The old Middle East

The expression the old Middle East indicates a whole of Culture S and Civilization S which opened out Neolithic with high the Antiquité in on a space including/understanding in its most restricted meaning the Raising, the Mésopotamie, the Anatolia and the Iranian Plateau. One can also find the terms old Orient or old Asia of south-west.

This unit, which is sometimes extended to the Egypt, the Arabic Péninsule, the the Caucasus and the southernmost fringe of the Central Asia, gathers people which, in spite of their heterogeneity, shared a similar historical process, with the neolithisation, the emergence of the first cities, of the first writings, and have beliefs having a certain proximity.

Standard test

Terminology

The expression " The Middle East ancien" imposed itself since the beginning of the years 1990 in the field of the studies of the first ages of the Old world. But it still coexists with others indicating same reality (remainder rather fuzzy) or not. The expression " is also found; The East ancien" , that the absence of the adjective " proche" makes even vaguer. It is noticed however that the meaning of the expression " the Middle East " reserve is vaster than that employed for the contemporary period, of which the Middle East is only part of the old Middle East.

Use of the " term; Orient" was criticized because of sound " européocentrisme" and of its origin, since this concept was forged by the colonial ideology. So some prefer the expression " Asia of the south-ouest" , judged less connoted ideologically, but in any case the concept of continent of Asia east him also a European construction.

For a long time, the field of the studies on the old Middle East was dominated by the study of the civilization which made known it and which was first has to be redécouverte (if one puts aside the case of the biblical studies), Mésopotamie, and especially Babylon and the Assyrie (sometimes gathered under the " term; assyro-babylonien"). The pregnancy of this area in the close relation-Eastern studies is still real in spite of its relativisation in the recent studies. But for the general public, " Mésopotamie" remain much more speaking that " The Middle East ancien" , and of this fact this word remains still used, in particular in books intended for a large audience, even if one often goes beyond this only geographical and historical entity.

Geographical and chronological contours

The definition of the exact framework covered by the expression " The Middle East ancien" remain fuzzy.

The minimum framework is that gathering the four areas which are the Raising, the Mésopotamie, the Anatolia and the Iran. One can also integrate other spaces into it, by the archaeological studies: Cyprus, the Caucasus, Persian Gulf (and all the Arabic Peninsula), Central Asia, more rarely the Age of Indus. That can depend on the studied period: the southernmost Central Asia of the end of the 3rd millenium and the beginning of the 2nd millenium are very related to close close relation-Eastern civilizations (Élam, Mésopotamie), whereas the bonds are dried up thereafter, temporarily, before a recovery under the Achéménides. The Persian Gulf is as for him in contact even more thorough with the same areas during Antiquity, and thus its integration as a whole ancient close relation-Eastern is discussed less.

The great question is however the integration or not of the ancient Egypt in the old Middle East. More and more of works of synthesis tend to integrate both, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is less the case in France for the moment, where the two units clearly are distinguished. That indeed poses problems because of great heterogeneity between Egypt and close Asian civilizations, as well from the historical point of view as cultural, and that is seen in particular in art as in the written form. Although near geographically and in contact since the oldest periods with the cultures and civilizations to Asia of south-west, Egyptian civilization is resulting from a Neolithic hearth located at the Sudan current, therefore properly African. But as Egypt is gradually integrated in the whole of close close relation-Eastern civilizations, then that of the Mediterranean east, especially starting from the middle of the 2nd millenium, to consider it as a whole ancient close relation-Eastern does not miss relevance inevitably.

The chronological framework is fluctuating. While using archaeological documentation, one leaves the beginnings of the Neolithic , therefore towards 12.000 front J. - C. as regards Raising (Natoufien), of the south-east of Anatolia and the north of Zagros. Close areas " néolithisent" gradually thereafter. For written documentation, the studies are possible starting from the end of the 4th millenium.

The end of the old Middle East is usually marked by the beginnings of the hellenistic Period, therefore the end of the 4th century. But cultural continuities and the presence of documentation Cunéiforme until the beginnings of our era into low Mésopotamie make that one can consider that this area leaves gradually the context of the old Middle East during second half of the thousand-year-old 1st.

Internal bonds

Areas and civilizations

Periods

Neolithic era

  • Neolithic of the Middle East

4th millenium

3rd millenium

2nd millenium

1st thousand-year-old

Random links:Jacques Bainville | Compromise of Bréda | Yves Got | Two-handed hammer with broad sheets | Economy of Micronesia | Richard_Friederich_Arens