Originally posted by edgewaters
Mayan script is not merely a pictographic system. A pictographic system contains only symbols that represent objects. |
I'm not sure where I read it, it could have been the Inca or Aztec but it was proven wrong. There was also a time when it was said the Inca and MesoAmerican civilizations didn't have any contact. We all can think different of these civilizations now, there are even some stone settlements found in New England or so I believe ,that historians have claimed that Native American could't and would't have built in stone, but they would eventually be proven otherwise.
Originally posted by edgewaters
Not really ... the Celts actually invented the iron plough, which was
adopted from them by the Romans and Greeks. They were very much an
agrarian peoples. There was quite alot of agriculture all over Western
Europe before the arrival of the Romans. Agriculture was practiced in
central and western Europe from about 5000 BC on (a little later than
Africa). Agriculture doesn't necessarily mean cities etc. |
Sorry I did not mean to imply they didn't possess farming capabilities, but I really meant to touch on the ancient towns of Germania and Gaul,and what technologies did the Celtic possess.
I know of the Britons being advance in certain aspects and there are some stone settlements in Great Britain dating to 300BC there if I'm not mistaken .
Originally posted by edgewaters
Europe before Rome, Africa, the Americas before the Europeans arrived -
they are all very interesting in their own right and do not need to be
regarded with reference to cultures like Rome to be appreciated. In
fact, it is likely that if you use Rome as a yardstick, you are
cheating yourself of being able to appreciate many interesting features
of these cultures. |
Right but my point was that the Germanic and other tribes didn't really organize into socio Civilized structure.Whereas Soninke is a continiuom of the of the old settlements and culture in that region,as opposed to the the Skara Brae settlements. There really was no unity among most Gemrnaic tribes ,they only banned up together in times of war. After the fall of Rome, Pope Gregory was the de-facto Emperor Pontifex Maximus and every king in Europe aspired to be like the Ancient Emperors such as Clovis,Frederick Barbossa,and Charlemagne.They were always excommunications done by the Church and state. I'm not to sure about the other Eastern European kingdoms but as for the that Kaizers,Czars,and Kings in Western Territory ,aspired to be like the ancient Romans and Greeks.The philosphies of Demosthenes and Aristatole were always revered,but other cultures did not inspire all of Europe as Greece and Rome.
Originally posted by edgewaters
To be honest, I find Rome almost totally uninteresting. It just doesn't
appeal to me. I would much rather study pre-urban civilizations.
Unfortunately, they are difficult to know because of the lack of
writing and archaeological evidence. |
They are certain things I find interesting about Rome such as the Figures Censor Appius Cladius dealing with extended citenship,Licinicius partaking in finding a better system landowning,Spurrius Cassius new proposal to the Romans of Land owning,the greed of Cato and his Iron fist reigning on his subjects overcoming any resistance and so on. Figures such as Tiberius and his brother Gracchus can have parrell undertones to political situations today such as JFK and Robert Kennedy.
We also must not forget the part Rome played in Christianity how alot newly accquired land annexed to the empire were ceded to emeperors by Greek Satraps,the struggle between Plebian and Partricians,and of course the role proletariats.
Originally posted by edgewaters
Pre-urban cultures are far more interesting and complex than people realize. There were confederated alliances locked in titanic power struggles, groups maneuvering to control lucrative trade routes, technological advancements and sweeping changes caused by the introduction of them (for instance, agriculture, or copper), and so on - all the things that make history so interesting are there. They're just obscured. |
Right the Mayans and Indian civilzations in the time of the Rajas seem to fit this descripition.
http://www.walata.org/eng/conoce_historia.htm
This is known as the
Dhar Tichitt-Walata culture, a unique neolithic culture dating from
between BC 2000 and the third century BC. No less than
400 settlements, some of them complete cities, made up this group
of towns.
http://www.alarab.co.uk/Previouspages/North%20Africa%20Times/2008/01/01-27/NAT172701.pdf
Iposted this in another post,about Nok culture who some say are related but the Nok culture have way different style of architecture.
Originally posted by calvo
I never knew that the Berber invasion of Central Africa was as early as 300 B.C. |
Its not actually Central Africa but considered Northern Africa in around the Savnannah region,
The reason the SOninke built in this region was becuase the Savanah wasn't as dry as was today
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/mande/history.html
History
Descended from ancient Central Saharan people, akin to the Bafour or Imraguen of Mauritania, the Mandé are an identifiable people spread throughout the western Sahel. They are known as having been among the first on the continent to produce weaved textiles (by a process known as strip-weaving), and as the founders of the Ghana Empire and Mali Empire, as well as being responsible for the expansion of the Songhai Empire
empire across West Africa. However, archaeological testimony also
supports that they were among the first peoples on the continent,
outside the Nile region, to produce stone settlement civilizations.
These were built on the rocky promontories of the Tichitt-Walata and
Tagant cliffs of Mauritania where hundreds of stone masonry
settlements, with clear street layouts, have been found. Some
settlements had massive surrounding walls, while others were less
fortified. In a deteriorating environment, where arable land and
pasturage were at a premium, the population grew and relatively
large-scale political organizations and, ultimately, military
hierarchal aristocracies emerged. With a mixed farming economy?millet
production combined with the rearing of livestock ?this copper-based
agro-pastoral society traded in jewelry and semi-precious stones from
distant parts of the Sahara and Sahel. In the words of
one archaeologist, these abandoned sites represent ?a great wealth of
rather spectacular prehistoric ruins? and ?perhaps the most remarkable
group of Neolithic settlements in the world? (Mauny 1971: 70).
Originally posted by calvo
Due
to my ignorance I always thought at up until the Islamic age, the
contacts between the 2 sides of the Sahara was limited to few
commerical caravans. |
I would't blame you so do most PH.D historians also share the same view. The Ghana kingdom was called the Land of Gold. I'm not sure in ancient times were gold mines were the diamonds in the ancient world were mostly from India.
The ancient Egyptians got alot of their gold from Nubia,and so you can see were the supply of gold came through the Western Sudan(Savannah).
Interesting enough even today you do not see that much gold in Europe or Asia heres a map below of the current gold mines in the world today.
Originally posted by calvo
Did any of these ancient stone cities leave any ruins that can still be visited today? |
Yes they are sites that are assigned to the UNESCO World Heritage Organzation,so I'm sure you can visit if you want.
Edited by AksumVanguard - 25-May-2009 at 07:15