"civilization occurs only in agricultural societies"

that is true? I heard this phrase at my college.
Is agriculture really a basic and primary requirement for civilization? Based on this, pastoral or Hunter gatherers societies cannot create civilization and civilization necessarily depends on settled people

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    idk the word civilization is a loaded word and it gets blurry. epipaleolithic hunter-gatherers were able to build megalithic structures like gobleki teppe and level of complexity even if not full on "civilization".

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it not necessarily true for founding a civilization, but to maintain said civilization longterm you will need agriculture since its the only sustainable way to produce a food surplus which allows to people to specialize in other matters need to maintain a civilization

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't about food surplus, people could just hunt or gather more, in fact it takes much less labor to just let the animals roam, and later catch them, and has been done any time it was an option.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        that doesn't really become an option when you have permanent settlements since animals migrate, especially when you have much larger populations that civilizations have

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the condition is not to be steppe people

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Y-DNA was replaced by steppe Y-DNA and steppe people acquired domesticated animals and metallurgy from farmers.

      So now what about the steppe? Afanasievo never achieved much. Its Y-DNA has been replaced in Mongolia and neighboring regions. Andronovo was much more successful, but it also did not build a civilization.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Historians generally agree that what distinguishes civilizations is the presence of the following
        > written language
        > organized religion
        > sedentary urban settlements
        > knowledge of agriculture
        > stratified social structure

        the condition is not to be steppe people

        Hello, Sardinian ugly girl

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cope
          The aryans did not have a civilization. The damned Sintashta and Andronovo were not a civilization. Before them there were only hunter-gatherers

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Agriculture is what allows a people to settle in one place and do these things. The only exception is nomad cultures, but they require animal husbandry.

          [...]
          [...]
          Metallurgy is the only serious marker of civilization.
          at least in the short term.
          You need to have blacksmiths, infrastructure, and resource miners, along with traders, to get your material to the blacksmiths and blacksmiths.

          >The Romans and Greeks used metallurgy as a marker of civilization
          Exactly! A student of history finally graces this board.

          You have to have these things, a complex society, in order to have metal working. So yeah, I agree, that's a good way of identifying a civilization.

          Apply that to South American civilizations that preferred weapons made of sharp obsidian and only worked on metal to make fancy statues and israeliteelry?

          Civilization as you define it only existed in Mexico and Peru, most of America was far inferior to Sub-Saharan Africa technologically; in fact, even the Mesoamericans were inferior to the Bantus in many ways

          The South American civilizations were perfectly capable of working with gold, silver, copper, and bronze; they just didn't use them for weapons.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Civilization and all that shit is a byproduct of learning, which is a survival trait. Migratory birds learn routes to navigate. Frogs learn what harms them and what doesn't

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    China and India have always had large masses of people. Its people were some of the first to subsist mainly on cereals, which increased their population early. They also lived in much more fertile areas than their early civilization counterparts in West Asia/North Africa, which was also a benefit for larger populations.
    Chinese wars have literally been on an imperial scale since before Rome existed because of this and it has been the same ever since. It is just a product of mass production by the Han and Indian people

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Now, like a steamroller out of control, the feminine principle in civilization is in that state of exacerbation characteristic of everything that is about to die and be reborn. All the components of a femininity brought to caricature (by radical feminism) are present in our societies; collapse of traditional mythologies and rejection of the anima; exasperation of the desiccating brain in art and literature to the detriment of materialism and warmongering as the primary motor, triumph of loveless and casual and depersonalized sex in the traditionally feminine rather than masculine mode; emphasis on violence and selfishness, on taking theories, artistic and literary techniques, ideologies and all other categories to the limits of absurdity. Taking away the sacred and the sacred and stripping love of sex all point to the same path - the path symbolized by the death of civilization. and when they assert that the mother must be destroyed. mother who represents security, warmth, religion, authority, but who supposedly becomes corrupt and an evil bearer of everything she should represent, especially by male standards.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Civilization = written languages, cities and a governing class. Agriculture is a necessary precondition because it allows for higher population densities and selects for traits like intelligence and traits that foster group cohesion like agreeableness.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cities and the large population they inhabit need abundant resources to be built and maintained. Resources agriculture was able to offer as a self-sufficient sustainable mean of creating it.
    With hunter-gatherers the best you can make is a village and depending on the place you might need to be nomads to follow the migrating preys toward greener pastures. You are not self-sufficient and resources are fluctuating.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And you can have all these things at an extraordinarily high level, without urban planning, taxes, banks, brown people or writers. system. These things, these terrible things, this is civilization. And, frankly, it's mean and gay. Only the Hellenics and Romans made this acceptable in ancient times. North Sea and Iberian groups later made some small improvements. Otherwise I would just discard the whole thing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Advanced technology like the phone you're using are luxuries of industrialistic societies that only exists through large and rich civilizations.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >agriculture really a basic and primary requirement for civilization

    No,that would be metallurgy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No.

      Cities and the large population they inhabit need abundant resources to be built and maintained. Resources agriculture was able to offer as a self-sufficient sustainable mean of creating it.
      With hunter-gatherers the best you can make is a village and depending on the place you might need to be nomads to follow the migrating preys toward greener pastures. You are not self-sufficient and resources are fluctuating.

      :

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Culture is not civilization. You can have high metallurgy and great art without having civilization.

        Cope
        The aryans did not have a civilization. The damned Sintashta and Andronovo were not a civilization. Before them there were only hunter-gatherers

        Metallurgy is the only serious marker of civilization.
        at least in the short term.
        You need to have blacksmiths, infrastructure, and resource miners, along with traders, to get your material to the blacksmiths and blacksmiths.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Many people from barbaric cultures had high artistic expressions in metallurgy. You lost, sameflag.
          Furthermore, even these things depend indirectly on agriculture

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            sardinian girl?
            You don’t even need advanced gardening tools. The Romans and Greeks used metallurgy as a marker of civilization.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Romans and Greeks used metallurgy as a marker of civilization
            Exactly! A student of history finally graces this board.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Apply that to South American civilizations that preferred weapons made of sharp obsidian and only worked on metal to make fancy statues and israeliteelry?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Civilization as you define it only existed in Mexico and Peru, most of America was far inferior to Sub-Saharan Africa technologically; in fact, even the Mesoamericans were inferior to the Bantus in many ways

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That would exclude anything older than ~1200BC as civilization, and it was the main advantage of iron that you don't need any trade, you only need charcoal, and one of several common rocks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Culture is not civilization. You can have high metallurgy and great art without having civilization.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You can have high metallurgy and great art without having civilization
        This is self evidently wrong.

        [...]
        [...]
        Metallurgy is the only serious marker of civilization.
        at least in the short term.
        You need to have blacksmiths, infrastructure, and resource miners, along with traders, to get your material to the blacksmiths and blacksmiths.

        Finally, someone with common sense.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          [...]
          Metallurgy is the only serious marker of civilization.
          at least in the short term.
          You need to have blacksmiths, infrastructure, and resource miners, along with traders, to get your material to the blacksmiths and blacksmiths.

          Sameflag speaking with himself hahaha

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Germanic-Aryan peoples are the birth of civilizational progress.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >that is true? I heard this phrase at my college.

    It's generally true, but to get into further detail; population density seems to impose the generation of society/civilization based on the exceptions we've historically seen:

    -Populations in the Pacific Northwest, specifically British Columbia, at one point formed small'ish cities and societies numbering in the thousands that were sustained from the plentiful seafood - specifically the abundant salmon runs. These people then independently practiced 'society' activities: slavery, copper-working and the production of artisan goods, permeant housing, tribute, caste and class systems. Granted, they did start adopting more agricultural practices 'after the fact' as population grew larger and hungrier.

    -The Japanese were also, similarly, able to infamously maintain their neolithic Jomon society on *minimal agriculture due to the great abundance of seafood and edible forage present in the fertile Japan Sea and Japan's lush mountainous forests & jungles. The Jomon people had sedentary settlements complete with palisades and watchtowers, they were capable of maintain a very eccentric bronze-age-esque religious caste, and their artisans made some really fantastic pottery. I'm not sure they had metal.
    *I vaguely remember the Jomon did practice a spot of agriculture where they would grow small gardens of nettle, buckhweat, beans, gourds & squash, and other weed-adjacent goodies.

    Actually, to get really into it: most primitive human societies have always been practicing some form or another of agriculture - even if that means a small garden, or control burning patches of forest to create groves, orchards, and hunting parks.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    cities =/ civilization

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't build civilization if you have to pack up and leave every now and then. Its why nomads are more communal, because they can only carry so much private property on their back when on the move.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, IE= non civilization
      EEF= civilization

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, IE= non civilization
      EEF= civilization

      What about the Mongols?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the part of the mongolian empire that housed civilization and not a militant plundering horde relied heavily on agriculture. mongolia fielded massive armies of foot soldiers in the far east.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do Natufians make so many people boil? We wouldn't have modern civilization without them

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Define "civilization"

    There are some monumental sites that were non agricultural, like Poverty Point, see pic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      And about the CT culture???
      More advanced than this

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They’re a culture too, not a civilisation

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's more that you need a lot of people in a small area to get civilization. And for that, you need to minmax your food production. Which usually involves agriculture.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    if civilization includes writing, which traditionally it does, then there are no examples of any civilizations that have ever existed that did not either directly or indirectly rely on agriculture.

    PNW native americans had a relatively sophisticated material culture at a level usually only found in agricultural societies without any agriculture at all. There were so many berries and salmon in the area that they basically had unlimited food and could focus on other pursuits. They still didn't develop writing, and by the traditional definition, are not a civilization.

    If writing isn't necessary to consider something a civilization, then I don't know what a civilization is.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    if they didn't have writing, they would not be a civilization according to traditional anthropology, but would be about as close as you can get to it. it's debated whether or not they had something that constitutes a written language.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    quipu is specifically why andeans are considered a civilization in traditional anthropology. it's cited as an eccentric written language all the time in textbooks. you're taking the word "written" too literally, cuneiform for example is an etched language and not a literal written one.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the topic was full of moronic Indian worshipers and far from neutral reconstructions.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    Can a neutral person who isn't an Amerindian fanboy tell me if this is correct? Did he already post this a while ago, or is it just larp glorification?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cope

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The gobekli tepe was built before agriculture thus clearly proving that civilization existed before agriculture, perhaps even states predate agriculture.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Now, does Gobekli Tepe count as civilization, yellow Vei?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I highly doubt a small group of hunter-gatherers would be able to construct something like gobekli tepe on their own. Likely numerous family groups were involved which would indicate a shared faith and likely also a shared language and culture among them. Also consider the fact that someone had to design and lead the ones working on it which indicates a clear hierarchy. Also the way it was built shows they had some engineering knowledge.

        I thus have a theory that there was a theocracy that was in charge over a group of "tribes" or more accurately families that had a shared faith and culture.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay, and nothing of what you said is enough to meet the criteria of a civilisation. Words have meanings

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it meets the criteria according to me

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s fine. Most people stick to actual definitions though because they are sort of there for a reason. The builders of Gobekli Tepe were very much advanced for the time and the scale demanded that several groups came together, but that’s still a very, very far cry from a civilisation

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    civilisation is law and order and progress, hmm what place could that be

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Você tem Senai amanhã João.
      Vai dormir

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    there were lithic societies in russia that build walled settlements and they ate mostly fish and shell.
    the problem is that hunting and gathering is less predictable than crops

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agriculture is not that predictable. in fact, it can be very risky too. I was a farmer for almost 9 years and honestly, it wasn't something we could always count on. And look, I'm talking about a few years ago with modern technology. imagine this in the bronze age? where metal tools weren't really a meaningful continuum?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      settlement is not civilization.
      By this logic, even Africans have civilization (without derogating)

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Women are prepared for social interaction and participation in community networks with other women, this is a very important role in society

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *