>civilsation started in the middle east

>civilsation started in the middle east
Nope in Ukraine actually

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >civilsation
    actually entire human race originated form ukraine azov says so. gtfo russian troll

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If it went away again, as it did, then it was a false start, as the discourse implies that it needs to be continuous from start to now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Gibberish.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Are you moronic? so modern Iraq is directly continuous to the Sumerians?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, they consider it their heritage. Saddam literally wanted to rebuild Babylon.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Babylon
          Nothing to do with the Sumerians, Babylon was built by semites.
          Only the marsh Arabs have links to the Sumerians. By your logic modern Ukrainians are the descendants of the trypillians. I mean they have quite a bit of E3B and are quite swarthy so why not?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Culture doesn't go through haplogroups you autist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Haplogroups are a strong indicator of movements of ancient populations, so they do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Haploautism tells you nothing of cultural imperialism exerted on barbarians by the urban centers they may conquer. How do you think people in Kassite and later Persian Babylon ended up with Summerian names?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s physically impossible for it not to. Culture is just genetics and always has been. Culture as some completely invisible magical think was invented post-WW2 by israeli anthropologists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >hur dur haplogroups don't prove anything
            Autosomal genetics corroborate haplogroups sick of this meme. And this map also shows significant med admixture in the exact areas where the largest trypillian settlements were.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That map also shows the general areas where neolithic farmers settled interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ya dude sub Saharan Black person Africans are the same as the whitest people on earth, HAPLOGROUPS PROVED IT!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you talking about R1b in Africa? haplogroups generally show correlation with autosomal patterns but of course not all the time. The R1b prevalence in Africa is related to a back to Africa migration of Caucasoid people from the middle east 7 thousand or so years ago.
            Fulani and Hausa people occasionally do have Caucasoid features pic related.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >full lips
            >short, broad nose
            >Caucasoid features

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How does she have full lips? her nose is literally hooked and long like a semite and her features are fine and not robust like most SSA. You're moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How does she have full lips? her nose is literally hooked and long like a semite and her features are fine and not robust like most SSA. You're moronic.
            You are a haplogroup autist who's too stupid to understand that haplogroups don't always correlate with genetic lineage...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >haplogroups don't always correlate with genetic lineage
            I literally said that moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I literally said that moron.
            No you didn't. Nice try though.
            R1b could easily have evolved twice.
            Kind of like blond hair in Europe Vs New Guinea.
            Same theory has been floating around for epicanthal folds in East-Asian style eyes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >R1b could easily have evolved twice
            That's not how haplogroups work you absolute mongoloid. Chadic R1B is a result of the Caucasoid expansion out of the horn of Africa.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's the result of Europeans expanding from South Europe to North and then Central Africa. These guys never lived in the Horn of Africa.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not how haplogroups work
            Umm... That is how haplogroups work...

            Not sure, best resources on this stuff is all in Ukrainian and on Ukrainian websites.

            >Not sure, best resources on this stuff is all in Ukrainian and on Ukrainian websites.
            That's fine.

            https://i.imgur.com/JblDEfJ.jpg

            [...]
            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because it doesn't meet many of the basic criterias for civilisation?
            [...] like you say that they had strong centralisation, but where's the proof of that? Basically all of the houses at Cucuteni–Trypillia culture sites are of the same size and shows no signs of strong stratification. The only larger structures are communal works, but communal works far, far predate even the Cucuteni–Trypillia so

            >Because it doesn't meet many of the basic criterias for civilisation?
            What are these specific criteria according to you?
            Please enlighten us.

            https://i.imgur.com/JblDEfJ.jpg

            [...]
            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because it doesn't meet many of the basic criterias for civilisation?
            [...] like you say that they had strong centralisation, but where's the proof of that? Basically all of the houses at Cucuteni–Trypillia culture sites are of the same size and shows no signs of strong stratification. The only larger structures are communal works, but communal works far, far predate even the Cucuteni–Trypillia so

            >like you say that they had strong centralisation, but where's the proof of that?
            In place for many decades with hundreds of homes arranged next to each other in a centrally planned manner that creates a distinct pattern...

            https://i.imgur.com/JblDEfJ.jpg

            [...]
            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because it doesn't meet many of the basic criterias for civilisation?
            [...] like you say that they had strong centralisation, but where's the proof of that? Basically all of the houses at Cucuteni–Trypillia culture sites are of the same size and shows no signs of strong stratification. The only larger structures are communal works, but communal works far, far predate even the Cucuteni–Trypillia so

            >Basically
            Basically you're just extremely stupid or hate whites for some strange reason.
            How boring.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We literally have an ages-old, agreed upon definition. I'll literally just copy-paste wikipedia's:
            >development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language (namely, a writing system)
            They literally meet none of the criteria other than urbanisation
            >In place for many decades with hundreds of homes arranged next to each other in a centrally planned manner that creates a distinct pattern...
            That's not evidence of centralisation. There are great examples of similarly sized subsistence farmer villages in India in later periods that operated exactly in the same way as the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture did, but we rightfully don't consider them civilisations
            >Basically you're just extremely stupid or hate whites for some strange reason.
            I'm white lol. I just find this wewuzzing embarrassing

            NTA, but it does.
            >Civilization
            >the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social and cultural development and organization.
            >the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.
            They are quite clearly civilized, with some industry for ceramics, timber, wattling and textile production, as well as the production of tools/metallurgy for shaping timber. Claiming that there is no civ there is being a literal contrarian moron.

            Literally every single household was self-sufficient. There was no strong division of labour. There was no strong social stratification. No elite, no powerful, centralised religion. They were literally just an egalitarian society that saw benefit in coming together in a single location

            >get back to dying in your irrelevant war, slav
            Maybe you should go back to Mexico?
            [...]
            >The pics and culture overall are cool, but don't fall for these guys' wewuzzing. They were still just subsistence farmers
            It's okay anon, I already know that the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs are just irrelevant myths.

            >It's okay anon, I already know that the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs are just irrelevant myths.
            What the frick are you talking about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not evidence of centralisation.
            There is evidence of centralization. Pretty strong actually.

            >The political organisation in mega-sites left its archaeological fingerprints in the mega-structures. Mega-structures are non-domestic halls with a court, in which decisions on neighbourhood, district or city-level were made.

            > the development of integrative assembly houses (mega-structures) indicate increasing centralisation of decision-making processes, which was associated with growing social inequality and which preceded the disintegration of the settlements (Hofmann et al. 2019; Müller et al. 2022; Hofmann et al. in press).

            >Later, decision making by increasingly smaller groups of people is indicated by the disappearance of low-level assembly houses. Linked to this, the differences in house sizes and social inequality increased again significantly.
            >This points to a failure of levelling mechanisms and ran counter to the founder ideology of social equality which is manifested in the planned concentric layouts of the settlements. In our view, these social dynamics led to intra-community conflicts and first resulted in the gradual disintegration of mega-site communities and decline of innovative dynamics, and later (ca. 3650 BCE) culminated in their collapse (Hofmann et al. 2022; Müller et al. 2022).

            After 3700 BC they collapsed instead of transforming into proper cities with some god-like rulers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. It's possible that it meets the criteria of centralisation, but it looks pretty weak still. There is nowhere near as obvious a division as we see in the actual, earliest civilisations. There were no households at the culture sites that were markedly larger

            >They literally meet none of the criteria other than urbanisation
            Lol,
            Social stratification - some burials are far more wealthy than others, beyond what a single family unit could achieve...
            Some people were farmers, others worked with metals etc.

            symbolic systems - Vinca symbols and tally marks.

            communication beyond natural spoken language - Vinca symbols contain every rune that is later found in Germanic runestones and early Latin scripts.
            >That's not evidence of centralisation.
            It literally is. You are a lobotomized moron.
            Central -> arranged together, around something.
            Please use your brain.

            >I'm white lol.
            No you're not lol.
            >Literally every single household was self-sufficient.
            No, you're saying they were self-sufficient.
            As I said before. Some burials are too wealthy for their households to be self-sufficient. Indicating a division of labor and status.
            >What the frick are you talking about?
            Indeed anon. What in the frick are you talking about?

            >beyond what a single family unit could achieve
            ... Proof? It was a minerally wealthy region. Do you have any proof that these grave goods are not a gold hoard that a single family could not possibly hoard together in a lifetime?

            >It literally is. You are a lobotomized moron.
            By your definition, even a group of hunter-gatheres are centralised in that they follow a family head. Try and use your brain and work with the actual definitions for centralisation

            >No you're not lol.
            I am. Post your tiny hand and I'll post mine

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >... Proof? It was a minerally wealthy region.
            I think he's talking about Varna. Not quite Trypillians. The Varna Golden Man has more gold than any other place on the planet from the same era.

            > The Varna cemetery in eastern Bulgaria had the most ostentatious funerals in the world, richer than anything of the same age in the Near East. Among the 281 graves at Varna, 61 (22%) contained more than three thousand golden objects together weighing 6 kg (13.2 lb). Two thousand of these were found in just four graves (1, 4, 36, and 43). Grave 43, an adult male, had golden beads, armrings, and rings totaling 1,516 grams (3.37 lb), including a copper axe-adze with a gold-sheathed handle.1 Golden ornaments have also been found in tell settlements in the lower Danube valley, at Gumelniţa, Vidra, and at Hotnitsa (a 310-gm cache of golden ornaments).
            But Trypillian mega-sites appeared after Old European collapse.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, according to wikipedia it's even more impressive:
            >Grave 43 contained more gold than has been found in the entire rest of the world for that epoch.
            So this one guy has more gold than the rest of the planet in fifth millennium BC.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ye I figured. Again, these are extremely minerally rich regions so the amount of gold is somewhat skewed and doesn't necessarily speak to strong centralisation, however impressive it is. The best evidence is really just that there weren't markedly larger houses at Trypillian sites. There are fricking older European sites with stronger indications of centralisation than them, but these wewuzzers never seem to mention them

            [...]
            You're not white and you're not saying anything that makes any logical sense.
            [...]
            >t. polish goblin
            You are the goblin Mexican anon.

            Just post your hand already, ape

            I am half EHG, half ANF

            And stop trying to pretend to be me, ape

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fool

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody cares about your profile. Just post your hand, or are you shy?

            That's not Trypillia, it's Varna from Bulgaria.
            >There are fricking older European sites with stronger indications of centralisation
            Like Varna.
            >but these wewuzzers never seem to mention them
            Because their settlements were relatively small.

            It's still the somewhat same geographical region, especially in terms of minerals
            >Like Varna.
            No, not like Varna
            >Because their settlements were relatively small.
            Not at all. There were somewhat large, centralised cities elsewhere in Europe long before the Cucuteni–Trypillia, but again, you wewuzzers never mention them

            >Ye I figured. Again, these are extremely minerally rich regions
            Well no they aren't.
            There is far more more native gold and copper in America. In fact America still has the world's largest native copper deposits even after all the modern mining.
            Australia had so many gold nuggets in some areas that you could just pick up random rocks from the ground and there was a 10% chance it would be a gold nugget.
            Yet the Australian Aboriginals in ten thousand years never made a single item out of that native gold.

            You're making up new rules as you go along to continue your already dead theories that didn't even make any sense in the first place.

            >There are fricking older European sites with stronger indications of centralisation than them
            The ones you hallucinated in your taco?

            >Just post your hand already, ape
            It's your idea goblin anon. You go first. I'm expecting you to get a discord friend to provide you with the hand.

            >And stop trying to pretend to be me, ape
            Stop samegayging mexican anon.

            Yes, native americans and aboriginals are apes who never achieved anything. What about it? How it this supposed to be a counter-point? Perhaps mineral wealth in a vacuum isn't really a good indication of social stratification, and the Cucuteni–Trypillia were just literal subsistence farmers

            >The ones you hallucinated in your taco?
            No, the ones you should know about if you weren't a low IQ ape who is only invested in this because of your wewuzzing

            >It's your idea goblin anon. You go first
            Okay go ahead now

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, native americans and aboriginals are apes who never achieved anything. What about it?
            Aboriginals were surrounded by gold and never made a single gold artifact because they weren't centralized.
            Native Americans on the other hand did because they had centralized civilizations.

            So the Vinca and Varna were centralized civilizations.
            >Not at all. There were somewhat large, centralised cities elsewhere in Europe long before the Cucuteni–Trypillia, but again, you wewuzzers never mention them
            How can it be "wewuzzers" when it literally exists?
            And yes, they are mentioned. But you're a Mexican so you don't know much about anything really.
            >No, the ones you should know about if you weren't a low IQ ape who is only invested in this because of your wewuzzing
            So your taco hallucinations.
            >Okay go ahead now
            Yep, that isn't your hand. Well done. Almost got me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And yes, they are mentioned
            No, they are not. I can do a search here of them on IQfy and get barely any results
            >But you're a Mexican so you don't know much about anything really
            You're an insecure wewuzzers who is too shy to even post his hand

            >Yep, that isn't your hand
            HAHHAHAHAHAAH
            Thanks for the compliment? At what angle do you want the next picture from?

            >No, but streetshitter indians did for thousand of years, and we don't consider them civilisations
            I do, you don't speak for me.
            Civilizations did exist in India.
            You're trying every new angle you can just to shit on whites because you're mexican.
            That's it. That's all you are and all you ever will be.

            >Civilizations did exist in India
            No, barely. Even the Indus valley "civilisation" was barely that
            >shit on whites because you're mexican
            You still haven't posted your hand

            >There were somewhat large, centralised cities elsewhere in Europe long before the Cucuteni–Trypillia
            Don't know where you get that from. There were some large Vinca sites, but how were they centralized?

            I mean, there literally were, and not Vinca sites. I don't want to give too much away to these wewuzzers tho

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There were somewhat large, centralised cities elsewhere in Europe long before the Cucuteni–Trypillia
            Don't know where you get that from. There were some large Vinca sites, but how were they centralized?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Don't know where you get that from. There were some large Vinca sites, but how were they centralized?
            Stop samegayging mexican anon.
            It's weird.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not Trypillia, it's Varna from Bulgaria.
            >There are fricking older European sites with stronger indications of centralisation
            Like Varna.
            >but these wewuzzers never seem to mention them
            Because their settlements were relatively small.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ye I figured. Again, these are extremely minerally rich regions
            Well no they aren't.
            There is far more more native gold and copper in America. In fact America still has the world's largest native copper deposits even after all the modern mining.
            Australia had so many gold nuggets in some areas that you could just pick up random rocks from the ground and there was a 10% chance it would be a gold nugget.
            Yet the Australian Aboriginals in ten thousand years never made a single item out of that native gold.

            You're making up new rules as you go along to continue your already dead theories that didn't even make any sense in the first place.

            >There are fricking older European sites with stronger indications of centralisation than them
            The ones you hallucinated in your taco?

            >Just post your hand already, ape
            It's your idea goblin anon. You go first. I'm expecting you to get a discord friend to provide you with the hand.

            >And stop trying to pretend to be me, ape
            Stop samegayging mexican anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >By your definition, even a group of hunter-gatheres are centralised in that they follow a family head.
            Hunter gatherers don't build permanent centralized settlements of 3000 homes you idiot.
            Yeah, you're definitely a mexican

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, but streetshitter indians did for thousand of years, and we don't consider them civilisations also (rightfully). If a land is fertile enough, people will bundle together in large villages, but historically it's no promise of any sort of centralisatio nor division of labour

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, but streetshitter indians did for thousand of years, and we don't consider them civilisations
            I do, you don't speak for me.
            Civilizations did exist in India.
            You're trying every new angle you can just to shit on whites because you're mexican.
            That's it. That's all you are and all you ever will be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They literally meet none of the criteria other than urbanisation
            Lol,
            Social stratification - some burials are far more wealthy than others, beyond what a single family unit could achieve...
            Some people were farmers, others worked with metals etc.

            symbolic systems - Vinca symbols and tally marks.

            communication beyond natural spoken language - Vinca symbols contain every rune that is later found in Germanic runestones and early Latin scripts.
            >That's not evidence of centralisation.
            It literally is. You are a lobotomized moron.
            Central -> arranged together, around something.
            Please use your brain.

            >I'm white lol.
            No you're not lol.
            >Literally every single household was self-sufficient.
            No, you're saying they were self-sufficient.
            As I said before. Some burials are too wealthy for their households to be self-sufficient. Indicating a division of labor and status.
            >What the frick are you talking about?
            Indeed anon. What in the frick are you talking about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Vinca symbols contain every rune that is later found in Germanic runestones

            >Vinca symbols contain every rune that is later found in Germanic runestones
            https://www.academia.edu/41020321/EUROPEAN_RUNES_OLDEST_WRITING_in_HISTORY
            Whilst I disagree with it being the oldest writing in history it is interesting how almost all the later runes can be found in Vinca script...
            So there is definitely a very strong link there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Literally every single household was self-sufficient
            This was the case for most places with fertile land anon. Most rural or semi-urban areas had a population that could not only feed itself, but export its goods.
            >There was no strong division of labour.
            And? It was still present as it is something that arises naturally when practicing self sufficiency. Everyone had cursory knowledge and limited practice with most skills that you would need for life, but there were those who are more gifted in certain areas and naturally gravitate towards it.
            >There was no strong social stratification.
            Considering they had temples there was more than likely a priestly caste of some sort. There is also more than likely some sort of headman, or village leader who naturally arises. Even in the smallest groups of 3-4 people a defacto "leader" usually appears. This is the case with children and adults.
            >They were literally just an egalitarian society that saw benefit in coming together in a single location
            But again, they were still a civilization. In order to build the structures they had, you have to have industry, social cohesion, specialization and arguably some sort of leadership for the sake of management, even if it was democratic/egalitarian.
            Your argument literally does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny, or if you open your eyes or look at the information we have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This was the case for most places with fertile land anon. Most rural or semi-urban areas had a population that could not only feed itself, but export its goods.
            Not really. In the cities of the actual earliest civilisations, labour was so divided that a household wasn't necessarily self-sufficient
            >Everyone had cursory knowledge and limited practice with most skills that you would need for life, but there were those who are more gifted in certain areas and naturally gravitate towards it.
            Except they did not, or not to the degree that that gravitation extended beyond just the limits of a single household
            >Considering they had temples there was more than likely a priestly caste of some sort. There is also more than likely some sort of headman, or village leader who naturally arises. Even in the smallest groups of 3-4 people a defacto "leader" usually appears.
            At that point, again, we can call even the simplest tribal societies "civilisations" lol. Also, communal works are not necessarily an indication of a centralisation of power. There are plenty of examples of MUCH earlier communal works at sites like Jericho etc, but we rightfully don't consider these cultures civilisations
            >But again, they were still a civilization. In order to build the structures they had, you have to have industry, social cohesion, specialization and arguably some sort of leadership for the sake of management, even if it was democratic/egalitarian.
            No, you literally don't lol. In terms of communal works, compared to how many people they were, it wasn't all that grand

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. It's possible that it meets the criteria of centralisation, but it looks pretty weak still. There is nowhere near as obvious a division as we see in the actual, earliest civilisations. There were no households at the culture sites that were markedly larger

            [...]
            >beyond what a single family unit could achieve
            ... Proof? It was a minerally wealthy region. Do you have any proof that these grave goods are not a gold hoard that a single family could not possibly hoard together in a lifetime?

            >It literally is. You are a lobotomized moron.
            By your definition, even a group of hunter-gatheres are centralised in that they follow a family head. Try and use your brain and work with the actual definitions for centralisation

            >No you're not lol.
            I am. Post your tiny hand and I'll post mine

            You're not white and you're not saying anything that makes any logical sense.

            t. polish goblin

            >t. polish goblin
            You are the goblin Mexican anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am half EHG, half ANF

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I am half EHG, half ANF
            That's your roleplaying.
            You're nothing more than yet another Mexican that thinks they're white.
            You can say nonsensical crap forever online.
            It's all you can ever do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not mexican, you moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not really. In the cities of the actual earliest civilisations, labour was so divided that a household wasn't necessarily self-sufficient
            This is the case for both earlier and later civilizations anon, especially for proto-city states.
            >Except they did not
            But you naturally would via osmosis. Your neighbors, friends, family and everyone else will have experience doing just about everything, and you will most likely have to see it in person, repeatedly, for the rest of your life if not do it yourself. Things like maintenance, shaping wood, felling timber, and basic agriculture/metallurgy are all things you can do based on seeing someone else doing, or hearing about it. It gets even easier if you live within spitting distance of them.
            >At that point, again, we can call even the simplest tribal societies "civilisations" lol
            Yes, you would refer to them as early civilizations or budding civilizations. These arise fairly quickly and are easy to identify. It starts blooming as soon as a few families settle a region and begin industry, sustaining themselves and have an identifiable culture.
            >No, you literally don't lol.
            You literally do. In order to fell trees, shape them and joint them together you need a whole host of specialized tools, craftsman and various industries spanning metallurgy, textiles, carpentry and either animal husbandry or hunting for the glue (either hoof glue or fish bladder).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            By the way
            >A stage of social development identified by formation of organized communities, permanent settlements, with oral or written records and history, traditions, religious faiths, laws, shared values, customs, beliefs, and artistic achievements.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Autosomal genetics corroborate haplogroups
            It doesn't actually.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they also have alot of G even more of an indicator of neolithic origins.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's amazing how dirty the Balts are, despite the fact that their language is considered the cleanest IE.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            t. polish goblin

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not just Polish, but native Baltic R1a, always ready to replace your Mongoloid bastards.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >native Baltic R1a
            So polish?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm gonna be real, no one cares. None of this is a paycheck or fulfilling some souls. It's just a different way for y'all to call each other Black person with somehow even less detachment.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Written records to prove this?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a neolithic civilisation dude NO, we no about through archaeology.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I said written records.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They didn't have a written language moron. What do you not understand about neolithic? this is a long long time ago

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So not a civilization.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so neither where the Incans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A closely related culture did have a written language that they invented though but they weren't as urbanized as the trypillians and all of this was thousands of years before the Sumerians became a thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Literal symbols

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            like hyeroglyphics?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Civilization means the art of living in cities. You are blown the frick out.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ukrainian mudhut favelas without any government, written records, or organization. Just a hive of European insects doing nothing and being nothing.

    They were destroyed by some steppe ooga boogas a few centuries later while Uruk already progressed into the greatest society on Earth and left actual culture behind that transformed human civilization forever.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >or organization
      Are you moronic? do you not see the arrangement of the houses?
      >without any government
      They clearly had a government and an organized religion.
      >written records

      https://i.imgur.com/g8iFG8Q.jpg

      A closely related culture did have a written language that they invented though but they weren't as urbanized as the trypillians and all of this was thousands of years before the Sumerians became a thing.

      the closely related vinca culture had a written language.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >organized religion
        Here's one of their temples

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is this not a civilization?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because 90% of posters on IQfy and /misc/ are American Indians, Feds and Mexicans that hate whites lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because 90% of posters on IQfy and /misc/ are American Indians, Feds and Mexicans that hate whites lol.

            >How is this not a civilization?
            Because it doesn't meet many of the basic criterias for civilisation?

            https://i.imgur.com/k9ybwsE.jpg

            >or organization
            Are you moronic? do you not see the arrangement of the houses?
            >without any government
            They clearly had a government and an organized religion.
            >written records
            [...] the closely related vinca culture had a written language.

            like you say that they had strong centralisation, but where's the proof of that? Basically all of the houses at Cucuteni–Trypillia culture sites are of the same size and shows no signs of strong stratification. The only larger structures are communal works, but communal works far, far predate even the Cucuteni–Trypillia so

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but it does.
            >Civilization
            >the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social and cultural development and organization.
            >the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.
            They are quite clearly civilized, with some industry for ceramics, timber, wattling and textile production, as well as the production of tools/metallurgy for shaping timber. Claiming that there is no civ there is being a literal contrarian moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >ywn live in a comfy neolithic two story hut with your cute med wife as a peaceful farmer 7000 years ago

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/2d6GzOt.gif

        >organized religion
        Here's one of their temples

        https://i.imgur.com/Q1bKnyu.jpg

        How is this not a civilization?

        https://i.imgur.com/OL9COPn.jpg

        Love these pics.
        Got any website links for this topic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not sure, best resources on this stuff is all in Ukrainian and on Ukrainian websites.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The pics and culture overall are cool, but don't fall for these guys' wewuzzing. They were still just subsistence farmers

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, I think anyone looking into the black sea food that wipes out a form of civilization abd tge Arkansas that invaded India are privy to the idea of Western culture deriving from thar region via indo-europeana.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Truth. Anybody have any theories why they burned their cities every 20/40/80 years? Ive heard plague and also that it was cultural, the home was considered a part of the family so was destroyed periodically cause everyone dies or whatever

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think it was intentional. Fire has been the bane of urban centers since forever, and plagued humanity all the way up until quite recently. It's logical to just assume that most neolithic cities - this one and all others in other locations - inevitably suffered a major fire outbreak every few decades or so.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, war etc.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Don't even need war, just need carelessness. Rome suffered very serious fires.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        While i do agree with you, ive read somewhere that the burnings followed some pattern. Lemme go try to find the source

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > people lived here therefor CIVILIZATION!!
    get back to dying in your irrelevant war, slav

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >get back to dying in your irrelevant war, slav
      Maybe you should go back to Mexico?

      The pics and culture overall are cool, but don't fall for these guys' wewuzzing. They were still just subsistence farmers

      >The pics and culture overall are cool, but don't fall for these guys' wewuzzing. They were still just subsistence farmers
      It's okay anon, I already know that the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs are just irrelevant myths.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        im not latinx. try again, slav.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >im not latinx. try again, slav.
          You are. Don't even bother pretending you aren't.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are latinx.
          Your language is an abomination to forward thinkers.
          prepare to be lexically culled, backwards swine.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, the sites were pretty big. 3000 houses by 3750.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the insecure midwit who thinks the greek and latin alphabets were derived from vinca symbols is back
    What do you gain from trying to prove Europeans had the first civilization? Some kind of leverage in racial shitflinging?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The production of goods must take place in a specific region or building of the urban center.
    There either must be clear ownership of a non-communal nature that shows that a body exterior to society at large owns in part the labour of the population, or the products of that labor, and redestributes goods OR that communal production exerts influence to surrounding regions via trade (the goods the urban center produces supplants local production in the influenced site).
    There must be some form of economic dominance, a clear indication that one person or group of people is in charge of an economic body that divides labor and controls the output of that labor. Simply being wealthy or well respected means nothing, there can be ceremonial or religious leaders which people make items for that has no control over what is being made or who the good are being made for or given to.

    The only other definition of a state I will accept is one which limits the social freedoms of its citizens; the state being a body that generates laws and enforces them. Until the advent of writing it is nearly impossible to know if a society had reached this stage, and once writing occurs it is often the case that other evidence for statehood is already present.

    This is my definition of state, I believe it is comprehensive and contains criteria for which evidence may be falsifiable. This is not the most robust definition possible, but its classification of states does not contain, for any situation, cases where conjecture needs to be included to ensure that the definition accurate depicts a site. Conjecture such as the function of important individuals, unknowable cultural elements such as missing material goods or spoken culture or religious tenets.

    I am willing to add to my understanding and definition of the state if people give me alternative site cases where a state is clear but the definition does not apply, and I havent actually compared it against modern states to check accuracy yet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Who said anything about states?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Civilization started with Charlemagne

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    hasidism also started in ukraine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      also, what did they forget there?
      in the middle of the glorious steppe where the very first IE goblins were dug up.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    true

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Trypillia is cool and all but at the end of the day they were failures, their form of civilization terminated with no descendants. All the major trappings of later European civlization were imported from the Near-East, not Ukraine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. Most of the material culture for "western" nations is fairly close to the TP culture.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are just talking about aesthetics on a superficial level. They just look similar because they lived in the same geographic environment.
        Every social institution of the Western Civilization can be traced back to Mesopotamia. Those are the things that really make a civilization. The rest is mere looks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You are just talking about aesthetics on a superficial level
          Not really. Most of the material culture for the Celts, Germanics and some slavs is all grouped fairly close together, as are religious and political institutions/organization and social stratification. Even military technology was largely the same and totally different than what you would see from the Levant, or Med area with the Greeks and early Romans. Lots of stuff stayed the same from antiquity, up to the founding of the America's in places like Jamestown, where they still used the exact same techniques to make houses.
          >They just look similar because they lived in the same geographic environment.
          It isn't just "looking similar", its technologies and early industrial methods that have to be pivoted that way to get those features, like pic rel. Chisels, hewing axes, augers/drill bits, wattle production and lime plastering all have to be present to get that look and have to be done in a specific way.
          >Every social institution
          Not really? Most of the political and social institutions stayed the same or were heavily Romanized (albeit after they had lots of cultural osmosis from the Germanics earlier).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Celts, Germanics and some slavs is all grouped fairly close together
            I do agree.
            Though you must realize that those aren't descendants of the Cucuteni-Trypillia Culture. Those are Indo-Europeans, who came in later migrations.
            Nothing about C-T Culture is perceived in today's europeans cultures, aside from perhaps the housing style, but that could be mostly the case for convergent design principles, instead of a direct influence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do, but it seems that in someway the architectural style spread around and stuck. If I had to guess it was probably due to its simplicity, ease of repair and how versatile it was. You can basically build those houses nearly anywhere using those building materials with fairly little industry. You really only need to shape the ends of the beams to fit into their slots for it to work, and rough out wooden pegs.
            Also interestingly, traditional housing (wattle&daub, brick, ect.) are better at insulating and suffer no breakdown in insulation value as compared to modern homes (at least in the Anglosphere). If you use slates instead of thatch (which would have been the case for wealthier individuals), its also more fire resistant if lime plastered, on par with a type 2 building.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fantastic thread OP, the Danube civilization is what started the civilizations everywhere else, let the ethnics cry alligator tears using every cope in existence to deny it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      indus valley bro. and they don't have anything relative to this shit hole tribe.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Poo poo valley is from the bronze age lmao. Streetshitters havent left caves and huts and wouldnt do for 1000 years more while minoans were having fleets, script and palaces

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          YOU NORD Black person STARTED WHAT? SHOW ME DANUBE TEACH POO POO ABOUT THIS SHIT.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      china india middle east disagree.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >muh ethnics
      so you don't actually have any proof of this "civilization", it's just more culture war /misc/troony seething

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >no arguments
      After I posted my hand and asked your homosexual boyfriend in arms to do the same here

      https://i.imgur.com/YyJ1VQo.png

      Nobody cares about your profile. Just post your hand, or are you shy?

      [...]
      It's still the somewhat same geographical region, especially in terms of minerals
      >Like Varna.
      No, not like Varna
      >Because their settlements were relatively small.
      Not at all. There were somewhat large, centralised cities elsewhere in Europe long before the Cucuteni–Trypillia, but again, you wewuzzers never mention them

      [...]
      Yes, native americans and aboriginals are apes who never achieved anything. What about it? How it this supposed to be a counter-point? Perhaps mineral wealth in a vacuum isn't really a good indication of social stratification, and the Cucuteni–Trypillia were just literal subsistence farmers

      >The ones you hallucinated in your taco?
      No, the ones you should know about if you weren't a low IQ ape who is only invested in this because of your wewuzzing

      >It's your idea goblin anon. You go first
      Okay go ahead now

      , he completely stopped replying. Maybe you could pick up from where he left off and post actual arguments this time + also your hand

      indus valley bro. and they don't have anything relative to this shit hole tribe.

      https://i.imgur.com/xPLXj0O.jpg

      YOU NORD Black person STARTED WHAT? SHOW ME DANUBE TEACH POO POO ABOUT THIS SHIT.

      Indus Valley "civilisation" is only barely more advanced than the C-T culture was, and it still was not by any definition a civilisation. You indians posting about it are possibly even more annoying than these Danube civilisation homosexuals

      Civilisation somewhat independently emerged in several different locations, but the first was in Mesopotamia, and there is no reason to seethe and cope about it. It's just history, not a culture war

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Then we branched out to new people!!

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cyvylyzatin*

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pre-I1 was probably Balkanite before retreating to Anatolia during the LGM and returning with the farmers to found the Danube Valley Civilization then evolving into I1 before sailing further along the Danube and founding the Funnelbeaker culture.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Starčevo and LBK Culture in Hungary

      From nearly the same period are the archaelogical finds in Starčevo in North-West Hungary and the finds of the Linear Band culture in the Carpathian Plane in Central Hungary, 6000 to 5000 BCE, old. These are the earliest settlements of the Neolithic culture in Europe.

      From seventeen men the Y-DNA haplogroup could be determinated. Haplogroup F is found in 23,5%, G2a in 18%, in whom, based on haplotypes, almost certainly was G-PF3147. The rest 41%, had G-L30. Total G, is nearly 60%. The others had I1-P37. (13) ".

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >muh cradle of civilization
    >no mega-monuments
    Gay

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Muh mega monument cultures
      >Stone age materials only
      Gay

Comments are closed.