Talk:Ancient history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Ancient history is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is an ancient history related candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so! |
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Old talk
Would it be possible to indicate some kind of time period associated with each of the civilisations here? - Stuart Presnell
10,000 years is too long for writing. Earliest was around 3200 BC.
- I knocked it back to 5000-5500.
Cmon guys, that Madonna zinger is perfect, just leave it there!
- I can appreciate a good joke as much as the next guy, but this isn't the place for it. Maybe you should start a blog, yeah? Fernando Rizo T/C 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd read the blog. Hell it may be the next Onion, or not. David D. 21:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking history
Suppose we can divide history from the beginning of writing until 1945 into groups, just as pre-historic time is divided into periods like the "Age of Fishes", "Amphibians", "Reptiles", and "Mammals". What can we have??
We can start with the Age of Egypt, which begins when writing begins and ends sometime around 1500 B.C.E. I really don't know exactly.
Next, we have the Age of Greece, which ends around 30 B.C.E.
The next period is the Age of Rome, which runs from 30 B.C.E. to 476 C.E. when the Roman Empire was broken.
Then comes the Age of Early English, which runs from 476 to 1066, when the Norman King defeated the English King.
The next group is the Age of Middle English, 1066 to 1492.
From 1492 to 1776 is the Age of Discovering America.
The last period is the Age of Semi-Modern Life, 1776 to 1945.
Any years that you feel surprised do not serve as borders?? 66.245.14.242 15:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think that the standard ages are sufficient:
- The stone age
- The bronze age
- The iron age
- The pre-dark age
- The dark age
- The middle age
- The Renaissance
- The pre-modern age
- The modern age
- The atomic age
- The digital age
- (i thought that is was something like that...)
- 82.169.16.145 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- First of all, terms like Age of Greece, Age of Rome, the Renaissance, Age of Early English, etc., are very Eurocentric. Where would you place, say, the various early Chinese dynasties in this schema? Should those be defined only in terms of Western history? Second of all, terms like Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc., are a product of Victorian historical writing and are not used by "serious" modern writers because (1) they're far too imprecise, (2) no two scholars would agree on where an "age" begins or ends, and (3) the terms themselves are misleading. Does the previous "age" (e.g., Atomic Age) end when the next one (e.g., Digital Age) begins? I'm not aware that we have ever left the Atomic Age. Modern historians use the simple and easily understood framework of centuries and decades, where an exact year cannot be ascertained for some event. Where's the problem? --Michael K. Smith 13:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
Shouldn't this be merged with Antiquity? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, it has been done. Antiquity is a disambig. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with dates
Under important events, it says "# 410- Alaric sacks Rome for the first time since 390 BC". 390 BC is 20 years AFTER 410 BC, so this is like saying "in 1989, George Bush senior became the first Bush elected US President since George Bush Jr. in 2001". I don't know the facts about the raids and can't find them anywhere, so perhaps this needs to be reviewed by a knowed person, or else that line needs to be deleted.
- Alaric's raid was 410 AD (and is in its correct place in the list), i.e. 800 years after 390 BC. Varana
[edit] Pre-history
Where should information regarding the time before written history began be placed? Also as the time when written language became used varies by country, does 'Ancient History' cover times such as the Bronze Age and Neolithic in Britain?
- in the sense of "Antiquity", no. "Ancient Greece/Rome/China/India" is definitely taken to be limited to the Iron Age covered by historical information. We should treat pre-history separaterly. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exodus
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Exodus soley a biblical event, with little or no historical proof? Darkahn 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct, and there isn't even a consensus within the Book of Exodus. Basically, 90% of what's in the Pentateuch is "folk history" and should not be treated as "real" history. (And I won't even start on the Gospels. . . .) --Michael K. Smith 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are Biblical events listed as "historical"? There is little evidence to support the claim that the Hebrews were actually from outside of the area of Israel. At most this is still under debate in the historical/ archeological community. Biblical references without non-Biblical corraboration should be removed.
[edit] Primary sources?
Ancient historians are called 'primary sources' in this article. But aren't primary sources the ones recorded by people involved in the events themselves? Government archives and memoirs for example. Even a historian writing about events that happened during his lifetime isn't technically a primary source, but a historian of events that passed before his birth (like Herodotus) is definitely not a primary source. Renke 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Job!!!
I thought he/she did a great job writing this!
P.S. We're studying this in school right now
I think he/she did a great job describing everything!
