Talk:Cradle of civilization/Archive 2

Chinese civilization wasn't oldest East Asian civilization
I think this article must be updated with latest civ, Korean civilization is also oldest as Chinese civilization.--Korsentry 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)


 * Nope, sorry it's not. There's reasons why the four member club only includes Egypt, Meso, India and China. Nice try though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.4.46.67 (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Ancient China is indeed the oldest civilization in the entire world and they invented the earliest known writing system of which Korea writing system is derived from. Historical evidence shows indisputably that Korea was originally a nomad based culture similar to Mongolians which eventually came under the influence of the powerful Chinese Empire sometime within the last 3,000 years. Korea was a tributary vassal state of the Chinese Empire until the 19th century, basically an autonomous region of China that was governed independently by the Korean King who was required to pay yearly tribute and kowtow (bow) to the Emperor of China. The Koreans originally adopted and used the ancient Chinese writing system until the 20th century when they decided to use the Korean Hangul writing system which was originally devised by a Korean King. The ancient Chinese writing system in the tributary state of Korea was the language of the educated scholars.

The ancient Chinese writing system was invented around 9,000 years ago based on archaological evidence, please read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6669569.stm


 * Again, the source does not say it's the world's oldest civilization, nor does it (explicitly) say that its writing is the earliest. There has been no widespread consensus that the Chinese civilization is the oldest, particularly from one source, therefore other theories are equally as valid.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, many sources show evidence that ancient China is the oldest, not Babylonia! 71.68.248.56 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Which sources, exactly? Unless you can substantiate that claim, and please adhere to a neutral point of view, then it shouldn't be added. Can you provide thorough worldwide critical consensus that 100% confirms that China is the world's oldest civilization? And I never said Babylon was. There are many theories, and you are just disregarding them, unless you can provide all the sources that stick to your point of view.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 14:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot disregard other sources and theories which claim contrary to your point. And pleaseassume good faith. There may not be a right or wrong answer, please understand that. Until the time comes where it is 100% proven and agreed upon by all the leading scholars in the entire world, then we cannot make such claims.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From a very incomplete knowledge of the subject, it appears to me "civilization" arose simultaneuously (in historical terms) in several places, in particular Babylon/Sumer & the Indus Valley. It seems some Indus culture may've derived from an earlier culture, from Central Asia, around what's now Kazakhstan. It's also possible they were contemporaneous (again, in historical terms). Making claims of "oldest" are pretty hard to settle with present methods of dating.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't think any claims of "oldest" should be applied to any civilization, due to the enormous difficulty in dating, not to mention the conflicting views and opinions.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 15:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
editsemiprotected

The picture at the beginning of this article incorrectly extends the Fertile Crescent past the Levant and on to Egypt. Please remove this picture and replace it with a more accurate one. Zhen42 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The request should be left in its own section at the bottom of the page. Celestra (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. I removed the current illustration; could you specify a replacement? Celestra (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions
1. I was looking on the Indus Valley Civilization and it says that the earliest civilization started before 7000BC. I think this should be mentioned in the article. I was also wondering that if this was the case then how can Mesopotamia be the cradle of civilization? 86.163.15.180 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE
Accepted practive to to use BCE and CE, not BC and AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.229.194 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A plug for Southeastern Europe
The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture that flourished between 5500 and 2750 BC built the largest settlements in the world up to that time (up to 15,000), practiced agriculture and animal domestication, and exhibited many signs of a "proto-civilization", if you will. It ended due (most likely) to the huge drought that clobbered all of the world, turning the grasslands of north Africa into desert, creating a dustbowl in Europe, and making it impossible to sustain an agronomic base for the large Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements. They were most likely absorbed into the pastoralist, nomadic Proto-Indo-Europeans that were moving into Southeast Europe during this time. Their direct descendants make up the Greeks, the Celts, the Danubian tribes (some of whom later migrated into Italy and became the Romans), and the Goths/Germans. Because the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture did not have a political state (not even city states), and because they did not have a hierarchical society, they do not qualify to be considered a genuine "civilization", even though they were quite advanced in many ways for their time. However, it seems a shame to not even mention this fascinating society in the main article here, so perhaps just a passing note about them in the "Talk" page will suffice (which I now, of course, have done). Thanks for the bandwidth in allowing me to talk about one of my favorite subjects here. --Saukkomies talk 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
I believe that this article should be merged with Mesopotamia. The two are very similar, and have to do with the same subject. They both deal a lot with the ancient history of Mesopotamia.

Vanbaalenj (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanbaalenj


 * This article is about much more than Mesopotamia, this is about all the possible cradles of civilization. The Mesopotamia article discusses Mesopotamia specifically.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 20:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Readded
The timeline that was deleted is readded. Some one said that the links in the template doesnt exist, but I see all of them do exist and may be some servers are switched off at different timezones and that may cause some disturbances otherwise they are fine. Actually the template was submitted for review during creation and they have not seen any problems. If you still have doubts, try to rework the template itself rather than deleting it in this article. Thanks. 27.57.24.199 (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that the pages which are linked to don't actually exist. The template needs to link to articles which actually exist, or the articles need to be created.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you mean that the link entries on the templates are wrong. Ok, this can be fixed either by directing or redirecting to proper page. Anybody can do it. I will do when possible. Thanks. 27.61.157.64 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, the template actually looks really good. Good indication of the timeline of these ancient civilizations.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 15:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cradle of civilization
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cradle of civilization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Unesco": From Malta:  From Gojoseon: Unesco. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rm'ed "followed by Egypt" in the lead...
...because it was unnecessary (and inaccurate since the earliest "cradle" can be only one thing. Having a "followed by" is illogical) and very vulnerable to vandalism (order switching).
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Four great ancient civilizations
I haven't checked to see why this was a redirect, but I did check to see if this idea of Liang Qichao's and his The Pacific Ocean in the 20th Century gets any significant mention in reliable sources, and I found nonte. The magazine SGI Quarterly is a Buddhist magazine for "peace, education and culture" and the article is not enough to make this significant, nor would I consider it a reliable source. The webpage from a Chinese Middle School is a student's book review, quite obviously an unacceptable source. That's why I removed it. If the concept is to be replaced it will need other and much better sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

new information on the invention of the whell in Europe
cant we open this arcticel again i want to add information about the invention of the wheel in europe   this is a big step toward civilation  and most be placed in this articel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.233 (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First known wheel is documented to have been developed in Sumeria ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

this should be removed
" The Encarta in its similar article states: "some of these civilizations are the Andean one, which originated about 800 BC; the Mexican (about the 3rd century BC); the Far Eastern, which originated in China about 2200 BC and spread to Japan about AD 600; the Indian (about 1500 BC); the Egyptian (about 3000 BC); the Sumerian (about 4000 BC); followed by the Babylonian (about 1700 BC); the Minoan (about 2000 BC); the Semitic (about 1500 BC); the Greco-Roman (about 1100 BC)... "

Holy Duke-clobbers-Carolina, Batman! I don't think anyone takes Microsoft's Encarta as much of an encyc, but good golly! What idiot editors there let this howler get out? Dates wrong, majority historical opinion wrong .... I think it should just be quietly deleted and forgotten. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That whole section, 'history of the idea', needs help. Maybe start by removing the three paragraphs based on two encyclopedias and a course? Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The section definitely needs work, but I don't see any valid arguments regarding the Columbia Encyclopedia and the AP World History sources, whereas the above user is commenting on the Encarta. They could provide useful opinions within the article, although maybe not in the history section, since they came from notable and well-known parties (i.e. Columbia University and etc.).--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Vedic Civilization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeDMSXOhDbY   VEDIC CIVILIZATION IS OLDER THAN   20000 YEARS  U GUYS PUT THAT IN TIMELINE OF 1500 BC, ITS ACTUALLY 20000BC ACCORDING TO NEW ARCHAEOLOGY DISCOVERIES OF DWARAKA,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.140.169 (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Youtube videos are generally not reliable sources to use for Wikipedia, especially when it contradicts mainstream scholarship. In the video it is said that:
 * "Mainstream scholars today claim that ancient indian civilization only goes back four/five thousand years",
 * then it goes on to present a different viewpoint. However, it is clear that Wikipedia should use the mainstream view for its timeline, and the mere mention of this minority view must be justified by demonstrating a significant support for the view among scholars. A reliable source is needed for that. -- Lindert (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Greece
A lot of the text here is directly copied from the sources cited, or from within other Wikipedia articles, which appear themselves to have been taken from sources, and the section as a whole doesn't really discuss how it relates to the formation of civilization. For example see the Neolithic civilization paragraph and compare to this source: http://www.greek-thesaurus.gr/Neolithic-civilization-Greece.html. Again, the minoan paragraph, see. Until such time as a rewrite is performed and relevance established, I suggest its removal-- Tærkast (Discuss) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think a lot of the discussion on the Greek neolithic is irrelevant to the article. I think we should be primarily occupied with settlement and agriculture. Since now I also see it's copied, I'll edit it a bit more aggressively. Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Greece - navigation hoax
"In Crete recent findings show that the ancient people of Greece had "the most ancient sign of early navigation worldwide". Archaeological experts from Greece discovered along the southern coast of the Greek island of Crete rough axes and other tools and indicating that men of Crete navigated across open waters as far back as between 130,000 and 700,000 years ago[22]"

There were no people in the Europe so long ago... This is a clear hoax. Even the reference is very doubtful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.195.200.214 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Define "people" - H. Erectus is known in Europe much earlier than that. I think I know what you were trying to say, but you did it very badly. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reference to ancient navigation as irrelevant to the emergence of civilization. (its veracity can be discussed in the History of Crete talk page if people so desire) Martijn Faassen (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Israel
Shouldn't there be a section for that here as well?Evildoer187 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on? &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 21:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What do you have in mind? This article is about the first emergence of civilization in a global sense. Although the region containing Israel has a long history, I don't think civilization in Israel is quite as old as in the nearby regions of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Anyway, if you can add something on Israel that is supported by reliable sources, please do so. - Lindert (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with User:Lindert, but be warned that it might be a bit of an uphill battle to prove that Palestine/Israel, or the upper Levant region, was an isolated cradle of civilization of its own right rather than a derivative of Meso & Egypt. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Natufian culture is considered by some historians as the site with earliest evidence of agriculture, domestication of animals and sedentary dwelling in the world.--Tritomex (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Norte Chico civilization
has a seemingly well-founded article in the Wikipedia, and according to this is contemporary with the old Egypt. A place in the timeline for this civilization might be merited - especially if only one "cradle" in the Americas is included. But you might want to make that 2 - one on each side of the continent, since that would make it possible to include a number of later civilizations, in parallel with the other "Cradle lines". A new line could be headed "Andean". And while we are at it, the line "Maya" should be headed "Mesoamerica" or something like it, to bring it in sync with the other lines, and it ought to begin with "Olmec", not "pre-mayan". 188.178.169.92 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Erik Lund, Roskilde, Denmark

"We"
"somewhere, apparently, in the 4th millennium B.C., we begin to find inscriptions written on clay,". EB 1911 strikes again. We really shouldn't allow this as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening: If writing is considered an indicator of civilization...
The last sentence of the opening paragraph is very bold in its assumptions.

"If writing is considered an indicator of civilization, the earliest "cradle" to have writing was Sumer (Jemdet Nasr)"

Using the same 'indicator,' can we conclude then that the cradle of civilization is in the Indian subcontinent, considering the pictograms found inside the | Bhimbetka Rock Shelters predates pretty much everything else? --Ratha K (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Pictograms are not writing, strictly speaking. Mostly, they fail to convey tenses, abstract ideas, etc. that writing systems can. The earliest writing system came from Mesopotamia, which is why it's generally recognized as the actual cradle of civilization.
 * Additionally, if we go down that slippery slope, before long you'll have people demanding France be recognized as the cradle of civilization because it has Lascaux...
 * If you are in Canada, ROM has a great exhibit on the topic which I invite you to check out.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 14:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

New Guinea
According to the Wikipedia articles on New Guinea and the history of Papua New Guinea, Papuan aboriginals developed agriculture independently. Perhaps a section concerning New Guinean agriculture should be included? I can predict that some might comment that the level of cultural complexity in New Guinea is not high enough to be considered civilized, but that seems subjective, and the sole criterion for inclusion on this page seems to be the independent development of agriculture.61.227.99.166 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I need to look at that since it's simply not right. Agriculture doesn't equate to civilization. Last time I looked the article was a mess. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick look - the lead notes that "Scholars have defined civilization using various criteria. The use of writing is a common one but there are cultures without writing that reached the same level of complexity as those with it. Some standard criteria include a class-based society, and public buildings." I haven't looked to see what's in the body of the article, later. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding a Melanesian origin of Agriculture, Papua New Guinea does in fact seem to have been a very early Vavilhov Zone for the commencement of plant domestication. Some evidence suggests that taro was spread to the Solomon Islands as early as 28,000 years ago, making this the first evidence of plant domestication anywhere in the world.  See "Direct evidence for human use of plants 28,000 years ago: starch residues on stone artefacts from the northern Solomon Islands" by Thomas Hoy and Matthew Spriggs in Antiquity Volume: 66  Number: 253  Page: 898–912.  They report "Residue analysis of stone artefacts from the site now provides the earliest direct evidence for the prehistoric use of root vegetables, in the form of starch grains and crystalline raphides identifiable to genus. The direct microscopic identification of starch grains opens new avenues for the study of the plant component of human diets in the distant past."  The root vegetables identified were not native to the islands indicating that they were imported from Papua New Guinea as cultivars.  Regards John D. Croft (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusions
There seems to be a confusion in this article between "civilisation" and "agriculture". Civilisation is a relatively recent phenomenon beginning about 3,300 BCE, whereas pre- or non-civilised agricultural cultures have existed from about 10,000 years ago. Whilst agriculture is essential to civilisation, civilisation is not the same as agriculture. This needs to be explained more clearly. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and add my voice to yours. Sadly, I won't have any time soon to do it myself, but willing to help. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 12:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That's been the case at the History of Civilization article also, as you both probably know. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is Greece in here?
The article is called "Cradle of Civilization" - yet there are no sources that refer to Greece saying it was a CofC. That might apply to other areas included here as well. We must have a significant number of good sources applying the phrase to include a region. We can't decide ourselves what qualifies. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this, and re-ask why Greece is included in this article. At several points the article quotes sources identifying 6 cradles, none of which include Greece. Sure, you can talk about the first bronze age culture in the Grecian world, just like you can talk about the first bronze age culture of any civilization. However, this article is about the locations where civilization emerged independently in the ancient world and the Minoan civilization is understood as an off-shoot of the Danube civilization; i.e. the Minoan civilization did not emerge independently and therefore should not be highlighted in this article.Flygongengar (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cradle of Western Civilisation
I have created a small section called "Cradle of Western civilisation". I want to know two things 1)Is it ok to mantain this section in this article? 2) Is it ok to show Greece and Rome as cradles of western culture? I have noticed that User:Dr.K. has removed Sourced statements about Rome being described as the cradle of western civilisation. I think he knows better than me these kind of things, however there are sources describing both of them as birthplaces of the Western civilisation. No one is trying to say that Rome is the cradle of the Western Civilisation "instead" of Greece. I am only saying that Both have been described as cradles of Western Civilisation. DR.K, Can we discuss that here? The very concept of a western part of the world is heavily related to both the Western Roman Empire and Western Christianity and both of them originated in Rome. I am pretty sure that there are more sources about Greece being the cradle but there also sources about Rome. And in "popular culture" both of them have been described as cradles of western civilisation. Barjimoa (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The academic consensus is clear. Greece is considered the "cradle of Western civilisation". Look at your sources, a book from 1923 written by some unknown guy, an old atlas with some comments (not a specialist source), a course guide which mentions nothing about a cradle of civilisation and a book titled "The Birth Of Western Civilisation, Greece & Rome", which mentions nothing like Rome is the "cradle of Western civilisation". Meanwhile I have provided 12 specialist references all of which explicitly recognise Greece as the "cradle of Western civilisation". One actually mentions:  It simply doesn't get any more definive than that. Of course Rome developed many concepts of Western civilisation, it is simply not recognised as the "cradle" of it by most academic sources. Greece is. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  15:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not questioning the fact that Greece is the Cradle of Western civilisation, I am saying that Rome has been described as the Cradle of Western civilization too. The fact that Greece has more sources does not mean that Rome should be deleted from the section. Three sources I have provided are actually books, two of them describing both Greece and Rome as the birthplaces of Western Civilization while the third one is entitled "Rome, the Cradle of Western civilization". So, the term has been applied also to Rome. Plus, in popular culture Rome is known as the cradle of Western civilization. This is why i have also included some non-academic sources.

Barjimoa (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have noticed you changed the article again. I think we should wait the end of the discussion since you changed the original version removing sourced statements. If you are right we are going to delete Rome from the section, dont worry. Barjimoa (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the vast majority of sources refer to Greece as the "cradle of civilisation" while Rome is supported by very few. It is a clear case of WP:UNDUE to include Rome. You are also adding "usually" which is not in any of the sources and it is WP:OR as well as bad grammar to write "Greece usually and Rome" when Greece is referred to much more often than Rome. I will revert your reversion on that basis. Please stop your edit-warring because you have no policy-based reason to revert me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, Dont revert. I did not start an edit war. In fact, i never reverted you. I tried to put informations in a better way every time you reverted me. Barjimoa (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's edit-warring anyway. Please read WP:3RR. Every time you add Rome you change my edit. That's edit-warring. You have two debatable sources versus 12 sources that I provided. I can also get many more. Your edit is a clear case of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR. Please stop your edit-warring. You have no policy-based reason for it. You should revert your edit per WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις, Maybe we can find a better way to include the informations i have provided but we cannot simply ignore them. Barjimoa (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you cannot include Rome when only a small minority of sources call it the CoWC. It is WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be the case if i was trying to replace Greece with Rome. I am only trying to avoid another editor to exclude Rome only because Rome has less sources than Greece. I want to mantain both. Find me a source that clearly excludes Rome from being a birthplace of western civilisation. Cause i have sources saying that it is.Barjimoa (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You obviously do not understand the concept of WP:DUEWEIGHT. When most sources refer to Greece as the CoWC then that's what it is. If Rome is is in the minority it is not mentioned per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I Understand. But do you understand that your sources do not say that "Greece is the one and only place allowed to be described as the one and only cradle of Western civilisation".? We cannot ignore sources that are adding (not replacing, thats my point) something to the article. Barjimoa (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Dr.K. What are you doing now? :D

I appreciate your knowledge of the argument but you dont need that amount of sources to prove your point. We both agree that Greece has been decribed as the cradle of the West.

I have added "sometimes" before the word "Rome" so "Usually" refers only to "Greece". Hope you can agree with that. Barjimoa (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Barjimoa (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Only one source refers to Rome as the CoWC. The other references refer to the birthplace of civilisation in a general way, so they do not use the actual term CoWC. The term CoWC specifically refers to Greece and I have twenty references to support it. The lone reference you provided is simply not adequate to support this for Rome. The evidence is clear. Plus your pictures are POV. Only Greece should be pictured per WP:DUEWEIGHT. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree beacuse i am not trying to replace Greece with Rome. How are they POV since one book is entitled "Rome, the cradle of the Western Civilization" and two books describe both Rome and Greece as the origins of Western Culture. "Usually Greece and Sometimes Rome" reflects better the situation than writing only about Greece. Again we cannot ignore sourced statements. That is against every rule in wiki. I insist, this section does not violate any wiki rule. Both have been described as Cradles of the Western civilization. One more than the other one. Much much more than other one? Ok. Write that if you want. I agree with that. BTW i bet we can find a lot of sources about Rome too, especially when it comes to popular culture, but that's not the point and it is useless. I hope you understand that there are no sources saying that Greece is the only place allowed to be described as the one and only cradle of the West, as i said before. Barjimoa (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait i am going to make some edits that may make the article more correct. Barjimoa (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have made my edit. Basically, i gave up on everything. Now since you know a lot about Greece, I hope you can improve the section. Barjimoa (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by saying you gave up on everything. I think the way you framed the information is actually very good and it is also informative. Thank you for your effort. Also thank you for your invitation and your nice comments about me. I'll try to see if I can improve on your text but it will be a hard act to follow. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Little after comment: Dr.K is right. The Romans themselves said: "Graecia capta ferum victorem coepit". This says everything. Alex2006 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with maintaining a "Cradle of Western Civilization" section in the article to discuss it as the cultural origin of Western civilization. However, the section should clearly state that the term cradle of civilization in this case is being used differently than how it is throughout the rest of the article. The article is primarily discussing places where the concept of civilization emerged independently, of which there are only 6 generally accepted sites: Sumer, Egypt, Harappa, Caral, Shang, and Olmec. Greecian civilization emerged as the result of influx from Crete ultimately via the ancient Near East and Egypt, as well as the Danube Valley and Vincan culture, agricultural techniques from Mesopotamia, and is a descendant of the Indo-European culture. Greece is certainly the cultural cradle of Western civilization, but it is not a "cradle of civilization" (i.e. it did not emerge independently but rather evolved from several existing civilizations and cultures).Flygongengar (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Vietnam?
Is not the Red River Valley culture of Vietnam an indigenous culture as old as the most ancient Chinese cultures? The Hùng dynasty dates back to about 2900 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.184.34 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Civilization in Vietnam and South East Asia in general descended from civilization that originated along the Yangtze river (referring to a "Chinese" cradle is somewhat problematic because civilization spread out of "China" long before China was unified, and most scholarship tends to only focus on the Yellow River and ignore the Yangtze despite the East Asian cradle technically including both). However, rice cultivation originated along the Yangtze which spread into proto Vietnam. The Hung Dynasty dates of 2900 BC are likely legendary (no doubt there were indigenous people living there at that time but they weren't developed enough to the point of civilization). The earliest full archaeological civilizations in the area don't date till around 1000 BC.16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

China/Shang/Yellow River
I noticed someone deleted the section for China/Shang/Yellow River as a cradle. As several sources list it as one of 6 cradles (including references used in this article itself), I've restored the information to the article. I think there was some objection to labeling China under the heading of "Old World", although old world was used to counterpoint the "New World" of the Americas. The section could use more sources, but in that case list it as needing sources to be expanded later instead of outright deleting it.Flygongengar (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop re-ordering China
China does not belong in the New World section. This has nothing to do with dates; it's geography. Old World is Eurasia/Africa. New World is Americas. The New World is separated because the American civilizations had not interaction with the Eurasia/African civilizations, while the old world ones existed in trade networks.Flygongengar (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline needs to be re-worked
The current timeline, though well intentioned, needs to be reworked. Discussing the Maya instead of the Olmec, using mythical dates for early China, inclusion of Greece, and only starting at 3000 BC (therefore not properly dating Sumer or Egypt) are just a few of the examples that should be updated with better sourced information. I am willing to do the work; however, I am unsure how to even edit the timeline. If someone could help?Flygongengar (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/history_world/fund_8000bc.html?worldhist
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150621221649/http://www.britannica.com/topic/Erlitou-culture to https://www.britannica.com/topic/Erlitou-culture

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction required: Indus Valley civilization
There should be correction related to the Indus Valley civilization. The pottery recovered dates the civilization back to 9000 BC - 8000 BC, making it the most ancient human civilization yet. This discovery is very recent(May 2016), and hence not known to many. Please correct the same. Below articles from two most eminent newspapers from India & Pakistan refer to the study:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indus-era-8000-years-old-not-5500-ended-because-of-weaker-monsoon/articleshow/52485332.cms http://www.dawn.com/news/1261513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.52.41 (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The cited article and information is a bit disingenuous. Signs of culture and human habitation are not the same thing as the emergence of civilization proper; i.e. the article just takes the earliest radio carbon date of pottery and says that's the start of the civilization, which isn't how it works. There's evidence of human habitation in Egypt ~8000 BC and pottery ~5000 BC but we don't count civilization proper as having emerged there till ~4000 BC. In the same way there are plenty of cities in the Levant and Mesopotamia, like Jericho which dates to 9000 BC, that pre-dates what is considered the rise of civilization in the area (also around ~4000 BC). Along with a level of technological and cultural advancement, civilization, as discussed in this wiki article, requires a level of social stratification across multiple sites. Neither article you list discusses anything about the potential social stratification of the Indus culture 8,000 years ago. The emergence and dating of human habitation and advanced neolithic cultures in an area is not the same thing as the emergence of civilization, and there are many advanced neolithic cultures across the globe that predate the dates of civilization in this article.


 * It should also be noted that the cited articles seems to confuse themselves with their dates. "The Indus Valley Civilisation is at least 8,000 years old, and not just 5,500 years old. It took root well before the Egyptian (7,000 BC to 3,000 BC)." However, these are two different measurements of time. 8,000 years ago (before present) is NOT 8,000 BC. 8,000 years ago is 6,000 BC which still makes it younger than the 7,000 BC date the cited article lists for Egypt (and also not dating to 9000 BC - 8000 BC, as you said). Considering the article can't keep these two measurements straight, I'd seriously suggest waiting for additional academic sources (instead of news sources reporting on academic sources) before changing the date of civilization listed in the wiki article. (This wiki article also already mentions a date of 7,500 BC in the Hakra region for early pottery and tools). 108.46.147.132 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101201656/http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm to http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128194547/http://www.uparchaeology.org/pragdhara%20No-16.pdf to http://www.uparchaeology.org/pragdhara%20No-16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807120030/https://www.chinaculture.org:80/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.history.com/news/2012/01/20/popcorn-was-popular-in-ancient-peru-discovery-suggests/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't continually edit the dating of the Indus Valley Civilization section
"Civilization" (what is discussed in the article) on the Indian subcontinent is considered to have started during the Early Harappan Phase ~3300 BC. It is during this period that both their script and a stratified society with centralized authority emerge. Frequently, new users edit the IVC section due to sources discussing sites such as Bhirrana and Mehrgarh. These sites (and others) are already discussed in this article. They are the precursor Neolithic cultures which led to the development of civilization in the area, but are not "civilizations" (as discussed in the article) themselves. The dating of Bhirrana and Mehrgarh does not make the IVC earlier than Egypt/Sumer. If you were to consider the dating of the precursor Neolithic cultures in the fertile crescent (analogous to Bhirrana and Mehrgarh), they would still significantly predate the IVC.72.89.38.176 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Elam
Should Elam be included in this page, or at least as part of the Fertile Crescent?

Considering its data and cultural development, should Elam be included in this page? Or at least added detailed in the portions pertaining to the Fertile Crescent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.78.135 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Elam is currently discussed at the end of the Mesopotamia subsection of the article as part of the early urbanization during the Chalcolithic period.72.89.38.176 (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003043351/http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/worldhistory/ap-cd-worldhist-0708.pdf to http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/ap/students/worldhistory/ap-cd-worldhist-0708.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120708024023/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/civiliza to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/civiliza
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_artqa/2003-09/24/content_39079.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107211225/http://file104.filthbooks.org/6kln6_the-story-of-western-civilization-greece-and-rome-build-great-civilizati.pdf to http://file104.filthbooks.org/6kln6_the-story-of-western-civilization-greece-and-rome-build-great-civilizati.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are Mesopotamia and Egypt considered separate independently developed civilizations in this article?
At least that is what I feel like this article is implying. They both share common origins as they developed from the Neolithic cultures Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. They are also very near to each other geographically and thus have had constant contact with one other technologically, agriculturally, and ideologically for millennia even before the development of states. This does not sound independently developed to me and because of this, I believe it is appropriate to combine the Mesopotamian and Egyptian subsections into one “Fertile Crescent” or “Near East” subsection. Please let me know if my concerns have the grounds for such appropriate actions and if not explain to me your reasoning. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C100:13EA:E8C2:155F:153F:CA47 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cradle of civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6FsRQvwtI?url=http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm to http://www.nga.gov/education/chinatp_pt2.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Images and 2nd - 1st millennium BCE
the 4,500 bytes of content about Vedic period (2nd millennium BCE to 500 BCE) that you copy pasted here was unwarranted, it is not related to Cradle of civilization. Also stop changing images, because we use the most neutral images, putting images of "Mature Harappan Period, c. 2600–1900 BCE" doesn't describe events dating 7600 BCE. Lorstaking (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

the reason I changed those images for both India and China is because the original images had little to with the topic. Those images showed the cultural spheres for both India and China and didn't really focus on the cradle of civilization aspect. This is why I replaced those images with descriptive Indus Valley civilization and Erlitou culture images respectively. That is what the core of those subsections are about. You refer to the reason to why you do not accept the Indus Valley civilization image because it "doesn't describe events dating 7600 BCE". I do not understand your logic on this. 7600 BC describes the Neolithic era. The consensus is that civilization didn't begin until at least 3300 BC. Also the image presented for the Egypt subsection describes that of the New Kingdom and it doesn't describe predynastic Egypt, so why is that image acceptable while mine is not? I do however apologize for the copy-pasting. I wanted to describe the Vedic era for the India subsection as the Zhou dynasty was mentioned in the China subsection. I will use my own words in the future. But you really didn't need to undo 100% of my work here. I don't have any interest in starting an edit war with you but I think some of your revisions were unjustified. I am more than willing to have a discussion with you on the future of the image situation. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section on Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc. ends with 2000 BCE or earlier, while India ends with 1800 or 1500 BCE. You can reduce the section on China. The image that you added to India's section was dating showing a civilization from 2600 - 1900 BCE, that doesn't really seem like a Cradle of civilization, although the map certainly indicates what India meant geographically during ancient times.
 * I was trying to copy edit the article but my device went crazy. I had an edit conflict with you while I was restoring version. Lorstaking (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now added the cleanup tag on the section of China, because it talks really a lot about those times that are not relevant to the page. Lorstaking (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IP seems to be misunderstanding these edits, the major edit was made today, and it requires consensus, though I would not encourage such forking and suggest you to cleanup any other section instead if they have more recent material. Capitals00 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The image on the section of Egypt shows the New Kingdom at the height of Egyptian power which lasted from 1550 BC - 1077 BC, well after your 2000 BC cutoff. The image I included showed the Indus Valley Civilization at its height serving the same function the Egyptian New Kingdom image does for its respective subsection. The image I chose I felt was appropriate and consistent with the article. The original image in the India subsection has almost no relevance to the Indus Valley Civilization as it refers more to the Indian cultural sphere than to the actual cradle itself, so I don't understand why you prefer that image to mine. I have the similar concerns about the China subsection image also. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we really don't have more neutral maps for indicating the influence of China and India. Lorstaking (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * what does "indicating the influence of China and India" have to do with anything and how is that relevant to this article? This article is about cradles of civilization not cultural influence of major countries. I feel that my images were completely appropriate for both the India and China subsections as they referred to the cradles specifically. I also do not know what you mean by "neutral maps". Could you also address some of my other concerns I laid out in my previous comments? EdwardElric2016 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits and possible copyright violatiosn
I am seeing quite a bit of material copied from elsewhere, some from other articles and some from other websites. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of these appeared on the bot report. It's copied from multiple other Wikipedia articles. I've added the required attribution. I didn't find any copyvio from external websites. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. I did fixed some mistakes or copyedited the copied content, I will probably fix the main articles too. Lorstaking (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

== Intentionally rewriting sections to be more vague is Vandalism. (Indus Valley changed to Indo-Gangetic Plain) ==

I don't understand the logic or the sense of people who take perfectly good detailed information and change it into something more vague. This reeks of nationalistic intent. In the current article and context, the reference clearly pertains to the river civilisation OF the Indus Valley, but it seems over the last year, this has been expanded to "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is a vast region with no apparent connection between the "Indus" and the "Ganges". This is a clear vandalism as it serves no useful purpose to a reader or wikipedia. Furthermore the "Indo-Gangetic Plain" article is a complete mess, patched up in a hurry and serves no purpose when Ganges and the Indus have their separate more detailed entries.

This Edit was submitted by User:Lorstaking back in October last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&type=revision&diff=804829168&oldid=804620625 User:EdwardElric2016 should probably also explain himself as to why he appears to be working together with Lorstaking in restoring these nonsensical edits. Just for your information, the IP that contributed to the article in October is not mine. --Xinjao (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:EdwardElric2016. Lorstaking is clearly engaging in an edit war if you consider that this was HIS edit in the first place, I find your response very lacking in research: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&diff=prev&oldid=804620625

--Xinjao (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Indus River" reference has been sourced with 9 references here: Cradle_of_civilization Please explain why this Edit by Lorstaking is not vandalism? --Xinjao (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:EdwardElric2016, once again you are reverting sourced citations with an edit made by Lorstaking. Please explain yourself. --Xinjao (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Indo-Gangetic Plain vs Indus River Valley
There is apparently a mismatch in what the main article sources quote and what is now written in the introduction. I am referring to the 9 sources that this article introduction was originally based on: Which brings me to the usage of "Indo-Gangetic Plain". None of these sources mention such a phrase. Consulting Google: Indo-Gangetic Plain gives 188 000 results "Indus valley" gives 3 690 000 results
 * Source 1: Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, Trigger, Bruce G uses the phrase "Indus Valley Civilisation" in context.
 * Source 2: "Rise of Civilizations: Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica" N/a I do not have access to this book.
 * Source 3: uses the phrase "Indus" in context.
 * Source 4: uses the phrase "Indus Valley or Harrapan civilization" in context.
 * Source 5: Yahoo article uses the phrase "India" in context.
 * Source 6: Britanica uses the phrase "Indus valley" in context.
 * Source 7: No longer exists.
 * Source 8: Primary states emerged before sophisticated writing systems in six generally recognized regions: Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, Mesoamerica, and Andean South America.
 * Source 9: "Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to Agriculture" uses the phrase "Indus civilisation" in context.

It is very clear that Indus Valley is the widely accepted and most popular term used in the context of early civilisations. Hence I propose using this phrase, as was originally the case prior to the October edit by Lorstaking and User:EdwardElric2016

Please agree or disagree as to the usage of either phrase. Xinjao (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The usage of Indo-Gangetic plain is just the usage of the broader term when actually referring to the more specific term (Indus valley). It would be like stating most of Afghanistan's languages are Indo-Iranic when specifically most of Afghanistan's language belong to the Iranic subbranch of Indo-Iranic. So that's what it is. It's using the general term (Ingo-Gangetic) when referring to the Indus Valley. WP:UNDUE and WP:COMMONAME would also be useful here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In which world "sophisticated writing systems" would mean "cradle of civilization"? We need to find the term "cradle of civilization" in these sources, and none of these sources support it. But Xinjao believes that they are talking about cradle of civilization, and for that you he should read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You can't make up your own conclusion unless stated by the source. Indo-Gangetic Plain has history with Indus Valley, Vedic as well as earlier civilizations that are part of the so called "early civilisations" that Xinjao talking about. Read this another source, that mentions Indo-Gangetic Plain, Harappa, Vedic culture and cradle of civilization. This source would support not only the lead but most of the section as well. Capitals00 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are more sources available for calling India a cradle of civilization than calling Indus Valley a cradle of civilization. Lorstaking (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are changing the topic and seemingly dismissing almost every source presented in the article, including your own two sources. Also, for the purpose and context of this article, it's not the common name. --Xinjao (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitals, you insist on talking about my "belief" and "opinion". Could you please stick to the subject of the sources. Of the two sources added by Lorstaking, only one even mentions the "Indo-Gangetic plain". Virtually every other relevant source in this article refers to the region of Indus Valley or Indus river during a very specific period of time. This is not my opinion, but fact. You are clearly giving undue weight to the Ganges region and using an uncommon name. A simple Google search would reveal that. Do note that I have not added any new source to this article. I could add plenty more to prove my point. --Xinjao (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indo-Gangetic is the pan-terminology, including both the Indus and the Ganges. Indus valley is the more specific term. Vedic period had both these civilizations but the Indus Valley Civilization did not. After all that's why it's called Indus Valley Civilization.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For the pre-vedic period, there is no basis for using this pan-terminology. The majority of sources do not support this and it's a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:COMMONAME and even WP:UNDUE since the article pertains to the pre-Vedic period. Xinjao (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you have to find sources that would support "cradle of civilization" and your "Indus Valley", and until now you haven't done so. We have multiple sources to support the present wording. Have one more:
 * If you are going to repeat your personal opinion by misrepresenting sources then don't consider another response from me. Start an WP:RFC or find any other measures on WP:DR. But I would tell you that you will only waste your time as well as time of others. Lorstaking (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Combining sources and stop making baseless accusations. The sources are very clear on the subject under discussion. EMK9 just posted another 6 sources to support Indus valley reference. --Xinjao (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Combining sources? Which essay you are trying to point it? I would like to know if there is really any that would exempt you from WP:SYNTH. Lead is based on region, than period. Indus Valley Civilisation was a historical period, not a region. Not to mention how many of them are unreliable or reinforces my edits. Lorstaking (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support for Indus River Valley Emk9 (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 1 "Indus Valley was the cradle of a highly developed civilization"
 * Source 2 Quotes Kramer's The Cradle of Civilization, which is already cited on this page. Kramer's quote "Indus civilization, also called Indus valley civilization, or Harappan Civilization, the earliest known urban center of the Indian subcontinent..."
 * Source 3 "The Asian cradles of civilization are ... The Indus valley of South Asia"
 * Source 4 "The Indus Valley is one of the 'Cradles of Civilization'"
 * Source 5 "The valley of the Indus and its tributaries is divided today between India and Pakistan. Some 7000 years ago the valley was one of the cradles of civilization. From the Indus Valley, Dravidian peoples..."
 * Source 6 "The Indus Valley was one of the 'cradles of civilization'"


 * Your argument has factual errors, but I would describe them later, first we can look at your sources. Your first source said "in India, the Indus Valley was the cradle of a highly developed civilization". 2nd one is self-published from Llumina Press. 3rd one is snippet, I can't confirm. 4th one said "The Indus Valley is one of the “cradles of civilization” and among the world's oldest urban hearths". And 6th one is an outdated source. I can still find more sources for saying cradle of civilization arose in Indo-Gigantic plan in India.
 * Regarding the factual errors, who is denying that Indus Valley Civilisation was not a cradle of civilization? Here we are talking about a specific region to be a cradle of civilization, not the specific period. For example, we are calling "China" a cradle of civilization, not "Erlitou culture" on lead. Just like that we don't have to call "Indus Valley Civilization" a cradle of civilization, but India, which is how it was known then and even today majority of Indus Valley Civilisation sites exist in present day India. Majority of sources, including some of yours, go by the region and not the period when they talk page cradle of civilization. Lorstaking (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * First regarding the 2nd and 3rd sources, the 2nd one was more to quote Kramer, since I couldn't find a copy of his book. The self-publishing makes it less reliable though, I agree.  The 3rd one only removed the line about the fertile crescent. Your second source (currently 9), doesn't actually use Indo-gigantic plain. Second, I'm not sure why my sources usage India is a problem, I'm not arguing that India should be replaced, in fact I think "the Indus River valley in India" is fine.  I'm specifically discussing the use of this line "Other civilizations arose in Asia among cultures situated along large river valleys, such as Indo-Gangetic Plain in India", in which I feel Indo-Gangetic is not the term widely used.  I'm also not saying it should say Indus Valley Civilization. It's possible there are two different discussions going on, which could explain the confusion. Emk9 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying "Indus Valley" would discredit other civilizations that existed in Ganges. Xinjao's particular wish is to get rid of the mention of "India", and that's how he doesn't agree with your suggestion either. Lorstaking (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that explains part of the confusion. I still think Indo-gangantic should either be changed, or the Ganges civilizations should have more coverage in the article.  Also the Indo-gangantic plain doesn't seem to be a "river valley", which is what it is currently described as, though I'm not sure what the best way to rephrase that since the other areas are river valleys. Emk9 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Lorstaking is still going off topic with his fixation on that edit, when in fact this talk page entry is self explanatory on what I am suggesting. But I agree with your suggestion on rephrasing that sentence EMK9. Do note that Lortaking is pushing his own anti-Pakistan POV: . His bias on this subject area should be crystal clear to everyone. --Xinjao (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Another source from the IVC article intro: [IVC]...along with Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, it was one of three early cradles of civilisations of the Old World, and of the three, the most widespread. (The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society Rita P. Wright). --Xinjao (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, who is saying that Indus Valley Civilisation was not a cradle of civilization? Lorstaking (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue as the subject line indicates, is the usage of "Indo-Gangetic Plain" which is not only an Uncommon Name but for this specific era of history most sources do not even mention the Ganges rivers, hence a clear example of WP:SYNTH. Xinjao (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue. Which "most sources" you are talking about? Do you have a particular list? Who is talking about "Ganges river" or asked you to find it? Do you even understand what is WP:SYNTH?
 * "Asia is the cradle of three major civilizations of the world. In the West was the Mesopotamian civilization that occupied the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers, now Iraq. In the South Asian subcontinent, where India is located, was the Indus valley civilization, which had occupied the land between the Indus and the Ganges rivers."Human and Mediated Communication around the World: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis, p. 105, Marieke de Mooij, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013
 * "The Indus and the Ganges have been cradles of ancient civilization." Eastern Himalayan culture, ecology, and people: ancient heritage and future prospects, Hasna Jasimuddin Moudud, Academic Press and Publishers, 2001, p.3.
 * "This plain in the Indus and Ganges valleys was a third cradle of civilization. The fourth cradle you will find to the east and north. Among the mountains of China find the river Wei." The old world, past and present, Edna Fay Campbell, Victor L. Webb, William Lewis Nida, Scott, Foresman & company, 1937.
 * Clearly enough. So far you have not made any but ensured that 4 editors agree with keeping "India" as the term on lead, which is against your POV. Now you can hopefully drop the stick. Lorstaking (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My two cents: As far as the lead goes, it would be technically correct to link to the Indian subcontinent or other region-based article. India links to the country which was founded in 1947, not the historical area.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't do WP:OR since India was cradle of civilization not Indian Subcontinent according to sources. Lorstaking (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)c

Some users here may not be aware, but the Republic of India did not exist at the time of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Though it may be surprising, Modern India came about in the year 1947. Therefore it is not possible that an ancient civilisation originated in what you refer to as "India". When talking about pre 1947 topics, "India" refers to the whole of the Indian Subcontinent (see: https://www.etymonline.com/word/India). Just because two things share a name, does make them the same so your argument is invalid unfortunately. It should also be noted that The Indus primarily runs through Pakistan, though we cannot say that the Indus Civilisation originated in Pakistan because Pakistan too did not exist at the time of the Civilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Glancing over these sources and the snippets, I see no good reason to use a wiki-linked "India" here, in reference to a country that didn't come to exist until 1947. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As usual, see what reliable sources say. Are you saying "China" should be mentioned as "Eastern Asia"?  M L talk 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

are you aware of the location of the yellow river? this should help you get familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River

it lies entirely in modern day china whereas the indus does not even primarily lie in india and the ganges passes through multiple other countries. do not resort to whataboutism thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indo-gigantic plain lies mostly in India, so? You have to provide reliable sources rather than trying to convince by your WP:OR. I have just provided enough sources for backing my edit, where are yours?  M L talk 20:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

indo gangetic plane does not exclusively lie in modern india
hi user User: My Lord

just wanted to discuss the reasoning for the reverting of my minor edits to the article to change it so that readers are aware that the indo-gangetic plate does not lie exclusively in the republic of india (a modern state that is not the same as ancient india or the indian subcontinent) which is what the article previously (and currently) heavily implies. as you are aware and can be evidenced from maps in this very article (and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Gangetic_Plain), the indo-gangetic plane stretches across pakistan, nepal and bangladesh as well as india. also, the map for the indus valley civilisation in the article of discussion illustrates that the indus valley civilisation was based around the indus river, not the ganges (hence the name "indus valley civilisation"). despite this fact, there is already a discussion going on about whether the cradle of civilisation in this region should be referred to as the indus river valley civilisation or the indo-gangetic plain civilisation which you are free to partake in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cradle_of_civilization#Indo-Gangetic_Plain_vs_Indus_River_Valley

so now that we've established that the indo-gangetic plain is not exclusively in india and the civilisation that arose around it did not exist solely (or even primarily) in india, it makes no sense to link the modern country of india to the indo-gangetic plain. it would make more sense to link pakistan since the indus river mostly flows through there but it still wouldn't make complete sense since the modern country of pakistan did not exist back then either.

not only this, but the section on "india" in this article refers to the indian subcontinent, which is what the word india was used to describe pre 1947 (the year of the creation of a modern country that took the name india): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization#India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)  Blocked sock of banned editor Nangparbat.

The main article for the geographic area is Indo-Gangetic Plain. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indian subcontinent is definitely the better thing to link to since India points to the modern country and excludes much of this "cradle". --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not about what is "better" because that's WP:OR. This is about what sources say and they support "India" not "Indian subcontinent" which consists of more than just ancient India. We report only what reliable sources say than what sounds "better" and clearly it doesn't sounds better unless you also want to change "China" to "East Asia".  M L talk 20:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You're engaging in WP:SYNTH here.  "India" in historical works can refer to either the entire Indian subcontinent, or the modern Republic of India (which the Wikipedia article India refers to); based on context it appears clear that the former meaning is what is preferred.  Your deliberate unwillingness to recognize this borders on tendentious, IMO. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to provide sources for refuting the valid argument I made above after relying on reliable sources. Don't engage in WP:OR.  M L talk 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User: My Lord see the above discussion "Indo-Gangetic Plain vs Indus River Valley". you are either naively or deliberately overlooking the fact that the republic of india did not exist then and the word india refers to the entire subcontinent when talking about pre 1947 topics so even if the article reads "india", linking the country of india would make no sense. furthermore, in order to prevent edit warring and the fact that since india is a country now, we refer to the subcontinent as "the indian subcontinent", the phrase "indian subcontinent" should be used since that's where the indo gangetic plain lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MyLord, actually neither of the sources says India. The first says that the cradle is the river valleys of the Indo-gangetic plains of South Asia, while the second merely refers to the Indus River Valley in present day Pakistan. Therefore, Indian subcontinent or South Asia would be the more appropriate link here. --regentspark (comment) 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the second last section. Predominance of sources say India. Capitals00 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of sources say India and we can only report it as "India". Saying "Indian subcontinent" is clear WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources as well as the reliablity. I don't see any sources saying "Indian subcontinent" is a "cradle of civilization". I see them calling India a cradle of civilization, and tons more. Where's "Indian subcontinent"? I do think we need to rely on what reliable sources that say "India, Mesopotamia, Egypt and China" are cradle of civilization.  M L 'talk 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It may impossible to convince someone of something when they have an obvious POV that prevents them from wanting to know it, but I'll try some more anyhow. Specifically referring to the last reference,, it refers to "India along the Indus".  The Indus River is largely in Pakistan, as that article (and maps) demonstrate.  That is an indisputed fact, and I don't need a war of "who has the most references" to prove it.  Thus, "India" must refer to the entire region, not to the modern-day country.  power~enwiki ( π ,  ν ) 20:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't have an "obvious POV", they follow the most accepted terms. How come you haven't talked about removing Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia by saying that they no longer exist? All you have done is follow a sock who was misrepresenting sources. Because Indus River is largely in Pakistan that's why Pakistan is a cradle of civilization? Sounds good but that's something WP:RS needs to tell. The undisputed fact is, that we have to note how these regions were referred as when they were cradle of civilizaton and for this region in question, "India" is by far the most suitable term. "who has the most references" matters, because it represents the scholarly consensus which is completely in favor of India, while its nil when it comes to Indian subcontinent.  M L talk 21:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My Lord is correct here. We report what reliable sources say and don't engage in WP:OR only because one editor wants to edit war and misrepresent sources. India here is in line with Egypt, China. Unless you want to change them too then change India, and do it with reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There are references that suggest otherwise. Indus Valley Civilization - The region that is now Pakistan was one of the three early "cradles of civilization". the early civilization of the Indus valley and adjoining regions of Pakistan and India. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "suggest otherwise"? I don't see it is disagreeing with any of the above sources. It doesn't say "Indian subcontinent" like you were claiming above but only that Pakistan has some regions that were considered early civilization. One source compared to the dozens mentioned above and the 6 mentioned by me above? You can have some more that haven't been mentioned anywhere here. Here are more sources that support India as the "cradle of civilization": Where's the support for "Indian subcontinent"? You need sources to contradict this scholarly consensus.  M L talk 20:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no point debating with you, if you feel sources referring explicitly to the area directly adjacent to the Indus River support the article referring to the Republic of India. The redirect on Ancient India isn't really a plausible wiki-link target. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good you pointed Republic of India, which actually differs from the historic "India" here. Indus river and Ganges are all part of Indian cradle of civilization like the sources say, that's why "Indo-Gangetic Plain" has been used as a more preferred term.  M L talk 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the link to India is patently incorrect because that's not the India that these sources mean. What they mean is largely the Indus Valley which is mostly in Pakistan, and secondarily the gangetic plains of Northern India. Perhaps we should just remove in the Indian subcontinent or in India and leave only the Indo-gangetic plain part. --regentspark (comment) 21:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been established for long now that more Indus Valley Civilization sites are found in India. Sources may happen to refer only Indus Valley Civilization and not mention any river, and this civilization extended to Afghanistan. Anyway I think that, "Other civilizations arose in Asia among cultures situated along large river valleys, such as Indo-Gangetic Plain in the Indian subcontinent and the Yellow River in China." It can be just "Other cradle of civilizations arose in Asia among cultures situated along large river valleys, such as India and China." What you think? I think we should maintain the flow of reliable sources that say "Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China" as cradle of civilizations.  M L talk 21:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading the new edits and the change of existing terms to "Ancient ..." I am fine with these edits. Thanks.  M L talk 21:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Egypt is an extension of the Fertile Crescent influence and is not, on its own, an isolated independently developed cradle.
Hello Wikipedians!, I want to make a major edit to this article, either by combining the Mesopotamia and Egyptian subsection into one Fertile Crescent subsection or remove the Egypt subsection entirely. The cradle of Civilization definition given in this article is “civilizations that developed independently”. I don’t believe that Egypt meets this criterion and below, I will show major examples explaining how Egypt is not completely independent from the Fertile Crescent but is either and extension of it or heavily influenced by it. This evidence was taken from various articles on Wikipedia relating to this subject and they all have extensive sourcing to back up those claims. After all of this evidence showing major Fertile Crescent influence in Egypt before even Narmer’s unification 3150 BC, it is fair to say that Egypt is not an isolated cradle like China or Mesoamerica. If you still consider Egypt to still be an independent cradle, what’s to stop us from considering the Hittite Empire or Minoan Crete from being considered cradles as well? That’s a slippery slope and I think there needs to be consistency in this article especially on the “independent” aspect. EdwardElric2016, (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Around 10,200 BC the first fully developed Neolithic cultures belonging to the phases Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (7600 to 6000 BC) appeared in the fertile crescent and from there spread eastwards and westwards.
 * Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt. Studies based on morphological, genetic,    and archaeological data    have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic,  bringing agriculture to the region.
 * Although the Gerzean Culture identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period of Egypt, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean period. Distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period, indicating contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt, and the silver which appears in this period can only have been obtained from Asia Minor. In addition, Egyptian objects are created which clearly mimic Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly. Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial mace heads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the Mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style. The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water. During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt. The fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of wadis which lead to the Red Sea may indicate some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade potentially could have crossed the Sinai and then taken to the Red Sea). Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.


 * Your confusing Civilization with Culture. Civilization was not just the emergence of agriculture or cities, but the independent development of specific social stratifications along with key technologies. Even if previously connected to the agricultural revolution in the Levant, civilization proper could still emerge independently in both Egypt and Sumer. Egypt's social stratification, for example, can be traced to the Horn of Africa/Somalia region which is fully independent from Sumer.


 * Regardless of personal opinion, though. Many reputable sources (several of which are used in this article already) discuss Egypt as it's own cradle of civilization. Wikipedia allows the inclusion of material within the article as it is properly sourced and, as such, Egypt should be discussed within the article. If you can find a source that specifically states that Egypt is not a cradle of civilization than that can also be included and discussed in the article, but it is not grounds to remove the existing sourced information on Egypt. Additionally, although your theory sounds plausible, it largely falls under No original research in that it's largely you and not third party sources connecting the dots and claiming your hypothesis.


 * "If you still consider Egypt to still be an independent cradle, what’s to stop us from considering the Hittite Empire or Minoan Crete". The difference with Egypt is that there are numerous sources discussing Egypt as one of the cradles of civilization (as it is discussed in this article). The same can't be said for the Hittites. It's not a slippery slope because wiki editors don't decide what is and isn't a cradle, third party sources do.


 * As the Egypt information is properly sourced I am re-adding it to the article. However, I agree that due to geographic proximity, Egypt and Sumer can be grouped together in the article. Instead of giving Egypt it's own section, I am re-adding it as a sub-section of the fertile crescent section.100.38.240.103 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Egypt and Sumer
The article originally discussed Egypt and Sumer separate and this is correct. Almost all sources also discuss them separately as independent developments of civilization. There seems to be some confusion by the editors of what this article is talking about. It discusses the emergence of civilization proper. The fact that agriculture likely developed first in the Levant and then spread separately to Mesopotamia and Egypt doesn't negate them being independent developments of civilization. "Civilization" refers to a number of thing which includes a level of social organization and technological development. Both Egypt and Sumer could have still developed civilization independently (social stratification and key technologies like writing) even if they were linked culturally before to the agricultural revolution in the Levant.

At the very least, because of how extensively Egypt is discussed by the sources used in this article it should not be completely removed from the article as it is now and should be discussed more. There are enough sources already used in this article to justify giving Egypt its own subsection in the fertile crescent section.100.38.240.103 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)100.38.240.103 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Egypt Should be included as a subsection in this article.
The fertile crescent developed 2 major civilizations Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. They both developed around the same time as well. Mesopotamia is talked about in great detail and has its own subsection in the article while Egypt is hardly mentioned despite its importance. I feel that because of this a major aspect to the fertile crescent is missing from this article. I would like to add a subsection about Egypt. Egypt is even commonly associated with the cradles of civilization in many sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.114.246 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since Egypt is discussed independently by numerous sources (many of which are used in this article) it should be included. It's removal also seems to be largely based on No original research which is against wiki policy. I'm re-adding the Egypt information as a sub-heading of the fertile crescent.100.38.240.103 (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The Timeline is a mess
The timeline was meant to show the emergence of civilization, specifically. The timeline as it was first developed about a year and a half ago did this. It allowed you to easily compare dates of emergence (the 6 cradles did not emerge at the same time) as well as easily access links to the cultures/periods of an area that were considered the first civilization. It didn't include the various neolithic cultures that preceded civilization proper because that wasn't the primary scope of this article. Additionally, it was meant to be simple, presenting concise information and links.

The current timeline no longer accomplishes any of this. In a misguided attempt to make all the civilizations equal, it has them all start at the same period. Once again, the primary scope of this article is on civilization proper AND NOT the various neolithic cultures that preceded when civilization emerged in the regions. By including an overabundance of information outside the scope of the article, it is no longer simple or provide an easy way to compare the civilizations chronologically (which is the main point of a timeline). Finally, it includes Greece despite Greece not being one of the cradles of civilization as discussed in the article.

I really think the timeline should be reverted to the older timeline originally used in this article:

Old:

Current:

100.38.240.103 (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. The old timeline is much more informative in that it clearly identifies the approximate dates that each civilization began. To list the predecessors of civilization is confusing to the reader and is outside the scope of this article. Let's change back to the old and less complicated timeline. Smallchief  (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

minoans
Shouldn't the Minoan civilization be mentioned next to Egypt and Mesopotamia in the lead? Pyroshark1 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the cradle of Eastern civilization, Southern civilization, Northern civilization etc?
Is the "western" pseudo-ethnicity the only one allowed to modify history in order to sustain chauvinistic myths? Barbar03 (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

These civilizations don't exist, what would they even represent? You just seem to have a problem with Western civilization. Pyroshark1 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, read the article, "A cradle of civilization is a location where civilization is understood to have INDEPENDENTLY emerged"
Even if there was a Northern civilization, a Southern civilization etc this article is only for a civilization that emerged in an INDEPENDENT way. Otherwise we will have to put all the cradles of all civilizations in the history, including supposed civilizations that encompasses other civilizations and have an arbitrary definition.

To understand what an independent cradle of civilization, again, read the article: "Scholars have defined civilization by using various criteria such as the use of writing, cities, a class-based society, agriculture, animal husbandry, public buildings, metallurgy, and monumental architecture". If a civilization has not developed these elements independently, then it has not emerged independently. Rowemotto (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A redraft of one sentence might meet your concerns: Instead of the present: "The term cradle of civilization has frequently been applied to a variety of cultures and areas, in particular the Ancient Near Eastern Chalcolithic (Ubaid period) and Fertile Crescent, Ancient India and Ancient China.", how about: "In addition to the five (or six) cradles of civilization identified above, the term has frequently been applied to other cultures and areas, in particular the Ancient Near Eastern Chalcolithic (Ubaid period)."


 * It seems confusing to me to mention the "Fertile Crescent, Ancient India, and Ancient China" in this sentence. They've already been identified as cradles of civilization.


 * Also, while we're at it, the reference to China in the first para as one the earliest civilization seems mistaken. The timeline identifies the Andean coast civilization of Norte Chico as a thousand years older. Smallchief (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no good reason for the removal of this section by Rowemotto. It starts with the following:
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the cradle of Western Civilization. No need not to mention that; "craddle of civilisation" is not exactly rocket-science, where a fraction of a millimeter can matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Year Notion to Common Era
The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias.

As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to be based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."). This format is also used in several of the referenced texts.

Also because this article is related to another religion, Judaism, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated. Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.

My previous edit reflects this change in date format in the articles.

016bells (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ancient India sub section
20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)~ 'One of the earliest Neolithic sites in the Indian subcontinent is Bhirrana along the ancient Ghaggar-Hakra (Saraswati) riverine system in the present day state of Haryana in India, dating to around 7600 BC.' There is no widely accepted main stream scholarly view that Ghaggar-Hakra in the Saraswati river, which might even be a mythological river or an unknown river that dried up long ago or some river other than Ghaggar-Hakra, suggest removing (Saraswati) after Ghaggar-Hakrain the above sentence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.40.228.18 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"Crucible"
I know National Geography has used the word crucible, but thats not enough. Does anyone know if that alternative to cradle has been used elsewhere? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe
Nothing about Göbekli Tepe, the oldest megalithic structure found to date, older than the oldest date cited in the Mesopotamia entry? This is baffling to me. It was discovered in 1995, and it has been consistently been ignored by any subsequent reconfiguration of the historical record.

LBGKMJ (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ancient China Section - Likely incorrect measurement
"Palaces 3 and 5 were abandoned and replaced by 4,200-square-kilometer (4.5×1010 sq ft) Palace 2 and Palace 4"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlitou_culture has this:

"Palaces 3 and 5 were abandoned and replaced by Palace 2, measuring 4,200 m2 (45,000 sq ft), and Palace 4."

"4,200-square-kilometer" seems likely to be incorrect.
 * Changed. Thanks.Smallchief (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"The earliest known written records of the history of China date from as early as 1250 BC, from the Shang dynasty" This is from the wiki article on China. I'm trying to figure out which date is accurate, around 1750 like this article or 1250bc like the article specific to China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.179.247 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Cultural bias in opening
I have reworked the opening to be better organized, more succinct, and to eliminate Euro-merican centric bias that seemed to put undo emphasis on the most direct line to European/western society origins. For example, the "cradles" in Mexico and Peru were treated almost as an after thought, and the opening read as if they needed to be kept distinct from others, and only upon the distinct caveat that scholars *accept* that they are roughly as old as the others.

Previously the opening was a rather scattershot collection of tidbits, some of which were repeated needlessly. My approach was to start with broad historically common usages of the idea in the first paragraph, then move to modern understandings of the idea in the second paragraph, and conclude with special pieces of information that has influenced the concept.

For improved objectivity in how the identified "cradles" are treated, I have listed the Mexican and Peruvian examples in the same paragraph as the other three (to put them all on equal standing), and have identified the various examples by continent, and also in order geographically, starting from the international date line and moving east. This gives a more objective feel to how the information is presented. I have retained the statement about Greece being regarded as a "cradle" of western society for cultural purposes, but have incorporated that into the final paragraph as it is an outlier example of such usage and to set it apart seems to inappropriately highlight such usage in a western-centric manner.2600:4040:B078:6C00:804:1E8:D86D:DCE0 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Persia
Why is there no discussion of the ancient Iranians here? 37.255.155.33 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, i also asked myself the same question few days ago, i'm going to dig a bit to see if there are reliable sources about that and expand the article accordingly. Any help would be appreciated. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Persia
Why is there no discussion of the ancient Iranians here? 37.255.155.33 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, i also asked myself the same question few days ago, i'm going to dig a bit to see if there are reliable sources about that and expand the article accordingly. Any help would be appreciated. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  13:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Indus valley
Civilization 39.46.114.168 (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Version of English
For consistency, should this article talk about the "Indus Valley Civilization", with "z", even though its Wikipedia article is at "Indus Valley Civilisation" (for good reasons). It's not as if the article title for the IVC is a proper noun, like a film title: it's an academic concept. I suggest that we should use piped links where appropriate and change the text in this article to use the one consistent form of spelling throughout.

This article also uses both "labour" and "labor-intensive" (and "laborers" within a quote, so that doesn't count). It doesn't have a tag specifying which version of English it uses, but perhaps we should now agree that it seems to use US English and make it consistent. I can't find any other variation-specific spellings ... no "colo(u)r" or "hono(u)r"... but there may be some. Pam D  07:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Have found center/centre and arch(a)eolog... to add. It still looks as if it is basically written in American English (not my own preferred usage - I'm being neutral here!) Pam  D  15:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Indus valley
@User:Aman.kumar.goel added references, if you've any question regarding it let me know.Sutyarashi (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This POV pushing won't help you. You are pretending as if I allowed you to replace the term with sources but that is not the case.
 * Here are many sources which frequently use the term "India" as per established consensus on Talk:Cradle_of_civilization/Archive_2:
 * 
 * You shouldn't be promoting your POV against consensus. See WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a lazy and hasty attempt to search among Google books for your nationalist POV...none of these sources call ancient India/India as cradle of Civilization Sutyarashi (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This type of misrepresentation of sources and POV pushing will only get you topic banned. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since reliable sources in general call it "India" or "Ancient India", we cannot have a third choice here. Orientls (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Orientls cite your sources please; none of these sources refer to Indus valley as ancient IndiaSutyarashi (talk)


 * I reviewed the sources cited by User:Aman.kumar.goel in support of his opinion that Ancient India is the proper term to refer to the ancient civilization in the Indus Valley.


 * I didn't find any clear statements that Ancient India is the preferred name of the Indus Valley civilization in any of the above sources. To the contrary, here are three unimpeachable sources supporting the name "Indus Valley Civilisation" or alternatives such as "Indus Civilisation," or "Indus Tradition," or "Harappan Civilization." None of the sources cited below list "Ancient India" as an option for the name of the civilization.
 * Indus Civilization. Fagan, Brian M. ed., The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, pages 348-351.
 * Indus Civilisation or Indus Tradition. Renfrew, Colin, ed., The Cambridge World Prehistory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pages 407-432.
 * Indus Civilization or Indus Valley Civilization or Harappan Civilization. Encyclopedia Britannica,
 * In other words, the preponderance of reliable sources support the name Indus Valley Civilisation or a similar term for the name of the ancient civilization in the Indus Valley. Smallchief (talk)
 * No. The sources I cited were copied from earlier discussion which I mentioned and they support "India".
 * "However, it seems there is no single cradle as civilisations developed independently in Egypt along the Nile, India along the Indus, China around the Yellow...
 * "The Cradle of Civilization... it became possible to date the beginnings of culture in both India and China."
 * "but we do know that the earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China showed remarkable awareness"
 * "India covers a vast area territorially and has been a cradle of civilization"
 * "India was undoubtedly the cradle of civilization"
 * It was changed from "India" to "Ancient India" per consensus last time.
 * But if you have any issue then we can change back "Ancient India" to "India". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Your last two cited sources are not reliable as they aren't written by established historians; first two make clear use of term Indus valley and third afterwards mentions explicitly that it means IVC by earliest civilization of India. This, Alongwith sources presented by @User:Smallchief make it clear that Indus valley is a much better term than India/Ancient India .Sutyarashi (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Further references calling Indus valley as cradle/earliest of the civilizations  Sutyarashi (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not in the position to be taken seriously anymore since you yourself falsely claimed that "none of these sources call ancient India/India as cradle of Civilization" despite all of them do.
 * Nobody is going to compete since it's clear that vast majority of sources call India a "cradle of civilization".
 * We can simply change "Ancient India" to just "India" if necessary but nothing else is needed to be done here. Capitals00 (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Capitals00 avoid making personal attacks, as it can get you blocked. I've already provided reasons for debunking the so-called sources; answer them first.Sutyarashi (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No its not a personal attack. First you frequently misrepresent sources and then expect others to take your arguments seriously. Why? Your assumption of bad faith is clear from your continued edit warring. Capitals00 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It was you who actually started edit warring Also, where did I misrepresented sources? Did you even read my reply?

Indus valley is not in India,so no reason to mislabel it.Sutyarashi (talk)
 * I reverted your POV pushing as common thing and you went to edit war which you are doing still now.
 * Now you are even denying that you misrepresented source? See WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Again; you've indulged into accusations but not really answering what I asked. Have you got any problem with a list of sources provided by me and User:Smallchief? Also, read WP:COMMONNAME Sutyarashi (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is factual and technical problem which is that Indus Valley civilization didn't exist in most of Indo-Gangetic plain. A number of sites of those times that existed in broader Indo-Gangetic plain are also considered to be part of "Cradle of Civilization". Copper Hoard culture, Ochre Coloured Pottery culture, Sinauli and many other civilizations from the same period did not exist in Indus Valley civilization.
 * Another problem is that few sources don't change the fact that the widely accepted term is "India". Here are some more sources I found in just few minutes:-


 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

China, not Ancient China
China’s history is continued until present day, it was never interrupted. So it should be China instead of Ancient China. Cisdine (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "Ancient" in this case refers to a period in Chinese history, so I'm unsure what the issue is with the phrase. TheGlaswegian (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

New cradle of civilization ?
This article may have some outdated content, as recent researches seem to mention Iran, and more precisely Halil Rud and Jiroft as another cradle of civilization. It also seems that the old Elamite language has been cracked very recently (by a French archaeologist). I'm only at the very beginning of the process, but a quick look on the web allows to find numerous "papers" about that, like, , , ,. gentlemen, thoughts ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Unfortunately I know nothing about this subject. I wonder if something can be found in academic works as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The discoveries in question seem to be quite recent, I suppose that academic works will follow in a more or less long time. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  15:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The Oxus civilization seems to adhere to the definition as a civilization whose arose independently of other civilizations. It isn't mentioned on this page though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.160.215 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)