This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Would it be possible to indicate some kind of time period associated with each of the civilisations here? - Stuart Presnell
10,000 years is too long for writing. Earliest was around 3200 BC.
Cmon guys, that Madonna zinger is perfect, just leave it there!
Where should information regarding the time before written history began be placed? Also as the time when written language became used varies by country, does 'Ancient History' cover times such as the Bronze Age and Neolithic in Britain?
Suppose we can divide history from the beginning of writing until 1945 into groups, just as pre-historic time is divided into periods like the "Age of Fishes", "Amphibians", "Reptiles", and "Mammals". What can we have??
We can start with the Age of Egypt, which begins when writing begins and ends sometime around 1500 B.C.E. I really don't know exactly.
Next, we have the Age of Greece, which ends around 30 B.C.E.
The next period is the Age of Rome, which runs from 30 B.C.E. to 476 C.E. when the Roman Empire was broken.
Then comes the Age of Early English, which runs from 476 to 1066, when the Norman King defeated the English King.
The next group is the Age of Middle English, 1066 to 1492.
From 1492 to 1776 is the Age of Discovering America.
The last period is the Age of Semi-Modern Life, 1776 to 1945.
Any years that you feel surprised do not serve as borders?? 66.245.14.242 15:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
This isn't a natural transition from the above discussion, but it kind of has to do with it.
Shouldn't some non-European dates be provided for the end of ancient history? Although I still find 476 to be the most convenient end date, other areas of the world went through some sort of transition around the same time. Western Asia was overrun by Muslims in the 600s. The Gupta Dynasty fell in the 500s. China was reunified by the Sui in 589. Japan began to emerge onto the historical scene. Can some other, Asian date be provided for the end of antiquity? Brutannica 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then there are those terms like Axial Age/Axial Revolution used to refer to the Eurasian period that saw the emergence of Buddha, the Hebrew Prophets, Lao Zu, Zoroaster(ianism), Confucius, Pericles, Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Epictetus, Epicurus, Jesus, etc. When I teach, I let the philosophical impetus of the Axial Age crystallize into something called the Classical Period, in which the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty flourish. Dw5 ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The "golden age of Pericles" (Χρυσούς αιών του Περικλέους) - 5th century BC - should be added in the Classical Antiquity list. (Reasons: invigoration and establishment of democracy, acropolis of Athens)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarnerides ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to place an external link to an online history portal that I believe offers added-value to wikipedia's history enthusiasts. This portal, http://www.saecularis.com, offers a good selection of history books, DVDs and posters that can be purchased online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasl001 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of the article is missing citations or needs footnotes? Please list them in bullet order. J. D. Redding 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ancient historians are called 'primary sources' in this article. But aren't primary sources the ones recorded by people involved in the events themselves? Government archives and memoirs for example. Even a historian writing about events that happened during his lifetime isn't technically a primary source, but a historian of events that passed before his birth (like Herodotus) is definitely not a primary source. Renke 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Exodus soley a biblical event, with little or no historical proof? Darkahn 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed." and see WP:Layout In other words, 'general information' should be put under 'further reading'. And IMHO, the books now in further reading should be deleted as they are very, very out of date and superceded by more recent works, such as the Cambridge Ancient History Set. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The introduction seems very confusing to me as it is currently written.
Ancient history is the study of the written past from the beginning of human history until the Early Middle Ages.[1] The term classical antiquity is often used to refer to the timeframe of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. The beginning of history is signified with Sumerian cuneiform being the oldest form of writing discovered so far. Ancient history include the recorded Greek history in about 776 BC (First Olympiad). This coincides roughly with the traditional date of the founding of Rome in 753 BC, the beginning of the history of Rome. The ending date of ancient history falls in the 5th century and 6th century. Western scholars often use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the death of the emperor Justinian I in 565, or the coming of Islam in 632 CE as the end of ancient European history.
It starts out trying to define the title. This is done quite succinctly in the first sentence; although it doesn't actually include any dates, but then the introduction goes on to talk about classical antiquity. I suppose this is included in the introduction because classical antiquity and ancient history are sometimes used interchangeably when they shouldn't be, but I think it would be clearer to stick to what ancient history is rather than to introduce the definition of another term so soon in the introduction. I suggest moving this bit down the page to where the article begins describing ancient Greece and Rome. The third sentence introduces the importance of ancient Sumerian cuneiform as the start point for ancient history, this seems to contradict the first sentence and requires clarification. The forth and fifth sentence are referring the ancient Greece and Rome again. Certainly these two civilizations are important, but I'm not sure its entirely appropriate to single them out like this in the introduction. The seventh and eighth sentences give us several alternate ending dates for ancient history in a less-than-coherent way. I think this information can be delivered much more consisely. In addition, I think the introduction ought to refer to the major sections of the article: Section 1: the study of ancient history, Section 2: the chronology and Section 3: the prominent civilizations of ancient history; therefore, I propose the following:
Ancient history is the study of human civilizations from the advent of writing in 3000 BC (see Sumerian cuneiform) to the fall of Rome in 476 AD. Not all historians agree on these dates. Some historians date the end of ancient history with the death of the emperor Justinian I in 565 AD or the coming of Islam in 632 AD. The study of ancient history is greatly enhanced by the study of archeology due to the scarcity of historical source material. The breadth of ancient history includes 35 centuries on five continents (Asia, Africa, America, Europe and Austrailia).
The number of continents is up for debate, of course, I choose five because, looking through the list of items in the chronology and the list of prominent civilizations, ancient American is taken as a single entity, and Antarctica is not mentioned at all. What do you think? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've started working out a possible new structure for the chronology section that groups items first by millenia and sub divides them by continet, but I'm actually having trouble taking Asia in all at once. It seems ncessary to divide it into West Asia (i.e. the Middle East), East Asia (i.e. China), and South Asia (i.e. India). I haven't started working on America yet. What do you think distinguishes the ancient history of North America with the ancient history of South America? I might guess the Aztecs in North America and the Inca in South America. They were prominent at the same time rather than sequentially, but they didn't interact with each other very much. - ErinHowarth ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Section 2: Chronology ought to be combined with Section 3: Prominent Civilizations. Personally, I prefer a chronological organization, but I dislike the current chronology which is essentially a list of dates. I think a brief narrative for each century would be easier to read. However, we are talking about 35 centuries. What do you think? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Reddi, I appreciate your efforts, but I am not sure they are an unmixed blessing ( pre-Reddi version). Please try to announce what you are going to do if you want to completely re-structure major articles, and try to collaborate with people. -- dab (��) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, I did not revert Reddi because some of his edits are clearly an improvement. They are still rather erratic, partly due to lack of familiarity with WP:MOS issues, and some discussion or collaboration would have worked wonders. I am sorry, but "Ancient history" is an "Eurocentric". Or at least an "Old World" centric one, including the Near East, India and China. The Americas, sub-Saharan Africa and Australia have no "ancient history" in this sense for lack of written records, and move from Prehistory directly into the Modern (colonial) period. Let's not duplicate the scope of the Prehistory article here. -- dab (��) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the comments and the past few days, it's finally struck me that this should have been discussed and that editors aren't generally happy with the drastic change. So, I've reverted to the first good version before Reddi deleted most of it, and am replacing some of the acceptable references Reddi added,which won't include his quick guide to SAT tests that he added :-). It clearly needs work. More citations, and can we get rid of the huge timeline which in any case makes it hard to read? Either delete it entirely, or put it further down. Definitely get rid of anything that is archaeology, not history.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Thales of Miletus, writing at around 600 BC, a form of electricity was known to the Ancient Greeks who found that rubbing fur on various substances, such as amber, would cause a particular attraction between the two. The Greeks noted that the amber buttons could attract light objects such as hair and that if they rubbed the amber for long enough they could even get a spark to jump. An object found in Iraq in 1938, dated to about 250 BC and called the Baghdad Battery, resembles a galvanic cell and is believed by some to have been used for electroplating, although this is unproven and contoversial. Other cultures would also have encounters with electromagnetic forces. Some have suggested that the Egyptians had some form of understanding electric phenomena from observing lightning [1] and interacting with electric fish (such as the Malapterurus electricus) or other animals (such as electric eels). [2] J. D. Redding 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the article says "Although the ending date of ancient history is disputed, currently most Western scholars use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476," and cites a 1916 and a 1951 book. How can these be used to say what scholars currently think? Doug Weller ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Climate_changes_of_535–536 could do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.63.223 ( talk) 08:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Under important events, it says "# 410- Alaric sacks Rome for the first time since 390 BC". 390 BC is 20 years AFTER 410 BC, so this is like saying "in 1989, George Bush senior became the first Bush elected US President since George Bush Jr. in 2001". I don't know the facts about the raids and can't find them anywhere, so perhaps this needs to be reviewed by a knowed person, or else that line needs to be deleted.
---
The problem that I think some people are running into is the Biblical Account of history vs. the scientific account of history. On the average, the population of religious people tend to think that the earth can be no more than a little over 6000 years old. (Not to offend anyone, but, the scientific proof dates it at much much longer than that). Also, another mistake I keep seeing is BC vs BCE and AD vs CE. I see both formats on this page BC/BCE and AD but no CE. (BCE-Before the Common Era and CE-Common Era). To keep this page as close to the valid scientific account as possible, I think that BCE and CE should be used in place of BC and AD. Again, sorry if this offended anyone.
AscottW 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)AscottW AscottW 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "on the average" most religious folk believe in young earth chronology, and I suppose to "keep this page as close to the valid scientific account" BPE (Before the Present Era (the archeological system)) might be better, eh. As a world historian (and a religious person to boot), BCE and CE are quite acceptable for historical dating. In any case, if using BC/AD, then one should be sure that AD sits before the date and BC after it; CE and BCE both go after.
Dw5 (
talk)
02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to offend anyone either, but who came up with this "Common Era" crap? What happened in AD 1 to begin a "Common Era?" It doesn't make any sense! It's dishonest! Life in the present has NEXT TO NOTHING in common with life in AD 1! You might as well say the "Common Era" begins with the signing of the Declaration of Independence or the extinction of the Dinosaurs, it'd be about as "scientific." Where does this silly euphemism come from, what makes it so "scientifically valid," and why are we all being forced to switch over to it? I mean, I have absolutely no problem with a secular dating convention, but why the hell would you begin it in AD 1? THAT DATE IS SPOKEN FOR. I realize this may not be the place for this, but my head was about to explode. Sorry. Ştefan 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All dates referring to AD have been changed to CE. All dates referring to BC have been changed to BCE. Unless we want to use another dating system such as Aztec, Muslim, Masonic, Discordian, etc., we must continue to use the Gregorian (Christian/Catholic) calendar. However, we can easily change our religious annotations to secular/scientific annotation such as BCE and CE. THC Loadee ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Alright, I don't think this practice of using both date systems is efficient or logical. If Wikipedia is not a religious biased site then using BCE/CE is the practical choice. So, how do I go about changing the WP:ERA policy on Year numbering systems? THC Loadee ( talk) 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Great, thanks for filling me in and pointing me in the right direction. As far as which format is correct, it seems to me that there isn't a right answer, however, there is no denying that BC/AD is a Christian reference, and therefore has no place in a non-religious, secular, encyclopedia. There's something to be said for consistancy. Besides, there's a site for religious folk. It's called conservapedia. THC Loadee ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Article needs a nice visual timeline like http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/ancivfs.gif ... will start on it shortly ...
Should it be in a template?
J. D. Redding 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
you may want to consider building on Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures. You may also want to consider stop trying to squeeze world history into a single article. This article needs judicious tightening more than it needs expansion. -- dab (𒁳) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be ancient history. Not entirely world history. Nor prehistoric information. Sheesh.
J. D. Redding 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence currently states this: "...some less defined point in the rest of the world (for example, the Austronesian regions, and North, Central, and South America)". Well, my sole objection is that this in not exactly the rest of the inhabited world! First of all the term Austronesian conventionally applies to a certain language family and not to a group of homogeneous peoples or to a specific geographic area. A better phrasing would be "Pre-Historic Oceania" or something, which includes Australasia (New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea), Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Furthermore, why isn't there a single reference to Sub-Saharan Africa? At least, it should be mentioned in the first sentence, as not fitting in the mainly Eurasian Ancient History scheme, along with Oceania and the Americas. Omnipedian ( talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ancient history starts at some less defined point in the rest of the world such as the Oceania regions and the Austronesian regions. This also includes the early history of Australia. The documentation of Aboriginal history is challenging, due to the fact that Aboriginal people did not have writing prior to 1827. Further information on such challenges can be found in "A New History of Western Australia" (Stannage, 1981, UWA Press). See history of Indigenous Australians and the prehistory of Australia for further details and the history of North, Central, and South America).
J. D. Redding 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the conflict over prehistory versus ancient history? Ancient history starts at some less defined point in the rest of the world.
It should be noted to help readers, alleviate the euro-centrism of the article, and state the appropriate information.
BTW, reference to Sub-Saharan Africa should be included [in line with the rest of his comment], but with the blanket reverts I [and i suspect others would] find it hard to contribute constructively.
J. D. Redding 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Reddi, do you understand "disambiguation"? This is the article on recorded history prior to 500 AD in the "Old World".
Pre-Columbian America is an eminently respectable topic, but this isn't the page discussing it. So you found an 1834 soundbite discussing "American anqituities". That's great. Make American antiquity a redirect to Pre-Columbian and discuss the field of your interest at the proper place.
Complaining that this article is Eurasia-centric (not "Eurocentric") is like complaining that the Pre-Columbian page is "America-centric", or that the Europe article is blatantly Eurocentric. It's known as "article scope". Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that you put in the "Old World" thing ... it's really about ancient history. Ancient history is the study of the written past from the beginning of recorded human history.
I put in most of the Chinese/Asian history IIRC a "long" time ago ...
Please don't remove American ancient history from the ancient history page. It's known as "article scope".
Thanks. J. D. Redding 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ps. the ancient Americans are in the infobox if u didn't notice ...
I realize that it is no good trying to talk sense to you. You have been doing this for years now, consistently ignoring the patient attempts of many erudite editors to explain it to you. You keep inserting prehistorical cultures, while this article is about historical cultures. I am not sure what a written past is, but I am sure you found the term somewhere and now parrot it without understanding. The problem you have is that you try to make judgements without the willingness to sit down and learn some background about a field first. In your case the history of writing and the nature of historicity. This sort of thing used to be taught to beginners at university. I do not know when, where or how you received your education, but something has clearly gone wrong. You seem to have been left with the impression that it is ok to skip the "studying" stop and rush straight to the "lecturing" stage based on whatever happens to cross your mind at the moment.
I wouldn't put it past you to insist we include a section on galaxy formation in this article if you happened to stumble on the phrase "early history of the universe" in some reference in the context of cosmology. -- dab (𒁳) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
right. I suggested a compromise toc which would have included mention of "Ancient America" [1]. You turned this down and resumed revert-warring. Please note that your revision has been objected to by several editors, you are editing against consensus, and there is no way your current behaviour will get you the revision you want. -- dab (𒁳) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Reddi, stop edit-warring, you will only get yourself blocked. You are clearly editing against consensus. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of "ancient histor" failed to convince even one editor here, as far as I can see. Learn to play by the rules. -- dab (𒁳) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is referenced material. See above section. Removing reliable referenced material is not acceptable. J. D. Redding 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (PS., your ""'ing at me does nothing for you or your actions.)
what is the point of bringing up the exact same gripe every couple of weeks, Reddi? It'll only get you the exact same answers you got last time. If you have nothing to add to what has been said before, I really don't see why you bother. -- dab (𒁳) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's start here. I'd get rid of the huge 'before the common era' list, and the maps which are in any case I think of mixed and dubious quality. Dougweller ( talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we not just split off 'Chronology' to
Ancient chronology ... would be a great articles unto it's own. And with a split, certain maps can be kept [better ones?] and a summary [highlights?] of the timeline [greece, rome, etc. ...]. The information would be available indepth [the split off article], but it would alleviate the bulk here. More specifically and along your suggestion, doing a split we could remove 'before the common era' here, but the list would be in the full chrono ... I think the full chronology is important, but it is bulky.
J. D. Redding
03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Basic timeline for dates of the article ...
Comments? J. D. Redding 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite the removal of the tag by Reddi, our guidelines suggest that this article is indeed too long. There's no rush to do anything about it, but interested editors should read WP:TOOLONG. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The possibilities are:
* Section 3
Ancient civilizations (Another bulky section; it redirects to this page now)
I think both could be moved off, replacing each with a passage of prose that captures the essence of the sections and the new article. I'll move them shortly if there is no objection (I think I tried to split off #2 from the article before, but certain people objected though it the worst of the two.). J. D. Redding 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Moved Ancient civilizations [section 3]. J. D. Redding 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the approach of just cutting this article down to what is actually essental to the topic. There isn't a single point addressed in this article that won't be treated in at least ten other places on Wikipedia. Of course, it is impossible to trim this article to something reasonable as long as Reddi keep stuffing it with even more material of tenuous relevance. -- dab (𒁳) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That not the procedure of wikipedia:summary style. The personal snipe I'll ignore. J. D. Redding 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
it isn't a personal attack to state that Reddi's edits cause a lot of workload for other editors without contributing any value. It might get personal if I began to speculate on the real life reasons of Reddi's failure to produce valid content. Which I will not do. Reddi cannot or will not deliver encyclopedic content and needs a string of editors just to clean up behind him. Stating as much is simple WP:SPADE. The question is, how are we going to handle this? I certainly have better things to do than babysitting this article. -- dab (𒁳) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed your personal comments.
Didn't know two editors owned this article.
J. D. Redding
12:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"la la WP:IDHT" isn't a solution Reddi. You are clearly unable or unwilling to collaborate. This means that you will have no influence on article content. Anyone who is barely literate is welcome to contribute, but constructive collaboration isn't optional. -- dab (𒁳) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So 2 editors can make the decision for the article? Editors can "lalala" all they want ... whatever, that isn't a "consensus" ...
I have tried to collaborate with you Dbachmann. I've tried to collaborate with others. I do collaborate with many other editors. But when there isn't an attempt to work together, then constructive collaboration cannot be done. J. D. Redding 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Xythianos insists on replacing the mention of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea with the Battle of Thermoyplae, for no other reason than Thermopylae is a Persian victory (never mind a Pyrrhic one) while Salamis and Plataea are not [3]. This reasoning is just nationalist POV-pushing and highly flawed. In the timeline, we include what is most significant. While Thermopylae is indeed important, it is dwarfed in importance by Salamis and Plataea. These were the decisive engagements that ended the Persian campaign in Greece once and for all. As for Thermopylae, it was not particularly important in the sense that it was a Persian victory, but because of its effect on Greek morale. The claims for "balance" and "NPOV" are malarkey and window-dressing for what is really just nationalist POV-pushing. Athenean ( talk) 05:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, the claim that the Persians invented the windmill is based on a source that clearly credits the Babylonians [4] (you might need to wait a bit for the page to load). Athenean ( talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, do NOT revert someone's well sourced edit until it has been discussed first or I will have to report you.
Your petty attempts at ad hominem, Xythianos, I am willing to ignore graciously. You may have made there some legitimate name changes related to Iran and the Persians, but unfortunately your habit of complete reverts has made them so far difficult to distinguish from your contentious edits related to ancient technologies and battles:
My "petty attempts at ad hominem? I hope you're not serious because you've both called me a Persian nationalist and a Iranian ultra-nationalist numerous times for simply adding properly sourced, weighted, and relevant information to this article. You've also reverted my edits countless times, Athenean has told me to "eff off" among other pathetic personal attacks he made. Still, I don't see why we can't just get along and work through this as productively as we are able to. Keep in mind that if we want to remain as objective as possible in this article, there has to be an effort made from both sides of the debate to tone down the individual biases.
about 500-900 A.D." I'm certain that falls within Ancient History. It was first recorded "by the Persian geographer Estakhri in the 9th century."
Athenean, like I said, I'm willing to cooperate with you and other editors on this, however on the condition that you immediately put an end to the personal attacks (like going around and calling me a Persian ultra-nationalist troll.) Also, since I'd like to see real progress (so far I'm not seeing much), more of a willingness to compromise is needed from your side of the discussion. Let me know when you can make this happen.-- Xythianos ( talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if you've seen this Dougweller?-- Xythianos ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What? No no no, I was talking to Athenean there. Anyway, are you guys okay with me making these changes or not? Like I said, I'm open to compromise, but It's only fair that you do as well. I'd like to at least include to the Iranian origin of Qanats in the technology section, considering that Dougweller considers the batteries as WP:FRINGE and the Windmills outside the dates of Ancient History, (even though it says in this article that some academics consider the Islamic Conquests (which came 140 years after the Windmills) to be the end of Ancient History) but once again I'll compromise since I don't want to be blocked by Dougweller. Also, I'd like to change the title of the "Persia" section (since that section describes Ancient Iranians and not only Persians, making it technically wrong.) And if we're going to take out Thermopolae, we're also taking out the two additional events you added to the timeline after me in rebellion, to balance the weight. Is this all okay?-- Xythianos ( talk) 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, is there something you wanted to say? You reverted the edit again, so I'm assuming that there is.-- Xythianos ( talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, you're argument there is invalid because my sentence (hoping you at least read it before changing it) was in reference to Ancient Iranian technology as a whole, and not only to Achaemenid Persia. Achaemenid Persia was not the first Iranian civilization.... Refer to Ancient Iranians and History of Iran.-- Xythianos ( talk) 07:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
References
There are conflicting dates in sections: 2.2.3.3 & 2.2.3.4.
In particular, 2.2.3.3 has
• 285: Emperor Diocletian splits the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western Empires
• 395: Roman Emperor Theodosius I outlaws all pagan religions in favour of Christianity
But 2.2.3.4 has
• 395: the division of Roman Empire into the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire
Someone with more expertise than myself may want to correct this and proofread the dates in these sections
Doug10940 ( talk) 14:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Doug10940
This text says:
Some have suggested that the Egyptians had some form of understanding electric phenomena from observing lightning[81] and interacting with electric fish (such as the Malapterurus electricus) or other animals (such as electric eels). with footnotes "
^ Bruno Kolbe, Francis ed Legge, Joseph Skellon, tr., "
An Introduction to Electricity". Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1908. 429 pages. Page 391. (cf., "[...] high poles covered with copper plates and with gilded tops were erected 'to break the stones coming from on high'. J. Dümichen, Baugeschichte des Dendera-Tempels, Strassburg, 1877")
'
^ Heinrich Karl Brugsch-Bey and Henry Danby Seymour, "
A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs". J. Murray, 1881. Page 422. (cf., [... the symbol of a] serpent' is rather a fish, which still serves, in the Coptic language, to designate the electric fish [...])
Dendera light says "Proponents of this fringe interpretation have also used a text referring to "high poles covered with copper plates" to argue this
[4 but Dr. Bolko Stern has written in detail explaining why the copper covered tops of poles (which were lower than the associated pylons) do not relate to electricity or lightning, pointing out that no evidence of anything used to manipulate electricty had been found in Egypt and that this was a magical and not a technical installation.
I think the text in this article is misleading and if no one else fixes it I will in a few days when I have more time. --
Doug Weller (
talk)
19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightning rod? ... don't fix this article .. fix the POV in the other article. J. D. Redding 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? In
1896, much was known by
physicists about electricity, though the
electron was discovered by
J.J. Thomson during the following year, 1897. The Nobel Prizes were first awarded in the year
1901, and Thomson won his in 1906 for his discoveries concerning the electron.
List of Nobel laureates in Physics.
Nevertheless, a great deal was already known about electricity from the
18th Century and the first half of the
19th Century, though the discoveries by these men:
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 90),
Charles Coulomb (1736 - 1806),
Alessandro Volta (1745 - 1827),
Andre Ampere (1775 - 1836),
Georg Ohm (1789 - 1854),
Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867),
Joseph Henry (1797 - 1878),
Gustav Kirchhoff (1824 - 87), and
Wilhelm Weber (1804 - 1891).
Kirchhoff made his discoveries in electricity while he was a graduate student in Germany during the 1840s, but then he moved on to other fields of physics such as
spectroscopy. Kirchhoff's circuit laws are named for him.
The above pioneers in the scientific study of electricity had the basic units of electricity named for them: the
coulomb (unit),
volt,
ampere,
ohm,
farad,
henry (unit), and
weber (unit). There is also an unusual unit, little-used, the
franklin (unit), which is usually called the
statcoulomb. There is another one, the
gauss (unit), which was named by
Carl Friedrich Gauss, an esteemed mathematician and sometimes an older coworker with Wilhelm Weber in Germany.
Also by 1896, there were already bachelor's degree programs in
electrical engineering at the technical universities of Europe and also at colleges and institutes of technology in the United States such as the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cornell University, and the
Georgia School of Technology.
Hence, to claim that in 1896, nobody knew much about electricity is a specious thing to say. You really ought to read a lot of history of science and technology before making such spurious comments. LOTs was known about electricity in 1896.
98.67.175.254 (
talk)
19:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Variants on the claim that history is the study of the written past appear both here and in History_of_the_world. In both cases, the only reference for this important claim was the first reference in the article. Thiw original reference attributed the claim to Crawford, 1927, in the journal Antiquity, and in particular to the sentence:
"History education in the United States is primarily the study of the written past. Defining history in such a narrow way has important consequences"
Many problems when you look under the hood.
First is that O.G.S. Crawford, the 'Crawford' in question, wrote 7 different articles in 1927, the year in which he founded the journal Antiquity. So it's a pain to track down which article is intended.
But in fact, none of the articles were intended. The real source for this sentence is M. Elaine Davis, Antiquity 74 (2000), 194-198. What has happened here is that someone was probably looking at some very sloppy bibliographic information for this sentence, and, as sometimes happens with bibliographic records, got an erroneous reference to the first issue, dated 1927, edited by O.G.S. Crawford, and just gave that reference. This looks like a case where the original source was not directly consulted at any point, although perhaps careful examination of the edit history will suggest otherwise (ie, a correct reference that was erroneously contracted one possible mechanism).
This mis-attribution is not insignificant, for two reasons.
First, O.G.S. Crawford, as founding editor of the journal Antiquity, is a plausible authority on which to base such an important claim. According to a description of one of her books, M. Elaine Davis is a "Former classroom teacher and science education specialist" and may not be an adequate source for the fundamental definition of the practice of history.
Still worse, Davis probably doesn't even agree with the sentiment being attributed to her. We are taking her out of context. To give a bit more context, what she wrote in the article is that:
"History education in the United States is primarily the study of the written past. Defining history in such a narrow way has important consequences; authorship of the past is severely restricted, and the history of certain groups is legitimised while others are devalued."
What we see is not that she is making a prescriptive claim about what history is and ought-to-be, as the reference originally implied, but instead that she is setting up 'history education in the united states' in order to make an important criticism of US teaching practice.
In short, the original source is not a prominent scholar of antiquities making a statement about how history ought to be, but a contemporary educator criticizing american educational practice. This error seems to be propagating around to some extent on Wiki, as I noticed it in two important articles, see above.
This seems to create a puzzle for this article that can be solved in one of two ways.
Either:
(a) Find a new authoritative source for the claim that "History is the study of the written past"; or,
(b) define history in a new way, which probably would require some significant thought and editorial work.
Afewnotes ( talk) 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In the last paragraph in the section on "Ancient Persia", a sentence begins as follows:
The use of the singular "achievement" in "the highest achievement of Persian civilization" makes it sound like the Sassanid period witnessed (that is, was witness to) just one achievement, even though it was the highest one. I don't think that was what was meant. I think the problem is the choice of verb, "witnessed". I think what was meant was that the Sassanid period represented (that is, was itself) the highest achievement of Persian civilization. If I do not hear to the contrary, I will change "witnessed" to "represented". Either that or change "achievement" to "achievements". (One might also consider changing "the highest achievement" to "the zenith" -- the high point.) – CorinneSD ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So, which one of the following do you think is the most correct and best expressed? --
Of course, other suggestions are welcome. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
[5] "Ancient history is the aggregate of past events from human history recorded in written by contemporaries of those events, and it extends as far as the Postclassical Era or the Early Middle Ages." makes little sense and we don't need even more unsourced content. -- NeilN talk to me 21:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that there is an old Outline of ancient history out there. There's a proposed move on the talk page to move it from the Outlines project to draftspace. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what happened here but there is a serious lack of sources.-- Moxy ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Moxy,
This page has been abandoned for almost ten years, in the past days I have started fixing the page. Some of the unsourced material was recently written by me while other parts have been without sources since 2010. I plan to add sources shortly. You may see in the page's history that I have already done this with certain parts. Before I began editing there were sections that were using mythology and calling it history
Prior to what I wrote there was just a list of dates in the corresponding section which I thought was totally inappropriate. I would be happy if you would like to help.
Thanks for your Sumer, correction, I don't know what I was thinking. -Sunriseshore.
I would also like to comment that the gallery of images is designed to demonstrate the five first civilizations. I believe the Bronze Age section was the best place for these galleries. I believe it is important to show both their location and the kind of art/work they create. I would like to ask we discuss this before any galleries are removed. Sunriseshore ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I have addressed the concerns Moxy raised in the edit summary over the 'sandwiching of text' by placing the two 'original civilization templates next to each other. Their purpose is to display the locations and archaeology of civilizations that developed completely independently. Sunriseshore ( talk) 17:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning on adding some citations to this article where they are listed as needed. the ones that I will add are:
Ancient Egyptian Sea Power and the origin of maritime forces
Gregory P Gilbert for the Sea Power Centre of Australia
For a citation needed on egyptian naval technologies
Iraniant History: The Sasanian Dynasty: An Introduction to the Sasanian Dynasty
Dr. Gianpaolo Savoia-Vizzini 2000
Regarding a citation needed for the influence of sasanid culture outside of it’s borders
Science and Civilization in ancient china, COL. VII:2
Joseph Needham 2004
For a citation on state funding of science and technology
Zealot311 ( talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
What is meant by pitabim 2402:4000:2381:463D:FD2C:A0C8:305D:85FB ( talk) 04:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Given that this is an article on ancient WORLD history and not western history or Christian history specifically, the dating format used should be BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era). This would help promote the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. I will be making these changes in the next few days if there is no discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuCJD ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
These are prehistoric cultures. This page is about ancient history: 'past events from the beginning of writing and recorded human history'. Ario1234 ( talk) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
They traded with literate cultures and were part of the same timespan of large civilizations. West Africa was very much a part of the Eurasian economic network at that time especially by late antiquity. It would be clunky and unhelpful and quite possibly discriminatory to lump in Iron-Age West Africa with Stone Age Europe. (If these sections you mentioned were ever moved to pre history). Sunriseshore ( talk) 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arianna Szn ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Arianna Szn ( talk) 00:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This is wrong: "The three-age system periodizes ancient history into the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age, with recorded history generally considered to begin with the Bronze Age" Stone age does not belong to ancient history!! 201.179.48.37 ( talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a trading/merchant section that describes the start of long distance trade? Sunriseshore ( talk) 17:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Would it be possible to indicate some kind of time period associated with each of the civilisations here? - Stuart Presnell
10,000 years is too long for writing. Earliest was around 3200 BC.
Cmon guys, that Madonna zinger is perfect, just leave it there!
Where should information regarding the time before written history began be placed? Also as the time when written language became used varies by country, does 'Ancient History' cover times such as the Bronze Age and Neolithic in Britain?
Suppose we can divide history from the beginning of writing until 1945 into groups, just as pre-historic time is divided into periods like the "Age of Fishes", "Amphibians", "Reptiles", and "Mammals". What can we have??
We can start with the Age of Egypt, which begins when writing begins and ends sometime around 1500 B.C.E. I really don't know exactly.
Next, we have the Age of Greece, which ends around 30 B.C.E.
The next period is the Age of Rome, which runs from 30 B.C.E. to 476 C.E. when the Roman Empire was broken.
Then comes the Age of Early English, which runs from 476 to 1066, when the Norman King defeated the English King.
The next group is the Age of Middle English, 1066 to 1492.
From 1492 to 1776 is the Age of Discovering America.
The last period is the Age of Semi-Modern Life, 1776 to 1945.
Any years that you feel surprised do not serve as borders?? 66.245.14.242 15:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
This isn't a natural transition from the above discussion, but it kind of has to do with it.
Shouldn't some non-European dates be provided for the end of ancient history? Although I still find 476 to be the most convenient end date, other areas of the world went through some sort of transition around the same time. Western Asia was overrun by Muslims in the 600s. The Gupta Dynasty fell in the 500s. China was reunified by the Sui in 589. Japan began to emerge onto the historical scene. Can some other, Asian date be provided for the end of antiquity? Brutannica 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Then there are those terms like Axial Age/Axial Revolution used to refer to the Eurasian period that saw the emergence of Buddha, the Hebrew Prophets, Lao Zu, Zoroaster(ianism), Confucius, Pericles, Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Epictetus, Epicurus, Jesus, etc. When I teach, I let the philosophical impetus of the Axial Age crystallize into something called the Classical Period, in which the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty flourish. Dw5 ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The "golden age of Pericles" (Χρυσούς αιών του Περικλέους) - 5th century BC - should be added in the Classical Antiquity list. (Reasons: invigoration and establishment of democracy, acropolis of Athens)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmarnerides ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to place an external link to an online history portal that I believe offers added-value to wikipedia's history enthusiasts. This portal, http://www.saecularis.com, offers a good selection of history books, DVDs and posters that can be purchased online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasl001 ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of the article is missing citations or needs footnotes? Please list them in bullet order. J. D. Redding 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ancient historians are called 'primary sources' in this article. But aren't primary sources the ones recorded by people involved in the events themselves? Government archives and memoirs for example. Even a historian writing about events that happened during his lifetime isn't technically a primary source, but a historian of events that passed before his birth (like Herodotus) is definitely not a primary source. Renke 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Exodus soley a biblical event, with little or no historical proof? Darkahn 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"The standard order for optional appendix sections at the end of an article is See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Bibliography), and External links; the order of Notes and References can be reversed." and see WP:Layout In other words, 'general information' should be put under 'further reading'. And IMHO, the books now in further reading should be deleted as they are very, very out of date and superceded by more recent works, such as the Cambridge Ancient History Set. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The introduction seems very confusing to me as it is currently written.
Ancient history is the study of the written past from the beginning of human history until the Early Middle Ages.[1] The term classical antiquity is often used to refer to the timeframe of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. The beginning of history is signified with Sumerian cuneiform being the oldest form of writing discovered so far. Ancient history include the recorded Greek history in about 776 BC (First Olympiad). This coincides roughly with the traditional date of the founding of Rome in 753 BC, the beginning of the history of Rome. The ending date of ancient history falls in the 5th century and 6th century. Western scholars often use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the death of the emperor Justinian I in 565, or the coming of Islam in 632 CE as the end of ancient European history.
It starts out trying to define the title. This is done quite succinctly in the first sentence; although it doesn't actually include any dates, but then the introduction goes on to talk about classical antiquity. I suppose this is included in the introduction because classical antiquity and ancient history are sometimes used interchangeably when they shouldn't be, but I think it would be clearer to stick to what ancient history is rather than to introduce the definition of another term so soon in the introduction. I suggest moving this bit down the page to where the article begins describing ancient Greece and Rome. The third sentence introduces the importance of ancient Sumerian cuneiform as the start point for ancient history, this seems to contradict the first sentence and requires clarification. The forth and fifth sentence are referring the ancient Greece and Rome again. Certainly these two civilizations are important, but I'm not sure its entirely appropriate to single them out like this in the introduction. The seventh and eighth sentences give us several alternate ending dates for ancient history in a less-than-coherent way. I think this information can be delivered much more consisely. In addition, I think the introduction ought to refer to the major sections of the article: Section 1: the study of ancient history, Section 2: the chronology and Section 3: the prominent civilizations of ancient history; therefore, I propose the following:
Ancient history is the study of human civilizations from the advent of writing in 3000 BC (see Sumerian cuneiform) to the fall of Rome in 476 AD. Not all historians agree on these dates. Some historians date the end of ancient history with the death of the emperor Justinian I in 565 AD or the coming of Islam in 632 AD. The study of ancient history is greatly enhanced by the study of archeology due to the scarcity of historical source material. The breadth of ancient history includes 35 centuries on five continents (Asia, Africa, America, Europe and Austrailia).
The number of continents is up for debate, of course, I choose five because, looking through the list of items in the chronology and the list of prominent civilizations, ancient American is taken as a single entity, and Antarctica is not mentioned at all. What do you think? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've started working out a possible new structure for the chronology section that groups items first by millenia and sub divides them by continet, but I'm actually having trouble taking Asia in all at once. It seems ncessary to divide it into West Asia (i.e. the Middle East), East Asia (i.e. China), and South Asia (i.e. India). I haven't started working on America yet. What do you think distinguishes the ancient history of North America with the ancient history of South America? I might guess the Aztecs in North America and the Inca in South America. They were prominent at the same time rather than sequentially, but they didn't interact with each other very much. - ErinHowarth ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that Section 2: Chronology ought to be combined with Section 3: Prominent Civilizations. Personally, I prefer a chronological organization, but I dislike the current chronology which is essentially a list of dates. I think a brief narrative for each century would be easier to read. However, we are talking about 35 centuries. What do you think? - ErinHowarth ( talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Reddi, I appreciate your efforts, but I am not sure they are an unmixed blessing ( pre-Reddi version). Please try to announce what you are going to do if you want to completely re-structure major articles, and try to collaborate with people. -- dab (��) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, I did not revert Reddi because some of his edits are clearly an improvement. They are still rather erratic, partly due to lack of familiarity with WP:MOS issues, and some discussion or collaboration would have worked wonders. I am sorry, but "Ancient history" is an "Eurocentric". Or at least an "Old World" centric one, including the Near East, India and China. The Americas, sub-Saharan Africa and Australia have no "ancient history" in this sense for lack of written records, and move from Prehistory directly into the Modern (colonial) period. Let's not duplicate the scope of the Prehistory article here. -- dab (��) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the comments and the past few days, it's finally struck me that this should have been discussed and that editors aren't generally happy with the drastic change. So, I've reverted to the first good version before Reddi deleted most of it, and am replacing some of the acceptable references Reddi added,which won't include his quick guide to SAT tests that he added :-). It clearly needs work. More citations, and can we get rid of the huge timeline which in any case makes it hard to read? Either delete it entirely, or put it further down. Definitely get rid of anything that is archaeology, not history.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Thales of Miletus, writing at around 600 BC, a form of electricity was known to the Ancient Greeks who found that rubbing fur on various substances, such as amber, would cause a particular attraction between the two. The Greeks noted that the amber buttons could attract light objects such as hair and that if they rubbed the amber for long enough they could even get a spark to jump. An object found in Iraq in 1938, dated to about 250 BC and called the Baghdad Battery, resembles a galvanic cell and is believed by some to have been used for electroplating, although this is unproven and contoversial. Other cultures would also have encounters with electromagnetic forces. Some have suggested that the Egyptians had some form of understanding electric phenomena from observing lightning [1] and interacting with electric fish (such as the Malapterurus electricus) or other animals (such as electric eels). [2] J. D. Redding 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the article says "Although the ending date of ancient history is disputed, currently most Western scholars use the fall of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476," and cites a 1916 and a 1951 book. How can these be used to say what scholars currently think? Doug Weller ( talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Climate_changes_of_535–536 could do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.63.223 ( talk) 08:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Under important events, it says "# 410- Alaric sacks Rome for the first time since 390 BC". 390 BC is 20 years AFTER 410 BC, so this is like saying "in 1989, George Bush senior became the first Bush elected US President since George Bush Jr. in 2001". I don't know the facts about the raids and can't find them anywhere, so perhaps this needs to be reviewed by a knowed person, or else that line needs to be deleted.
---
The problem that I think some people are running into is the Biblical Account of history vs. the scientific account of history. On the average, the population of religious people tend to think that the earth can be no more than a little over 6000 years old. (Not to offend anyone, but, the scientific proof dates it at much much longer than that). Also, another mistake I keep seeing is BC vs BCE and AD vs CE. I see both formats on this page BC/BCE and AD but no CE. (BCE-Before the Common Era and CE-Common Era). To keep this page as close to the valid scientific account as possible, I think that BCE and CE should be used in place of BC and AD. Again, sorry if this offended anyone.
AscottW 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)AscottW AscottW 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "on the average" most religious folk believe in young earth chronology, and I suppose to "keep this page as close to the valid scientific account" BPE (Before the Present Era (the archeological system)) might be better, eh. As a world historian (and a religious person to boot), BCE and CE are quite acceptable for historical dating. In any case, if using BC/AD, then one should be sure that AD sits before the date and BC after it; CE and BCE both go after.
Dw5 (
talk)
02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to offend anyone either, but who came up with this "Common Era" crap? What happened in AD 1 to begin a "Common Era?" It doesn't make any sense! It's dishonest! Life in the present has NEXT TO NOTHING in common with life in AD 1! You might as well say the "Common Era" begins with the signing of the Declaration of Independence or the extinction of the Dinosaurs, it'd be about as "scientific." Where does this silly euphemism come from, what makes it so "scientifically valid," and why are we all being forced to switch over to it? I mean, I have absolutely no problem with a secular dating convention, but why the hell would you begin it in AD 1? THAT DATE IS SPOKEN FOR. I realize this may not be the place for this, but my head was about to explode. Sorry. Ştefan 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All dates referring to AD have been changed to CE. All dates referring to BC have been changed to BCE. Unless we want to use another dating system such as Aztec, Muslim, Masonic, Discordian, etc., we must continue to use the Gregorian (Christian/Catholic) calendar. However, we can easily change our religious annotations to secular/scientific annotation such as BCE and CE. THC Loadee ( talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Alright, I don't think this practice of using both date systems is efficient or logical. If Wikipedia is not a religious biased site then using BCE/CE is the practical choice. So, how do I go about changing the WP:ERA policy on Year numbering systems? THC Loadee ( talk) 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Great, thanks for filling me in and pointing me in the right direction. As far as which format is correct, it seems to me that there isn't a right answer, however, there is no denying that BC/AD is a Christian reference, and therefore has no place in a non-religious, secular, encyclopedia. There's something to be said for consistancy. Besides, there's a site for religious folk. It's called conservapedia. THC Loadee ( talk) 19:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee
Article needs a nice visual timeline like http://chaos1.hypermart.net/fullsize/ancivfs.gif ... will start on it shortly ...
Should it be in a template?
J. D. Redding 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
you may want to consider building on Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures. You may also want to consider stop trying to squeeze world history into a single article. This article needs judicious tightening more than it needs expansion. -- dab (𒁳) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be ancient history. Not entirely world history. Nor prehistoric information. Sheesh.
J. D. Redding 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence currently states this: "...some less defined point in the rest of the world (for example, the Austronesian regions, and North, Central, and South America)". Well, my sole objection is that this in not exactly the rest of the inhabited world! First of all the term Austronesian conventionally applies to a certain language family and not to a group of homogeneous peoples or to a specific geographic area. A better phrasing would be "Pre-Historic Oceania" or something, which includes Australasia (New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea), Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Furthermore, why isn't there a single reference to Sub-Saharan Africa? At least, it should be mentioned in the first sentence, as not fitting in the mainly Eurasian Ancient History scheme, along with Oceania and the Americas. Omnipedian ( talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ancient history starts at some less defined point in the rest of the world such as the Oceania regions and the Austronesian regions. This also includes the early history of Australia. The documentation of Aboriginal history is challenging, due to the fact that Aboriginal people did not have writing prior to 1827. Further information on such challenges can be found in "A New History of Western Australia" (Stannage, 1981, UWA Press). See history of Indigenous Australians and the prehistory of Australia for further details and the history of North, Central, and South America).
J. D. Redding 13:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the conflict over prehistory versus ancient history? Ancient history starts at some less defined point in the rest of the world.
It should be noted to help readers, alleviate the euro-centrism of the article, and state the appropriate information.
BTW, reference to Sub-Saharan Africa should be included [in line with the rest of his comment], but with the blanket reverts I [and i suspect others would] find it hard to contribute constructively.
J. D. Redding 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Reddi, do you understand "disambiguation"? This is the article on recorded history prior to 500 AD in the "Old World".
Pre-Columbian America is an eminently respectable topic, but this isn't the page discussing it. So you found an 1834 soundbite discussing "American anqituities". That's great. Make American antiquity a redirect to Pre-Columbian and discuss the field of your interest at the proper place.
Complaining that this article is Eurasia-centric (not "Eurocentric") is like complaining that the Pre-Columbian page is "America-centric", or that the Europe article is blatantly Eurocentric. It's known as "article scope". Thank you. -- dab (𒁳) 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that you put in the "Old World" thing ... it's really about ancient history. Ancient history is the study of the written past from the beginning of recorded human history.
I put in most of the Chinese/Asian history IIRC a "long" time ago ...
Please don't remove American ancient history from the ancient history page. It's known as "article scope".
Thanks. J. D. Redding 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ps. the ancient Americans are in the infobox if u didn't notice ...
I realize that it is no good trying to talk sense to you. You have been doing this for years now, consistently ignoring the patient attempts of many erudite editors to explain it to you. You keep inserting prehistorical cultures, while this article is about historical cultures. I am not sure what a written past is, but I am sure you found the term somewhere and now parrot it without understanding. The problem you have is that you try to make judgements without the willingness to sit down and learn some background about a field first. In your case the history of writing and the nature of historicity. This sort of thing used to be taught to beginners at university. I do not know when, where or how you received your education, but something has clearly gone wrong. You seem to have been left with the impression that it is ok to skip the "studying" stop and rush straight to the "lecturing" stage based on whatever happens to cross your mind at the moment.
I wouldn't put it past you to insist we include a section on galaxy formation in this article if you happened to stumble on the phrase "early history of the universe" in some reference in the context of cosmology. -- dab (𒁳) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
right. I suggested a compromise toc which would have included mention of "Ancient America" [1]. You turned this down and resumed revert-warring. Please note that your revision has been objected to by several editors, you are editing against consensus, and there is no way your current behaviour will get you the revision you want. -- dab (𒁳) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Reddi, stop edit-warring, you will only get yourself blocked. You are clearly editing against consensus. Your idiosyncratic interpretation of "ancient histor" failed to convince even one editor here, as far as I can see. Learn to play by the rules. -- dab (𒁳) 07:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is referenced material. See above section. Removing reliable referenced material is not acceptable. J. D. Redding 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (PS., your ""'ing at me does nothing for you or your actions.)
what is the point of bringing up the exact same gripe every couple of weeks, Reddi? It'll only get you the exact same answers you got last time. If you have nothing to add to what has been said before, I really don't see why you bother. -- dab (𒁳) 16:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's start here. I'd get rid of the huge 'before the common era' list, and the maps which are in any case I think of mixed and dubious quality. Dougweller ( talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we not just split off 'Chronology' to
Ancient chronology ... would be a great articles unto it's own. And with a split, certain maps can be kept [better ones?] and a summary [highlights?] of the timeline [greece, rome, etc. ...]. The information would be available indepth [the split off article], but it would alleviate the bulk here. More specifically and along your suggestion, doing a split we could remove 'before the common era' here, but the list would be in the full chrono ... I think the full chronology is important, but it is bulky.
J. D. Redding
03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Basic timeline for dates of the article ...
Comments? J. D. Redding 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Despite the removal of the tag by Reddi, our guidelines suggest that this article is indeed too long. There's no rush to do anything about it, but interested editors should read WP:TOOLONG. Dougweller ( talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The possibilities are:
* Section 3
Ancient civilizations (Another bulky section; it redirects to this page now)
I think both could be moved off, replacing each with a passage of prose that captures the essence of the sections and the new article. I'll move them shortly if there is no objection (I think I tried to split off #2 from the article before, but certain people objected though it the worst of the two.). J. D. Redding 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Moved Ancient civilizations [section 3]. J. D. Redding 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the approach of just cutting this article down to what is actually essental to the topic. There isn't a single point addressed in this article that won't be treated in at least ten other places on Wikipedia. Of course, it is impossible to trim this article to something reasonable as long as Reddi keep stuffing it with even more material of tenuous relevance. -- dab (𒁳) 15:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That not the procedure of wikipedia:summary style. The personal snipe I'll ignore. J. D. Redding 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
it isn't a personal attack to state that Reddi's edits cause a lot of workload for other editors without contributing any value. It might get personal if I began to speculate on the real life reasons of Reddi's failure to produce valid content. Which I will not do. Reddi cannot or will not deliver encyclopedic content and needs a string of editors just to clean up behind him. Stating as much is simple WP:SPADE. The question is, how are we going to handle this? I certainly have better things to do than babysitting this article. -- dab (𒁳) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed your personal comments.
Didn't know two editors owned this article.
J. D. Redding
12:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"la la WP:IDHT" isn't a solution Reddi. You are clearly unable or unwilling to collaborate. This means that you will have no influence on article content. Anyone who is barely literate is welcome to contribute, but constructive collaboration isn't optional. -- dab (𒁳) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
So 2 editors can make the decision for the article? Editors can "lalala" all they want ... whatever, that isn't a "consensus" ...
I have tried to collaborate with you Dbachmann. I've tried to collaborate with others. I do collaborate with many other editors. But when there isn't an attempt to work together, then constructive collaboration cannot be done. J. D. Redding 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Xythianos insists on replacing the mention of the Battle of Salamis and the Battle of Plataea with the Battle of Thermoyplae, for no other reason than Thermopylae is a Persian victory (never mind a Pyrrhic one) while Salamis and Plataea are not [3]. This reasoning is just nationalist POV-pushing and highly flawed. In the timeline, we include what is most significant. While Thermopylae is indeed important, it is dwarfed in importance by Salamis and Plataea. These were the decisive engagements that ended the Persian campaign in Greece once and for all. As for Thermopylae, it was not particularly important in the sense that it was a Persian victory, but because of its effect on Greek morale. The claims for "balance" and "NPOV" are malarkey and window-dressing for what is really just nationalist POV-pushing. Athenean ( talk) 05:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, the claim that the Persians invented the windmill is based on a source that clearly credits the Babylonians [4] (you might need to wait a bit for the page to load). Athenean ( talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Once again, do NOT revert someone's well sourced edit until it has been discussed first or I will have to report you.
Your petty attempts at ad hominem, Xythianos, I am willing to ignore graciously. You may have made there some legitimate name changes related to Iran and the Persians, but unfortunately your habit of complete reverts has made them so far difficult to distinguish from your contentious edits related to ancient technologies and battles:
My "petty attempts at ad hominem? I hope you're not serious because you've both called me a Persian nationalist and a Iranian ultra-nationalist numerous times for simply adding properly sourced, weighted, and relevant information to this article. You've also reverted my edits countless times, Athenean has told me to "eff off" among other pathetic personal attacks he made. Still, I don't see why we can't just get along and work through this as productively as we are able to. Keep in mind that if we want to remain as objective as possible in this article, there has to be an effort made from both sides of the debate to tone down the individual biases.
about 500-900 A.D." I'm certain that falls within Ancient History. It was first recorded "by the Persian geographer Estakhri in the 9th century."
Athenean, like I said, I'm willing to cooperate with you and other editors on this, however on the condition that you immediately put an end to the personal attacks (like going around and calling me a Persian ultra-nationalist troll.) Also, since I'd like to see real progress (so far I'm not seeing much), more of a willingness to compromise is needed from your side of the discussion. Let me know when you can make this happen.-- Xythianos ( talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if you've seen this Dougweller?-- Xythianos ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
What? No no no, I was talking to Athenean there. Anyway, are you guys okay with me making these changes or not? Like I said, I'm open to compromise, but It's only fair that you do as well. I'd like to at least include to the Iranian origin of Qanats in the technology section, considering that Dougweller considers the batteries as WP:FRINGE and the Windmills outside the dates of Ancient History, (even though it says in this article that some academics consider the Islamic Conquests (which came 140 years after the Windmills) to be the end of Ancient History) but once again I'll compromise since I don't want to be blocked by Dougweller. Also, I'd like to change the title of the "Persia" section (since that section describes Ancient Iranians and not only Persians, making it technically wrong.) And if we're going to take out Thermopolae, we're also taking out the two additional events you added to the timeline after me in rebellion, to balance the weight. Is this all okay?-- Xythianos ( talk) 04:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, is there something you wanted to say? You reverted the edit again, so I'm assuming that there is.-- Xythianos ( talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, you're argument there is invalid because my sentence (hoping you at least read it before changing it) was in reference to Ancient Iranian technology as a whole, and not only to Achaemenid Persia. Achaemenid Persia was not the first Iranian civilization.... Refer to Ancient Iranians and History of Iran.-- Xythianos ( talk) 07:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
References
There are conflicting dates in sections: 2.2.3.3 & 2.2.3.4.
In particular, 2.2.3.3 has
• 285: Emperor Diocletian splits the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western Empires
• 395: Roman Emperor Theodosius I outlaws all pagan religions in favour of Christianity
But 2.2.3.4 has
• 395: the division of Roman Empire into the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire
Someone with more expertise than myself may want to correct this and proofread the dates in these sections
Doug10940 ( talk) 14:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Doug10940
This text says:
Some have suggested that the Egyptians had some form of understanding electric phenomena from observing lightning[81] and interacting with electric fish (such as the Malapterurus electricus) or other animals (such as electric eels). with footnotes "
^ Bruno Kolbe, Francis ed Legge, Joseph Skellon, tr., "
An Introduction to Electricity". Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1908. 429 pages. Page 391. (cf., "[...] high poles covered with copper plates and with gilded tops were erected 'to break the stones coming from on high'. J. Dümichen, Baugeschichte des Dendera-Tempels, Strassburg, 1877")
'
^ Heinrich Karl Brugsch-Bey and Henry Danby Seymour, "
A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs". J. Murray, 1881. Page 422. (cf., [... the symbol of a] serpent' is rather a fish, which still serves, in the Coptic language, to designate the electric fish [...])
Dendera light says "Proponents of this fringe interpretation have also used a text referring to "high poles covered with copper plates" to argue this
[4 but Dr. Bolko Stern has written in detail explaining why the copper covered tops of poles (which were lower than the associated pylons) do not relate to electricity or lightning, pointing out that no evidence of anything used to manipulate electricty had been found in Egypt and that this was a magical and not a technical installation.
I think the text in this article is misleading and if no one else fixes it I will in a few days when I have more time. --
Doug Weller (
talk)
19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Lightning rod? ... don't fix this article .. fix the POV in the other article. J. D. Redding 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Huh? In
1896, much was known by
physicists about electricity, though the
electron was discovered by
J.J. Thomson during the following year, 1897. The Nobel Prizes were first awarded in the year
1901, and Thomson won his in 1906 for his discoveries concerning the electron.
List of Nobel laureates in Physics.
Nevertheless, a great deal was already known about electricity from the
18th Century and the first half of the
19th Century, though the discoveries by these men:
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 90),
Charles Coulomb (1736 - 1806),
Alessandro Volta (1745 - 1827),
Andre Ampere (1775 - 1836),
Georg Ohm (1789 - 1854),
Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867),
Joseph Henry (1797 - 1878),
Gustav Kirchhoff (1824 - 87), and
Wilhelm Weber (1804 - 1891).
Kirchhoff made his discoveries in electricity while he was a graduate student in Germany during the 1840s, but then he moved on to other fields of physics such as
spectroscopy. Kirchhoff's circuit laws are named for him.
The above pioneers in the scientific study of electricity had the basic units of electricity named for them: the
coulomb (unit),
volt,
ampere,
ohm,
farad,
henry (unit), and
weber (unit). There is also an unusual unit, little-used, the
franklin (unit), which is usually called the
statcoulomb. There is another one, the
gauss (unit), which was named by
Carl Friedrich Gauss, an esteemed mathematician and sometimes an older coworker with Wilhelm Weber in Germany.
Also by 1896, there were already bachelor's degree programs in
electrical engineering at the technical universities of Europe and also at colleges and institutes of technology in the United States such as the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cornell University, and the
Georgia School of Technology.
Hence, to claim that in 1896, nobody knew much about electricity is a specious thing to say. You really ought to read a lot of history of science and technology before making such spurious comments. LOTs was known about electricity in 1896.
98.67.175.254 (
talk)
19:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Variants on the claim that history is the study of the written past appear both here and in History_of_the_world. In both cases, the only reference for this important claim was the first reference in the article. Thiw original reference attributed the claim to Crawford, 1927, in the journal Antiquity, and in particular to the sentence:
"History education in the United States is primarily the study of the written past. Defining history in such a narrow way has important consequences"
Many problems when you look under the hood.
First is that O.G.S. Crawford, the 'Crawford' in question, wrote 7 different articles in 1927, the year in which he founded the journal Antiquity. So it's a pain to track down which article is intended.
But in fact, none of the articles were intended. The real source for this sentence is M. Elaine Davis, Antiquity 74 (2000), 194-198. What has happened here is that someone was probably looking at some very sloppy bibliographic information for this sentence, and, as sometimes happens with bibliographic records, got an erroneous reference to the first issue, dated 1927, edited by O.G.S. Crawford, and just gave that reference. This looks like a case where the original source was not directly consulted at any point, although perhaps careful examination of the edit history will suggest otherwise (ie, a correct reference that was erroneously contracted one possible mechanism).
This mis-attribution is not insignificant, for two reasons.
First, O.G.S. Crawford, as founding editor of the journal Antiquity, is a plausible authority on which to base such an important claim. According to a description of one of her books, M. Elaine Davis is a "Former classroom teacher and science education specialist" and may not be an adequate source for the fundamental definition of the practice of history.
Still worse, Davis probably doesn't even agree with the sentiment being attributed to her. We are taking her out of context. To give a bit more context, what she wrote in the article is that:
"History education in the United States is primarily the study of the written past. Defining history in such a narrow way has important consequences; authorship of the past is severely restricted, and the history of certain groups is legitimised while others are devalued."
What we see is not that she is making a prescriptive claim about what history is and ought-to-be, as the reference originally implied, but instead that she is setting up 'history education in the united states' in order to make an important criticism of US teaching practice.
In short, the original source is not a prominent scholar of antiquities making a statement about how history ought to be, but a contemporary educator criticizing american educational practice. This error seems to be propagating around to some extent on Wiki, as I noticed it in two important articles, see above.
This seems to create a puzzle for this article that can be solved in one of two ways.
Either:
(a) Find a new authoritative source for the claim that "History is the study of the written past"; or,
(b) define history in a new way, which probably would require some significant thought and editorial work.
Afewnotes ( talk) 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
In the last paragraph in the section on "Ancient Persia", a sentence begins as follows:
The use of the singular "achievement" in "the highest achievement of Persian civilization" makes it sound like the Sassanid period witnessed (that is, was witness to) just one achievement, even though it was the highest one. I don't think that was what was meant. I think the problem is the choice of verb, "witnessed". I think what was meant was that the Sassanid period represented (that is, was itself) the highest achievement of Persian civilization. If I do not hear to the contrary, I will change "witnessed" to "represented". Either that or change "achievement" to "achievements". (One might also consider changing "the highest achievement" to "the zenith" -- the high point.) – CorinneSD ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So, which one of the following do you think is the most correct and best expressed? --
Of course, other suggestions are welcome. CorinneSD ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
[5] "Ancient history is the aggregate of past events from human history recorded in written by contemporaries of those events, and it extends as far as the Postclassical Era or the Early Middle Ages." makes little sense and we don't need even more unsourced content. -- NeilN talk to me 21:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that there is an old Outline of ancient history out there. There's a proposed move on the talk page to move it from the Outlines project to draftspace. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what happened here but there is a serious lack of sources.-- Moxy ( talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Moxy,
This page has been abandoned for almost ten years, in the past days I have started fixing the page. Some of the unsourced material was recently written by me while other parts have been without sources since 2010. I plan to add sources shortly. You may see in the page's history that I have already done this with certain parts. Before I began editing there were sections that were using mythology and calling it history
Prior to what I wrote there was just a list of dates in the corresponding section which I thought was totally inappropriate. I would be happy if you would like to help.
Thanks for your Sumer, correction, I don't know what I was thinking. -Sunriseshore.
I would also like to comment that the gallery of images is designed to demonstrate the five first civilizations. I believe the Bronze Age section was the best place for these galleries. I believe it is important to show both their location and the kind of art/work they create. I would like to ask we discuss this before any galleries are removed. Sunriseshore ( talk) 05:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I have addressed the concerns Moxy raised in the edit summary over the 'sandwiching of text' by placing the two 'original civilization templates next to each other. Their purpose is to display the locations and archaeology of civilizations that developed completely independently. Sunriseshore ( talk) 17:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning on adding some citations to this article where they are listed as needed. the ones that I will add are:
Ancient Egyptian Sea Power and the origin of maritime forces
Gregory P Gilbert for the Sea Power Centre of Australia
For a citation needed on egyptian naval technologies
Iraniant History: The Sasanian Dynasty: An Introduction to the Sasanian Dynasty
Dr. Gianpaolo Savoia-Vizzini 2000
Regarding a citation needed for the influence of sasanid culture outside of it’s borders
Science and Civilization in ancient china, COL. VII:2
Joseph Needham 2004
For a citation on state funding of science and technology
Zealot311 ( talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
What is meant by pitabim 2402:4000:2381:463D:FD2C:A0C8:305D:85FB ( talk) 04:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Given that this is an article on ancient WORLD history and not western history or Christian history specifically, the dating format used should be BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era). This would help promote the neutral point of view in the article as a whole. I will be making these changes in the next few days if there is no discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuCJD ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
These are prehistoric cultures. This page is about ancient history: 'past events from the beginning of writing and recorded human history'. Ario1234 ( talk) 17:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
They traded with literate cultures and were part of the same timespan of large civilizations. West Africa was very much a part of the Eurasian economic network at that time especially by late antiquity. It would be clunky and unhelpful and quite possibly discriminatory to lump in Iron-Age West Africa with Stone Age Europe. (If these sections you mentioned were ever moved to pre history). Sunriseshore ( talk) 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arianna Szn ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Arianna Szn ( talk) 00:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This is wrong: "The three-age system periodizes ancient history into the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age, with recorded history generally considered to begin with the Bronze Age" Stone age does not belong to ancient history!! 201.179.48.37 ( talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Should there be a trading/merchant section that describes the start of long distance trade? Sunriseshore ( talk) 17:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)