical societies have always believed in God(s) and the soul (or the mind), and both of those are not really accessible to scrutiny of the material remains.  Maybe the archaeologist does not believe in God(s) or the soul/mind.  That is fine, but the fact is that most people throughout history have, and you are not going to understand them if you excise a portion of their beliefs (perhaps the greatest part), and dismiss all of religion.
But if you accept archaeology's limitations, you can get quite far.  And the fact is, with even a living tradition, nobody ever gets to know God and the soul (mind) "definitively."  So getting to know God and soul (mind) is not to be found anywhere, at least not completely.  But it is important to understand that, looking at a picture of the past, one does not get (through archaeology or anywhere else), the whole story.

I'm not sure that god, mind, or spirit are all that different than other culturally transmitted ideas.  Looking at a stone tool doesn't give you much of an idea how to create one.   
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Nov 2015 at 07:03
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Archaeology is somewhat limited to material culture, writing adds a whole new light, and secular literature with alphabetic writing, actually "re-presenting" spoken word (particularly poetry), is entirely another level.  If we didn't have the Bible, then how would we know about YHWH?  A few inscriptions maybe.  The habitual iconoclasm keeps him largely from making an appearance in the material record, or at least it seems so to me.  It is sometimes very easy to tell that some things have spiritual (or mental) import, but at the same time it is often very hard to understand what that importance is.  The plaster skulls from Catal Huyuk come to mind.  Something related to ancestor worship, but having said that, how much can modern man understand ancestor worship the way ancient man did?  I suspect that maybe an American Indian or an Australian aborigine or even a Taiwanese could understand it better than a modern man could, but maybe that is why Archaeology is so often contained in the Anthropology Department in the University.  So could archaeology come with a definitive truth about some thing?!?  Well no, because historical societies have always believed in God(s) and the soul (or the mind), and both of those are not really accessible to scrutiny of the material remains.  Maybe the archaeologist does not believe in God(s) or the soul/mind.  That is fine, but the fact is that most people throughout history have, and you are not going to understand them if you excise a portion of their beliefs (perhaps the greatest part), and dismiss all of religion.
But if you accept archaeology's limitations, you can get quite far.  And the fact is, with even a living tradition, nobody ever gets to know God and the soul (mind) "definitively."  So getting to know God and soul (mind) is not to be found anywhere, at least not completely.  But it is important to understand that, looking at a picture of the past, one does not get (through archaeology or anywhere else), the whole story.

It is not that I seriously disagree, since You are right writing adds "new dimensions". On the other hand with writing, that is the historians "proper domain" emerges new problems. Writers and authors got a Tool of manipulating, of selecting their version of "truth". I think the problem of honesty, of "selectivity", comes to a much higher level too. Then also writing may give a much less "representative" or "proportional" view, since often very small parts of a given population may dominate the written record.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 03:00
Actually looking at a tool, they can in general recreate it.  They can even sometimes learn about a tool we don't have by its product.  The reconstruction (restoration) of the Parthenon revealed tool marks from a particular kind of chisel more efficient than what we have today in doing, whatever chisels do.

Yes, fantasus, writing adds a whole new layer of complexity, and whether or not something like the Bible shows an ancient world physically 'accurately,' it does at least show an ancient world to the imagination.  An imagination dating back in some places 2000- 3000 years or more.  It is true in that sense, regardless of whether it is always true in the narrow minded factual sense.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 04:38
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Actually looking at a tool, they can in general recreate it.  They can even sometimes learn about a tool we don't have by its product.  The reconstruction (restoration) of the Parthenon revealed tool marks from a particular kind of chisel more efficient than what we have today in doing, whatever chisels do.

How do you know if a stone point is a work of art or a tool? 

How do we know if a writer believes what he is writing?

Both physical and intellectual artifacts must be vetted for intent.

Today we take objectivity some what for granted as it is part of the modern value system but there is evidence that in the past objectivity was not as highly prized a quality in a communicator.  A good story teller doesn't need to confine themselves to objective reality.  Early religions seem to be about a good story while today we expect a degree of philosophical sophistication.  The question is if ancient belief systems are different from modern beliefs by degree or kind.

It is true that physical archeology doesn't give us much of an insight into the inner life or spiritual beliefs of the people being studied.  It is equally true that we don't know why they may have prefered one aesthetic over another.  Is prizing brightly colored feathers over gold ornaments meaningful or explanatory?  It is likely that religion is like any other aesthetic that becomes contagious and builds up over time into a cultural norm somewhat by accident.   Even if you don't believe in the concept of memes it is obvious that many aspect of a culture have nothing to do with utility and take on a life of there own having mindlessly evolved independent of their host culture.

  

   
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 10:16
We can not always know the purpose of a certain item, though i think often there will be Little doubt. There could be both in a single case.
Like the "iceman" found at the italian Austrian border years ago. He wore cothes and had tools where there is Little reason to doubt their use. Then he had tatoos at his skin. What may have been the purpose of the later? he was also killed. We can only guess about the story behind or what beliefs about afterlife dominated.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 04:06
atalatal Bob was a guy who played around with the atalatal or throwing stick.  He figured out some new (old) things about it.  The mongols had some specialized arrows, but yes, most tools would probably be pretty obvious in most of their aspects.

In ancient societies, knowledge would have the authority of tradition, it is such-and-such a way because the tribe or the city says so.  Subjectivity and objectivity were things that had to be invented/discovered.  The sophists were, to a great extent, the philosophers of subjectivity.  Socrates, or maybe just Plato's Socrates were the discoverers of objectivity (or a definition). 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 09:04
We need evidence that theology has positively effected the fate of a civilization insofar as any other theology wouldn't have sufficed to provide social solidarity.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2015 at 03:36
any other theology than theology?!?
"We" need evidence??  What is your criteria for such evidence?
I would consider Naziism and Communism to be evidence for what happens when there is an absence of religion, but others probably wouldn't.  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2015 at 04:56
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

any other theology than theology?!?
"We" need evidence??  What is your criteria for such evidence?
I would consider Naziism and Communism to be evidence for what happens when there is an absence of religion, but others probably wouldn't.  

The faithful need no evidence Cheers

Sure there are example of secular governments that seem to devalue human life.  Current trends in atheism in Western Europe however seem to demonstrate that decoupling of religion and morality is possible by developing secular humanism.

I was thinking more of ancient history and the emergence of civilizations and the assumption that religion is necessary for morality.  It seems a reasonable alternative view to propose that in late prehistory that morality was a necessary precondition for civilization to advance to the point where vague beliefs could be replaced by organized religions.

As a philosopher you know that morality is not a simple subject and that there are as many secular as religious views on the subject.  How those views effect behavior is even more difficult to decipher.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 03:39
I suspect a bit of bias in this study but it more or less agrees with my observations.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

"The findings “robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households”.

Older children, usually those with a longer exposure to religion, “exhibit[ed] the greatest negative relations”."

Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 10:17
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

When I read this it makes me ask if archaeology is anywhere near a "definitive" truth. I doubt very much(I would doubt for most sciences including the natural sciences), and that is not as much because of "relativism" from my side as it is because both methods but "cirkumstances" in particular seems to be so far from perfect. Thus, when reading about archaeology in Israel compared to that of its neighbours I may wionder if israelis find more, simply due to better working conditions for research and more professional researchers and not least better Funding.On the other hand I may ask if not such research has come to a standstill in many countries in the region, because of political and even security. How countries plagued by terrorism, internal wars as well as occupational forces could have done that much is beyond me. (Israels wars and internal problems I see as much more "contained" and in many cases short-term). Then add that the attitude of those with Money and power may not be that friendly towards research in every counbtry (and not that of the populations, not to speak of insurgency-movements, religious Groups etcetera).
This thread concerns the conditions for civilization, not archeological findings. You are right pointing to different causes hamping archeological research. My country, Israel, enjoys an uninterrupted history of research, carried out by Israeli and international teams. The results are generally publicised and available to public discussion. Nobody has the right neither to stop that research nor to exercise the authority to conceal the facts. My own online research is authentic and independent. You may rely on that. 
MB
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 10:19
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Is archeology a 'definitive truth'? Only as far as our knowledge base, interpretations, and techniques allow us. Science has improved archeology no end in recent decades with new methods of searching beneath ground level, and recently satellite technology has seriously opened our eyes concerning such things as the spread of Egyptian and Roman civilisation, including new features not previously known about such as the canal between Rome and Portus.

The basic problem is that archeology is a profession that relies on good fortune, as you can generally only dig for something you know about, and unfortunately in many places the site has already been looted by locals aiming to sell for profit, which destroys any context of the finds., or damaged by farming/building.

But definitive truth? That would only apply to something confirmable. Although carbon dating is sometimes a bit vague, with results yielding possible dates over hundreds of years, recent techniques in contextual sampling have shown we can statistically cut down that margin of error to within decades. We can match finds with historical records. If a site has remains of a certain civilisation or culture, then we know that culture had been there. To see archeology as a single definitive truth is the wrong perspective. It's about working toward the sum total of knowledge rather than stating what it is.
Of course. The research should take into account different fields of study and considerate alternative theories as well. 
MB
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 11:34
Birthmarks of complex societies
With due respect, I remind the participants that we come here to discuss civilazation.
The main feature in my undestanding of civilization is the temple. Pristine cities grow out of "sacred neighborhoods", which are focused on a shrine. In Mesopotamia, the first shrines date back to the V millennium BCE. The temple keeps the best agricultural land. It raises the largest flocks. It accepts the remnants of split families. It gives orders to artisans. It sends envoys on diplomatic missions and on trade ventures. It applies the lunar calendar. It performs large-scale computations to employ manpower and control the disbursement of rations. It controls the social life keeping holidays. It interferes in social conflicts within the community and between the members of different communities. It copes with the influx of foreigners. It invents writing as a means of economic control. In time of trouble, it enacts "combat units" of its clients and armed worriers of the community. 
MB
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 13:59
Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

When I read this it makes me ask if archaeology is because of "relativism" from my side as it is because both methods but "cirkumstances" in particular seems to be so far from perfect. anywhere near a "definitive" truth. I doubt very much(I would doubt for most sciences including the natural sciences), and that is not as much Thus, when reading about archaeology in Israel compared to that of its neighbours I may wionder if israelis find more, simply due to better working conditions for research and more professional researchers and not least better Funding.On the other hand I may ask if not such research has come to a standstill in many countries in the region, because of political and even security. How countries plagued by terrorism, internal wars as well as occupational forces could have done that much is beyond me. (Israels wars and internal problems I see as much more "contained" and in many cases short-term). Then add that the attitude of those with Money and power may not be that friendly towards research in every counbtry (and not that of the populations, not to speak of insurgency-movements, religious Groups etcetera).


This thread concerns the conditions for civilization, not archeological findings.
Archaeological findings tell us much about ancient Civilisations. It is not that impossible our view of past civilisation may change substantially with new archaeological finding.

Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:

You are right pointing to different causes hamping archeological research. My country, Israel, enjoys an uninterrupted history of research, carried out by Israeli and international teams. The results are generally publicised and available to public discussion. Nobody has the right neither to stop that research nor to exercise the authority to conceal the facts. My own online research is authentic and independent. You may rely on that. 
Who has suggested any idea archaeological research in Israel should stop or be downgraded?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2015 at 09:39
Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:

Birthmarks of complex societies
With due respect, I remind the participants that we come here to discuss civilazation.
The main feature in my undestanding of civilization is the temple. Pristine cities grow out of "sacred neighborhoods", which are focused on a shrine. In Mesopotamia, the first shrines date back to the V millennium BCE. The temple keeps the best agricultural land. It raises the largest flocks. It accepts the remnants of split families. It gives orders to artisans. It sends envoys on diplomatic missions and on trade ventures. It applies the lunar calendar. It performs large-scale computations to employ manpower and control the disbursement of rations. It controls the social life keeping holidays. It interferes in social conflicts within the community and between the members of different communities. It copes with the influx of foreigners. It invents writing as a means of economic control. In time of trouble, it enacts "combat units" of its clients and armed worriers of the community. 

I don't think there is any doubt that religion is key characteristic of the organization of early city states.  What isn't as clear is that the nature of that religion is particularly important.  Any belief system that captures the imagination of the population seems suitable to providing the necessary social solidarity.  Perhaps when the ruler becomes a god then you have reached a significant change in social organization but the theology itself need not be philosophically sophisticated.  

How religion deals with practical issues such as astronomical observations and the creation of calendars or the expansion of literacy could point to subtle differences related to theology but I can't think of any good examples.  The co evolution of religion and civilization may simply hide significant variations in the role theology plays in a societies success?
     
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2015 at 14:25
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:

Birthmarks of complex societies
With due respect, I remind the participants that we come here to discuss civilazation.
The main feature in my undestanding of civilization is the temple. Pristine cities grow out of "sacred neighborhoods", which are focused on a shrine. In Mesopotamia, the first shrines date back to the V millennium BCE. The temple keeps the best agricultural land. It raises the largest flocks. It accepts the remnants of split families. It gives orders to artisans. It sends envoys on diplomatic missions and on trade ventures. It applies the lunar calendar. It performs large-scale computations to employ manpower and control the disbursement of rations. It controls the social life keeping holidays. It interferes in social conflicts within the community and between the members of different communities. It copes with the influx of foreigners. It invents writing as a means of economic control. In time of trouble, it enacts "combat units" of its clients and armed worriers of the community. 

I don't think there is any doubt that religion is key characteristic of the organization of early city states.  What isn't as clear is that the nature of that religion is particularly important.  Any belief system that captures the imagination of the population seems suitable to providing the necessary social solidarity.  Perhaps when the ruler becomes a god then you have reached a significant change in social organization but the theology itself need not be philosophically sophisticated.  

How religion deals with practical issues such as astronomical observations and the creation of calendars or the expansion of literacy could point to subtle differences related to theology but I can't think of any good examples.  The co evolution of religion and civilization may simply hide significant variations in the role theology plays in a societies success?
     
No doubt for you, but most researches don't mention religion as one of the cornerstones of the "temple" of civilization or urban complex society. Very weird because we discuss societies where 100 per cent of members were believers. Recognizing the ruler as a god does not change the basic structure of the society, only nuances. The calendar and writing are imminent components of civilization-at least, in ancient Near East. 
MB
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2015 at 14:30
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

When I read this it makes me ask if archaeology is because of "relativism" from my side as it is because both methods but "cirkumstances" in particular seems to be so far from perfect. anywhere near a "definitive" truth. I doubt very much(I would doubt for most sciences including the natural sciences), and that is not as much Thus, when reading about archaeology in Israel compared to that of its neighbours I may wionder if israelis find more, simply due to better working conditions for research and more professional researchers and not least better Funding.On the other hand I may ask if not such research has come to a standstill in many countries in the region, because of political and even security. How countries plagued by terrorism, internal wars as well as occupational forces could have done that much is beyond me. (Israels wars and internal problems I see as much more "contained" and in many cases short-term). Then add that the attitude of those with Money and power may not be that friendly towards research in every counbtry (and not that of the populations, not to speak of insurgency-movements, religious Groups etcetera).


This thread concerns the conditions for civilization, not archeological findings.
Archaeological findings tell us much about ancient Civilisations. It is not that impossible our view of past civilisation may change substantially with new archaeological finding.

Originally posted by mikebis mikebis wrote:

You are right pointing to different causes hamping archeological research. My country, Israel, enjoys an uninterrupted history of research, carried out by Israeli and international teams. The results are generally publicised and available to public discussion. Nobody has the right neither to stop that research nor to exercise the authority to conceal the facts. My own online research is authentic and independent. You may rely on that. 
Who has suggested any idea archaeological research in Israel should stop or be downgraded?
Your question shows that we're on the right track. The point is, you never know. My experience shows that in a democratic society you don't need administrative measures to stop exploration. It is enough if it is ignored an dforgotten. 
MB
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Nov 2015 at 14:51
The next part in my research is called "The recipe for civilization". I have found twelve items relevant for any urban complex society in the Ancient Near East:
1. The sacred precinct responsible for festivals and spiritual service 2. The temple household with distinct social stratification and division of labor 3. The industrial center which controls handicraft industries 
4. The commercial center practising the exchange of local products to foreign commodities 5. The scientific center developing astronomy, linguistics, maths 6. The cultural center in charge of public architecture, sculpture, mosaics, and painting 7. The system of administrative record-keeping and economic control 8. The legal center with courts-of-law, supervision of measures and weights, control over prices 9. The centralized government applying scores of workers in irrigation schemes, public construction, and military operations 10. The military center for handling emergency situations and leading wars 11. The "melting pot" of neighborhood ties prevailing over kin or ethnic connections 12. The welfare center receiving unlucky members of community and giving shelter for fugitives and refugees. 
MB
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2015 at 05:11
your recipe is interesting, but let me point out something that may or may not, for you, present a problem.
astronomy, mathematics, economics, architecture, ethnic are Greek words, commercial, commodities, scientific, linguistic, military, emergency, welfare, community are Latin based.  Therefore, while plenty of scholars will talk about "Egyptian science," "Babylonian astronomy," "Greek economics," et cetera, et cetera, really it is anachronistic to do so.  For Pythagoras, astronomy was part of mathematics (as was music), but also not separate from astrology, that was also true before him in the Babylonian society, which used astronomy/astrology to make a calendar, but not until rather late (700s-600s? something like that), astronomy/astrology didn't really exist until after that.  Without the concept of a calendar, astronomy(astrology) doesn't really make sense.
If you read the pseudo-Aristotelian "The Economics" you see all kinds of stories about tyrants and demagogues using all kinds of schemes to get money, (such as calling in the currency and exchanging it for devalued currency, lesser weigh, debased, so forth.  Economics in Xenophon is about properly training your young wife to manage your estate.  Of course, coinage is not introduced until 7th c. BC, before that, hacksilber was used and barter, the agora was a Greek invention, forum roman.
There is also no such thing as "art for art's sake," art was part of religion, or rather it was not "imagined" separate from religion until early modernity.
So your list is interesting, but just realize that it is filled with language that did not exist, nor (more importantly) did the concepts behind that language, when civilization was born.  That shouldn't necessarily change anything in your list, but I do think you should realize that you are talking about the origins of Civilization, using language and concepts that ancient 'citizens' would not possibly be able to recognize. 
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2015 at 11:55
"There is also no such thing as "art for art's sake," art was part of religion, or rather it was not "imagined" separate from religion until early modernity."

"early modernity" end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, roughly the late 15th century to the late 18th century.?

I would withdraw or modify that assertion.  

In anycase as I have been arguing the distinction between art and religion may not be as great as people assume.  Religion divorced from the purely hypothetical existence of god should be seen objectively as an aesthetic that despite it's diversity of form serves the same purpose across multiply cultures.   There are many equally irrational and yet powerful cultural oddities such as racism that have a significant impact on a culture.  Creating a special place religion in understanding cultural evolution could be misleading.

"language that did not exist, nor (more importantly) did the concepts behind that language, when civilization was born."

The same concept can be applied to religion you simply have to go back in time a little further.

Math probably existed before there was a "concept" of what math is the list is endless.  What you are talking about is well defined definitions which may be related to a written language to codify the concept into an accepted definition.  More importantly even today every discipline is being redefined by the current state of understanding.  Civilization itself existed before anyone had a concept of what it was.  If you point is that the author should invent new terms such as alchemy to describe early chemistry it could get very tedious trying to follow his work.  Putting a finer point on a subject certainly has merit but only if the intent is not a broad outline even then context offers definition. 
 


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2015 at 17:57
Theoretically, such anachronism in concepts _can_ be a problem.  Theoretically.
Practically, such an anachronism _need_not_ be a problem, it depends on what you want to do.

Just as ancient fables are all attributed to Aesop, ancient Roman cooking recipes were attributed to
Apicius.  You can actually buy a cook book (edited by a modern woman from the Medici family), that has modern re-creations of ancient Roman recipes.  But in reading a modern re-creation, an ancient would not understand it.  It's like the old woman who understands a pinch of this, a dash of that, but doesn't deal with teaspoons and tablespoons.  We might like to think that in reading the modern cookbook re-creation of ancient recipes, that we are doing ancient recipes, and "practically" to some degree we are.  But our cooking is different than their cooking, and its more than the fact that we use microwaves, and they used clay wood fired ovens.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 04:49
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Theoretically, such anachronism in concepts _can_ be a problem.  Theoretically.
Practically, such an anachronism _need_not_ be a problem, it depends on what you want to do.

Just as ancient fables are all attributed to Aesop, ancient Roman cooking recipes were attributed to
Apicius.  You can actually buy a cook book (edited by a modern woman from the Medici family), that has modern re-creations of ancient Roman recipes.  But in reading a modern re-creation, an ancient would not understand it.  It's like the old woman who understands a pinch of this, a dash of that, but doesn't deal with teaspoons and tablespoons.  We might like to think that in reading the modern cookbook re-creation of ancient recipes, that we are doing ancient recipes, and "practically" to some degree we are.  But our cooking is different than their cooking, and its more than the fact that we use microwaves, and they used clay wood fired ovens.

You need to offer some concrete cause and effects here because I'm having trouble following you.

That said I want to address a point I was making in another thread concerning philosophy.

 "The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers."

Steven Weinberg

I understand what Weinberg is saying but it may be a bit of an exaggeration.  Today it is fashionable for experts to collaborate with people from other fields and philosophers are showing up in scientific publications fairly regularly.  I don't think people expect philosopher to unravel the mysteries of the universe or even suggest how to go about that task.   What they bring to a team is an understanding of the necessary rigidity of the language being used.  There is a certain "you know" short hand common to scientific papers that can often be misleading or even contradict the point the paper is making.  I think historical papers can benefit from the same kind of insights.

   
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 20:10
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

your recipe is interesting, but let me point out something that may or may not, for you, present a problem.
astronomy, mathematics, economics, architecture, ethnic are Greek words, commercial, commodities, scientific, linguistic, military, emergency, welfare, community are Latin based.  Therefore, while plenty of scholars will talk about "Egyptian science," "Babylonian astronomy," "Greek economics," et cetera, et cetera, really it is anachronistic to do so.  For Pythagoras, astronomy was part of mathematics (as was music), but also not separate from astrology, that was also true before him in the Babylonian society, which used astronomy/astrology to make a calendar, but not until rather late (700s-600s? something like that), astronomy/astrology didn't really exist until after that.  Without the concept of a calendar, astronomy(astrology) doesn't really make sense.
If you read the pseudo-Aristotelian "The Economics" you see all kinds of stories about tyrants and demagogues using all kinds of schemes to get money, (such as calling in the currency and exchanging it for devalued currency, lesser weigh, debased, so forth.  Economics in Xenophon is about properly training your young wife to manage your estate.  Of course, coinage is not introduced until 7th c. BC, before that, hacksilber was used and barter, the agora was a Greek invention, forum roman.
There is also no such thing as "art for art's sake," art was part of religion, or rather it was not "imagined" separate from religion until early modernity.
So your list is interesting, but just realize that it is filled with language that did not exist, nor (more importantly) did the concepts behind that language, when civilization was born.  That shouldn't necessarily change anything in your list, but I do think you should realize that you are talking about the origins of Civilization, using language and concepts that ancient 'citizens' would not possibly be able to recognize. 
Thanks for your remark. I agree that astronomy is a theme-oriented word and deserves a discussion. However, in my view the important thing is that every civilized society had a calendar. In Mesopotamia, the holidays were celebrated and lunar months observed even in the IV millennium BCE. You can call this astrology since magic was deeply involved. 
In Mesopotamia, first copper, than silver were used in barter trade. It was weighed, divided, and compared to other items of merchandize. Legal codes include prices. 
Not only art: almost everything was initially part of religion. And every complex society promoted arts. 
I have no doubt that ancient Mesopotamians would not understand what I'm talking about. However, I speak to my contemporaries and have to use the relevant language. Not only I! Doing this research, I observed thousands of sources for each unit. I came to my own conclusions, but I borrowed the language from my predecessors. 
MB
Back to Top
mikebis View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Aug 2015
Location: Bat=Yam, Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mikebis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 20:12
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Theoretically, such anachronism in concepts _can_ be a problem.  Theoretically.
Practically, such an anachronism _need_not_ be a problem, it depends on what you want to do.

Just as ancient fables are all attributed to Aesop, ancient Roman cooking recipes were attributed to
Apicius.  You can actually buy a cook book (edited by a modern woman from the Medici family), that has modern re-creations of ancient Roman recipes.  But in reading a modern re-creation, an ancient would not understand it.  It's like the old woman who understands a pinch of this, a dash of that, but doesn't deal with teaspoons and tablespoons.  We might like to think that in reading the modern cookbook re-creation of ancient recipes, that we are doing ancient recipes, and "practically" to some degree we are.  But our cooking is different than their cooking, and its more than the fact that we use microwaves, and they used clay wood fired ovens.
Thank you for explanation. 
MB
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.140 seconds.