History Which ancient civilizations are you most interested in?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the fascination with various ancient civilizations, emphasizing the sophistication and mystery of the Egyptians, the cultural contributions of the Sumerians, and the engineering prowess of the Romans. The Sumerians are noted for their early advancements in mathematics, urbanization, and writing, while the Bell Beaker culture is explored for its genetic diversity and cultural diffusion across Europe. The Greeks are recognized for their intellectual achievements, particularly in philosophy and history, with figures like Aristotle and Herodotus. The Roman Empire's engineering feats, such as the Pantheon and underwater concrete, are also celebrated. The thread touches on the complexities of ancient societies, including the violent nature of their interactions and the impact of environmental changes on their development. The Phoenicians are discussed for their maritime trade and conflicts with emerging powers like Greece and Rome, culminating in the Punic Wars. Overall, the thread reflects a deep interest in the interplay of culture, technology, and conflict throughout ancient history.
  • #31
ohwilleke said:
It was popular in anthropology from about the 1960s to the 1980s to assume that earlier peoples were more peaceful. This view hasn't held up to the evidence. Basically, the past was a lot more violent and warlike than the present, and it has gradually gotten more peaceful and less warlike.

As recently as the European middle ages, 30% of male aristocrats who reached adulthood died in warfare.

There are multiple examples archaeologically where steppe people encountered sedentary farmers and left behind massacres of whole villages or scores of people (the farmers dying in droves) in mass graves.

The replacement of the vast majority of first farmer Y-DNA with steppe Y-DNA in a very short period of time around the early Bronze Age plus or minus, didn't happen because steppe men had a better sense of humor or were better at ballroom dancing.

It turns out that the percentage of deaths in hunter-gatherer societies from fellow men is astoundingly high.

The ancient world was absolutely one of constant, brutal warfare.
My view is that the ancient world was very diverse, more so than today, and you really can't make blanket generalizations. Societies in challenging environments like the Eskimos were peaceful, presumably because they already had their hands full with survival. More welcoming environments tended to fill up and lead to tribal conflicts. Europe was settled relatively late so wasn't all that densely populated in ancient times. So I wouldn't assume that the Bell Beaker people and Corded Ware people of 3000 to 1000 BCE were at loggerheads without additional evidence.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hornbein said:
My view is that the ancient world was very diverse, more so than today, and you really can't make blanket generalizations. Societies in challenging environments like the Eskimos were peaceful, presumably because they already had their hands full with survival. More welcoming environments tended to fill up and lead to tribal conflicts. Europe was settled relatively late so wasn't all that densely populated in ancient times. So I wouldn't assume that the Bell Beaker people and Corded Ware people of 3000 to 1000 BCE were at loggerheads without additional evidence.
The Eskimos exterminated the Paleo-Eskimos that preceded them in the Arctic in a genocidal sweep. They were anything but peaceful.
 
  • #33
Krunchyman said:
The Phoenicians.

3 hours and 38 minutes
 
  • #34
Astronuc said:
3 hours and 38 minutes

I didn't even know they existed. I feel like an ignoramus.

Care to provide an executive summary to entice me into investing four hours? (That's why I prefer books. Skimmable.)
 
  • #35
Hornbein said:
Care to provide an executive summary to entice me into investing four hours? (That's why I prefer books. Skimmable.)
Well one can find some background on Wikipedia and various archeological or natural history sites (e.g., National Geographic Society) regarding the Phoenicians. It is well worth listening to the entire program, but perhaps not all at once.

The ancient Phoenicians built a maritime civilization around the Mediterranean Sea (before the Greeks and Romans). They were prominent along the eastern Mediterranean, before the Greeks, in what is now Lebanon. "The core of Phoenician territory was the city-state of Tyre, in what-is-now Lebanon. Phoenician civilization lasted from approximately 1550 to 300 B.C.E., when the Persians, and later the Greeks, conquered Tyre." Then the Romans conquered the area, which came later.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/first-rulers-mediterranean/

Their major cities were Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Arwad. All were fiercely independent, rival cities and, unlike the neighboring inland states, the Phoenicians represented a confederation of maritime traders rather than a defined country. What the Phoenicians actually called themselves is unknown, though it may have been the ancient term Canaanite. The name Phoenician, used to describe these people in the first millennium B.C., is a Greek invention, from the word phoinix, possibly signifying the color purple-red and perhaps an allusion to their production of a highly prized purple dye.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phoe/hd_phoe.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Carthage (c. 814 BCE – 146 BCE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage

Carthage was established as a port/trading city around the aforementioned 814 BCE. They Phoenicians established other port cities in Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, and along coasts of N. Africa and Spain.

Along the way, they had rivalries/conflicts with the Greeks, mainly regarding Greek city states in Sicily, and then the Romans. The citizens of Carthage didn't participate in the military (infantry, charioteers, cavalry), although they did have a strong naval force, but the participants in the military were mostly mercenaries and apparently slaves, i.e., other peoples. Consequently, they occasionally faced mutinies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Carthage#Conflict_with_the_Greeks_(580–265_BC)

The two major wars with Rome that lead to the collapse and destruction of Carthage occurred during the first and second Punic Wars with Rome.

The First Punic War (264–241 BC) was the first of three wars fought between Rome and Carthage, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the early 3rd century BC. For 23 years, in the longest continuous conflict and greatest naval war of antiquity, the two powers struggled for supremacy. The war was fought primarily on the Mediterranean island of Sicily and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa. After immense losses on both sides, the Carthaginians were defeated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War
The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC. For 17 years the two states struggled for supremacy, primarily in Italy and Iberia, but also on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia and, towards the end of the war, in North Africa. After immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated. Macedonia, Syracuse and several Numidian kingdoms were drawn into the fighting, and Iberian and Gallic forces fought on both sides. There were three main military theatres during the war: Italy, where Hannibal defeated the Roman legions repeatedly, with occasional subsidiary campaigns in Sicily, Sardinia and Greece; Iberia, where Hasdrubal, a younger brother of Hannibal, defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success before moving into Italy; and Africa, where Rome finally won the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War

Hannibal's invasion of the Italian peninsula is still studied as one of the great campaigns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

Some lessons learned - Hannibal's supply chain was strained. He couldn't get supplies and reinforcements. Alliances were tenuous in strange and distant lands. While his crossing of the Alps was a brilliant strategy, initial progress was stalled due to a landslide that blocked a key path. The delay meant losses of animals, particularly the war elephants, and strain on food and his soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal's_crossing_of_the_Alps

While Hannibal was rampaging in Italy, the Romans sent forces to Spain to attack Carthage, which forced Hannibal to try and save those territories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal#Conclusion_of_the_Second_Punic_War_(203–201_BC)

The second Punic War end with Hannibal's and Carthage's defeat at the battle of Zama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zama

The Romans learned from past battles with Hannibal and adapted to his tactics, then the Numidians (who had been allies of Carthage) turned against Carthage and allied with the Romans, so Hannibal (Carthage) lost their effective cavalry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masinissa

The destruction of Cathage occurred during the Third Punic War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Punic_War
The Third Punic War (149–146 BC) was the third and last of the Punic Wars fought between Carthage and Rome. The war was fought entirely within Carthaginian territory, in what is now northern Tunisia. When the Second Punic War ended in 201 BC one of the terms of the peace treaty prohibited Carthage from waging war without Rome's permission. Rome's ally, King Masinissa of Numidia, exploited this to repeatedly raid and seize Carthaginian territory with impunity. In 149 BC Carthage sent an army, under Hasdrubal, against Masinissa, the treaty notwithstanding. The campaign ended in disaster as the Battle of Oroscopa ended with a Carthaginian defeat and the surrender of the Carthaginian army. Anti-Carthaginian factions in Rome used the illicit military action as a pretext to prepare a punitive expedition.
The main source for most aspects of the Punic Wars is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybius

During the 3rd Punic War, Carthage was forced to disarm. Then they were told to leave their city and move esle where, away from the coast. They declined, so the Romans lay siege to the city, until they breached the walls. The Romans proceeded to slaughter the populace for many days, then they took prisoners (as slaves) to be sold to other tribes/nations. Then the city was destroyed.

With the sacking, pillaging, burning and demolition of Carthage, the Phoenician writings (books, histories, literature, maps, . . . ) were destroyed, much like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, which also may have had extensive writings of the Phoenicians.

A key problem with respect to Carthage and the military was the dependence on a single individual, Hannibal. They need perhaps 2 or 3 others like Hannibal, as well as a comparable commander, or commanders, of their naval/maritime forces. As a society, they should have treated their neighbors better; resentful or covetous neighbors may turn against a society.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and BillTre
  • #36
Well damn, that's reaally interesting. And you just whipped it off. Golly.
 
  • #37
Hornbein said:
Well damn, that's reaally interesting. And you just whipped it off. Golly.
I knew about Hannibal and the Punic Wars probably when I was grade 6 or 7 (age 11-12). I also studied World War II campaigns, battles and weapons systems.

I enjoyed reading about and studying ancient history, but the primary school textbooks give a fairly sanitized version of history. They certainly don't cover the gory parts about the slaughter of soldiers and civilians, or the political/social motivations for war, which seems often to be about covetous, narcissistic, egoistic leaders (kings, emperors, . . . . ) and/or limited resources, e.g., copper, bronze, iron, silver, gold, arable land and agricultural products, forests/timber, fresh water resources, . . . .
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and BillTre
  • #38
Astronuc said:
I knew about Hannibal and the Punic Wars probably when I was grade 6 or 7 (age 11-12). I also studied World War II campaigns, battles and weapons systems.

I've read a lot of history but missed Phoenicia. Specialized in the Russian front of WWII, which comes in mighty handy these days.

Astronuc said:
I enjoyed reading about and studying ancient history, but the primary school textbooks give a fairly sanitized version of history. They certainly don't cover the gory parts about the slaughter of soldiers and civilians, or the political/social motivations for war, which seems often to be about covetous, narcissistic, egoistic leaders (kings, emperors, . . . . ) and/or limited resources, e.g., copper, bronze, iron, silver, gold, arable land and agricultural products, forests/timber, fresh water resources, . . . .

Yep. I needn't explain why. They also exclude anything having to do with sex or mysticism. Corruption is de-emphasized. Parties outside of the duopoly are always referred to slightingly. The Native American Party is the No Nothings. Unflattering sobriquet, that. The Progressive Party is always Bull Moose. I never could find anything about the big political movement that gave all white men the vote. (Before only white male property owners were allowed to vote.) The highly democratic Constitution-resistant state of Rhode Island is written off as malcontents and criminals. Some say it was blockaded, some say troops marched in, I wasn't able to find out. The German mutiny that ended The Great War is swept under the rug.

However I'm somewhat in sympathy with teaching an idealistic view to children. It seems better than rubbing their nose in the reality of things, which could breed a nation of cynics. Maybe it is better for them to be led to good ideals. Real life may disillusion them later, but why rush into that?

Once I was discussing politics with my sister Marnie. She wasn't interested. Marnie turned to me and said, "it's all about money." It was a moment of enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BillTre and Astronuc
  • #39
I find the lurid tales of elite politics and great battle narratives boring now and am more interested in things like climate history, trade patterns and migrations. So much is unknown due to a lack of written records - The Sea Peoples and the Bronze Age Collapse, the various forgotten bronze-age European cultures , the 10,000 year old Gobleki Teki temple in Turkey, or trade links between Rome and the Han Empire.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and Astronuc
  • #40
BWV said:
I find the lurid tales of elite politics and great battle narratives boring now and am more interested in things like climate history, trade patterns and migrations. So much is unknown due to a lack of written records - The Sea Peoples and the Bronze Age Collapse, the various forgotten bronze-age European cultures , the 10,000 year old Gobleki Teki temple in Turkey, or trade links between Rome and the Han Empire.
Some tyrant is overthrown by another tyrant. Who cares? It didn't really change anything.

Linguistics and DNA studies give us insight into the mass movements that went on outside of historical records.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and BillTre
  • #41
Interesting history of proto-Hellenic people and Mycenae. Apparently, they may have originated in the Central Asian steppe.


The Mycenaen civilization disappeared more or less around the time of the Bronze Age collapse in the early 12th century BCE along with many other Mediterranean and Levant civilizations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/941/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece

It seems though, there was periodic invasions or conflicts among various civilizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece#Initial_decline_and_revival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion


Edit/update. After listening to Kevin MacLean's (Fortress of Lugh) video about Mycenae, I found another video that reaches further back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who preceded the classic ancient civilizations. MacLean presents an interesting perspective on the origins of the peoples of central Eurasia.



A person of whom I did not know.
Mikhail Lomonosov - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov

Lomonosov determined that Latin, Greek, German and Russian must have had some common link in the ancient past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans (Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the Middle Neolithic period (5500 to 4500 BC) or even the Early Neolithic period (7500 to 5500 BC) and suggest alternative origin hypotheses.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Steppe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic–Caspian_steppe

Edit/update: Kevin MacLean cites the following paper: Lazaridis, I., Mittnik, A., Patterson, N. et al. Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature 548, 214–218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23310

Abstract: The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6,7,8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Greg Bernhardt
  • #42
Evo said:
Thank you Greg for starting this!

News to me too, but yes, that's an anthropological / etnographical treasure trove right there!
 
  • #43
Greg Bernhardt said:
To me the Egyptians were the perfect mix of sophistication and mystery. However, that is an easy pick. I would also add in the Mongols for their music and Ancient Japan for their Samurai. Which are your favorites?
A late reply to the original question :smile:, but here I go... hmm, difficult choice for me.

When I was younger I probably would have said the Romans, the Greek or the Egyptians.
They were very interesting and impactful civilizations.

But if I think deeply about it I have a special thing for (1) the Phoenicians because I think they were pretty cool, and (2) Sumer because it's so darn old.
 
  • #44
Why do Amazonian people have some Australasian DNA?




This is interesting since it had to have happened long ago - before Sumer.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025739118
https://www.science.org/content/art...n-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry

For the first time, scientists identified the Y signal in groups living outside the Amazon—in the Xavánte, who live on the Brazilian plateau in the country's center, and in Peru's Chotuna people, who descend from the Mochica civilization that occupied that country's coast from about 100 C.E. to 800 C.E.

Next, the researchers used software to test different scenarios that might have led to the current DNA dispersal. The best fit scenario involves some of the very earliest—possibly even the earliest—South American migrants carrying the Y signal with them, the researchers report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Those migrants likely followed a coastal route, Hünemeier says, then split off into the central plateau and Amazon sometime between 15,000 and 8000 years ago. "[The data] match exactly what you'd predict if that were the case," Raff agrees.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18029
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/american-history-201
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and BillTre
  • #45
Astronuc said:

I've argued strenuously that the claim that this is that ancient has to be wrong.

The big problem with that theory is that the frequency of the ancient Asian DNA varies greatly between villages and within villages, despite not being associated with an obvious phenotype that could be the object of mating selection.

If it were really thousands of years old, it would have reached fixation at an average level in almost everyone in these highly endogamous Amazonian societies (i.e. everyone would have the same percentage of it from hundreds of generations of random mixing). Instead, the variation seen is consistent with dispersal into the gene pool within the last thousand years or less.

Another narrative could be that this DNA was tied up in a small endogamous community for many thousands of years and just recently dispersed more broadly. But if you had that many thousands of years of gene pool isolation, you'd get an extremely distinctive mixture in tribes near the epicenter of this dispersal similar to the Kalish people of South-Central Asia. This isn't present either.

A much more plausible theory is that these genes arose from small scale introgression of people who arrived by boat on the Pacific Coast, probably in the general vicinity of Panama-Columbia, probably from 800 CE to 1400 CE, give or take, and then followed rivers to their sources until they crossed over a continental divide from the Gulf of Mexico basin to the Amazon basin. There are multiple instances corroborating this kind of contact with South America. And, while the ancient Asian DNA doesn't look Polynesian, Polynesians do have Melanesian admixture which, if it was the only component that by random chance survived for a few hundred years, could look like it does. Melanesian ancestry also would have been more clumpy and less evenly distributed in the Polynesian genome that many centuries ago, relative to what it is now.

Some of the key data is in Marcos Araújo Castro e Silva, et al., "Deep genetic affinity between coastal Pacific and Amazonian natives evidenced by Australasian ancestry" 118 (14) PNAS e2025739118 (April 6, 2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025739118

I've discussed it in a blog post that links to other blog posts and sources, for anyone interested in exploring the question further. https://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2021/03/paleo-asian-ancestry-in-amazon-is.html
 
Last edited:
  • #46
For people who like the ancient near East: check out the Digital Hammurabi channel of Joshua Bowen and Megan Lewis (Lewis' podcast with Bart Ehrman is also excellent by the way). They also give courses on languages like Akkadian.

One of those channels which make me doubt my career choice as a physicist 😋
 
  • #47
haushofer said:
They also give courses on languages like Akkadian.
Terribly useful if you are a Middle Eastern time traveler, ancient historian, or a linguist specializing in Semitic languages.
 
  • #48
ohwilleke said:
Terribly useful if you are a Middle Eastern time traveler, ancient historian, or a linguist specializing in Semitic languages.
I may neither confirm or deny such.
 
  • #49
I like reading about ancient Greece the most.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
240
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
8K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
15K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K