Talk:Jiroft civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jiroft civilization article.
Article policies
WikiProject Iran Jiroft civilization is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Innit a bit too early to consider this a Kingdom? Prof. Majidzadeh seems to be in a hurry to introduce a new civilisation, but let's keep our heads on our shoulders. No real evidence that Shahr-e Sukhte is really related to the Jiroft. I think placing this in the official chronology of Iranian History is a bit pre-mature... --Khodadad 09:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a central form of government there. That is for certain. Some of the earthernware there pays direct homage to high figures of authority. That aside, "Kingdom" is better than saying "empire", isnt it? Or perhaps we should just use the word "tamaddon e jiroft" as Iran Cultural Heritage Organization does. The National Museum of Iran catalog on Jiroft's discovered earthernware talks about Shahr-i Sukhteh as well. Perhaps we can add a comment that it necessarily may not be the same as the halilrud civilizations. But we need a better reason for that than just conjecture.--Zereshk 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The kingdom of Jiroft has been officially recognized as an ancient civilization by many scholars, archeologists, and Western educational facilities. It deserves a place in this list.--Dariush4444
One thinks that there is a kingdom where you know of a king. We know of no such king(s) in Jiroft and hence no kingdom yet. At the same time, those who have seen a photo of the so-called 'inscription' from Jiroft, mentioend by Majidzadeh, would probably agree with me that it looks more like floral ornament designs than writing. No authority other than Majidzadeh himself has so far accepted it as writing. See a photo of this 'writing' at http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/jiroftbrick.pdf . I think the title should be 'Jiroft civilization' and the item should be removed from the list of kingdoms until some positive evidence is found to identified it as one. --Tissa
I can't judge how valid this is, but it *appears* to me to have a particular POV that may be overlooking some controversies. For example, the article says "Archeologists believe that Jiroft was the city in which script appeared for the first time", while Tissa (in the Talk comment immediately above) says "those who have seen a photo of the so-called 'inscription' from Jiroft... would probably agree with me that it looks more like floral ornament designs than writing." Either Tissa is off-base, or there is a controversy that is being swept under the rug in the article.
I also note that the article quotes extensively from Jiroft, but no one else. I suppose that's because Jiroft has written the most, but could it also be because a Jiroft supporter has written the article?
Again, I have to emphasize that I know nothing of archeology or this particular site, it just sounds odd. Mcswell 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We can move it to "Jiroft Civilization" indeed, but it should stay on the Template of History of Iran as it is part of Iran's history. The list includes Kingdoms, and all other forms of social order that were in operation in the Iranian lands.--Zereshk 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is very exciting! 129.11.76.230 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It may only be tendentious to call this short article "Jiroft Civilization". What about Tepe Yahya Civilization, Susa Civilization, Manchester Civilization, etc. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that there was no civilization at Jiroft, but it may be a bit early to name a new civilization after this archaeological site. But let's stick to the facts. Jiroft is, if I am correct, the name of a number of archaeological sites in a valley in south-eastern Iran. It has yielded little information so far (diregarding the looted artifacts SAID to come from Jiroft). There is absolutely no proof of a king of Jiroft, no proof of writing at Jiroft (the 2 examples "published" only in the news-media cannot be confirmed as actual writing!). In my opinion, for what it is worth, this article should be called Jiroft, and contain, as far as possible, detailed information about the area, and the on-going excavation. This is difficult enough, but much more exciting than quessing about new writing systems and ancient kings. Jacob Dahl Berlin 20060613

I believe this is what you should be considering. Remember that a page such as this is not to publicise a discovery but a place to have an encyclopaedic entry about it. DJ Barney 01:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd Phrasing

The article uses 'aims to uncover an unknown "civilization" ', the word 'aims' gives me the impression that rather than drawing conclusions from what is actually there, this is some sort of nationalist project to come up with a civilzation for Iran that is as ancient as Sumer. If this is not the case, perhaps the inital paragraph should be rewritten. JamesFox 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Aims", because the task hasnt been easy. For example, many of the new sites were accidentally uncovered by a flood only a few years ago. The sites are so numerous that widspread looting has been taking place, and even the police was unable to fully protect the sites from archeological theft. The wording was a reference to that.--Zereshk 00:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've adjusted the headers on sections--they were a bit lurid before, making claims rather than simply prefacing sections. Jeff Fecke 1703 16 Feb 07 UTC

The article just gets more and more fantasist and POV. You crazy, crazy nationalists and your fetish for my civilization is older than yours (guess what, you \don't\ descend from that people anyway.) 201.19.214.1 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the style has anything to do with Nationalism. It's probably badly phrased because of the excitement of the discovery. Wikipedia is not place for Nationalism, but if you see it creeping in then you are provided with ... the edit button. DJ Barney 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe theories

A discussion about this article has been started by dab at the [Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard]], at [1] I said there, that it would appear this entire article needs to be rewritten in an altogether different manner. See: Science "Andrew Lawler, Ancient Writing or Modern Fakery?, Science 3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 588 - 589.", I have a copy, which I can send to anyone interested.DGG (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it should be divided into a discussion of the individual sites excavated. The Konar Sandal discoveries are certainly very important, but Madjidzadeh's tall claims still appear to be rather over the top. All he acheived is making the scholarly community very skeptical of anything that comes out of his excavations. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)