What made our ancestors to be the most earliest human civilisation? This question always raises when we are talking about different cultures like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Sumeria etc.. And in my opinion, most of the people settled at the first places which were suitable for civilised living.
Ancient Egyptians
The ancient Egyptians were one of the earliest human civilizations. Their society is known for being very advanced and for some of the greatest buildings that have ever been built. They are also known for having an extremely complicated society with a lot of rules, punishments, and laws.
The ancient Egyptians believed that there was one god above all others, called Ra. Each person was required to worship this god in a specific way. This included building temples dedicated to him and sacrificing animals to him on special occasions such as childbirth or death. The ancient Egyptians also believed in another god called Osiris, who ruled over the underworld. He was considered by many to be the father god and had many similarities with Set, who ruled over chaos or evil spirits in Egyptian mythology.
Indus Valley Civilization
The Indus Valley Civilization, also known as the Harappan Civilization, was a Bronze Age civilization characterized by urban settlements, advanced techniques of copper and bronze metallurgy, and a complex system of weights and measures. It is one of three Early Bronze Age civilizations in South Asia, the other two being Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt.
The Indus Valley Civilization emerged around 3300–3100 BCE in the Punjab region during the late Harappan period. It was founded by the immigrants from the Indus River valley (modern day Pakistan) who had established various early settlements there. The civilization mainly consisted of villages and small townships on river banks which were in constant contact with each other. The urban population lived in amorphous villages spread across the plains (the plain villages), while the rural population resided in isolated farmsteads or villages located away from these areas.
The major religions of the time include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and local variants of these religions such as Shaktism and Vaishnavism. A number of schools of thought developed within Hinduism, like Shaivism and Shaktism which are still practiced today. Some scholars have argued that
Norte Chico
The Norte Chico is a period of time in human history that began around 14,000 years ago, and ended around 10,000 years ago. It corresponds to the period when modern humans were expanding out of Africa and spreading throughout the globe. This period may be seen as the climax of the Old World civilization and culture which had emerged from a long process of development in Africa between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. The civilizations of this period were characterized by an advanced material culture and widespread social inequality; the social systems included chiefdoms, states (including empires), and complex polities. The Norte Chico was dominated by sedentary cultures that built monumental architecture, multi-story pyramids, ball courts, earthworks, terraces.The peoples who inhabited this area are believed to have spoken languages belonging to one or more language families belonging to the Berber branch of Afro-Asiatic languages.
The Norte Chico civilization originated in Sub-Saharan Africa. It spread through parts of East Africa to Southern Africa (Zimbabwe), West Africa (Senegal) and Southwest Asia (Iranian plateau). Later on it reached Europe where it was replaced by other civilizations including Mesopotamia and Egypt
Mesopotamia
Mesopotamia is a region of Southern Asia. It is named after the river and city of Mesopotamia (meaning between rivers). The term Mesopotamia was originally used to describe the area around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, but has since come to refer to all of the lands between those two rivers.
The earliest evidence of human settlement in Mesopotamia has been dated to approximately 9500 BCE. This was followed by archaeological periods which saw gradual shifts in people's lifestyles. There are traces of early writing systems in Sumerian, which date back as far as 3500 BCE, and Babylonian cuneiform script from about 1750 BCE. The decline of Sumerian civilisation resulted in the rise of Akkadian religion, while Babylonian empire was replaced by Persian empire. Later on, there was an interchange between Greek and Persian civilisations which led to the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout Asia Minor and Middle East regions such as Syria and Palestine.
In about 300 BCE, Alexander the Great invaded Mesopotamia (then known as Babylonia) with his Macedonian army. The eastern part fell under Seleucid rule while western province came under Ptolemaic rule for a period before it was conquered by Rome in 63
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from ABHI RAWAT and writers in FYI and other communities.
What is inside a black hole in space?
A black hole may sound like the name of a fearsome monster, but in reality it is an astronomical object which has been discovered by astronomers. Black holes are formed when certain stars and galaxies run out of fuel and collapse into themselves. The conditions within a black hole are so extreme that not even light can escape from them. They have been described as "endless funnels" that suck up everything around them.
By ABHI RAWAT3 years ago in Futurism
A Failed Artist, A Disillusioned Poet, An Underpaid Game Show Host
I took my son and niece to Gori, a small town in Georgia where Joseph Stalin was born. They talked me into visiting the Stalin's Museum, the largest in the post-Soviet space. I had resisted going there because I just can't stand the monster and know enough about him, or so I thought.
By Lana V Lynx23 days ago in FYI
Minister Told Armoured Vehicle Which Left Soldiers Vomiting Was ‘Safe’
A growing controversy has erupted after revelations that a government minister was assured an armoured military vehicle was “safe”, despite reports that soldiers using it later suffered severe nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. The incident has sparked serious questions about military oversight, equipment testing, and whether frontline troops are being adequately protected by those responsible for their safety. As details continue to emerge, the issue has become a flashpoint in debates over accountability within defence procurement and soldier welfare. What Happened Inside the Vehicle According to reports, the armoured vehicle was deployed during routine military operations and training exercises. Soon after extended use, multiple soldiers began experiencing intense physical reactions, including vomiting, headaches, and disorientation. Medical evaluations suggested that the symptoms were consistent with poor ventilation, exposure to fumes, or mechanical issues inside the vehicle’s sealed environment. In armoured vehicles designed to protect occupants from external threats, airflow and internal safety systems are critical—and failures can quickly become dangerous. Despite these warning signs, the vehicle had reportedly been cleared for use following assurances provided to senior officials. Ministerial Assurance Under Scrutiny At the heart of the controversy is the claim that a minister responsible for defence matters was told the vehicle posed no safety risk. This assurance reportedly influenced the decision to continue deployment without immediate suspension or further investigation. Critics argue that this raises troubling questions: Were safety reports properly reviewed? Were soldiers’ complaints taken seriously? Did bureaucratic pressure outweigh on-the-ground realities? Opposition figures and military advocates have called for transparency, demanding to know who approved the vehicle, what data was used to declare it safe, and whether warnings were ignored. The Human Cost for Soldiers For serving personnel, the issue goes beyond politics. Soldiers trust that the equipment they are issued has been thoroughly tested and meets strict safety standards. When that trust is shaken, morale and confidence suffer. Several affected soldiers reportedly required medical attention, and some expressed frustration that their symptoms were initially dismissed as minor or unrelated. Military families and veterans’ groups have voiced anger, saying that troops already accept enormous risks—and avoidable equipment failures should never be one of them. Procurement and Testing Concerns The incident has reignited long-standing concerns over defence procurement processes. Modern military vehicles are complex systems, often developed through private contractors and approved through layers of bureaucracy. Experts note that problems can arise when: Testing conditions do not reflect real-world use Feedback from soldiers is delayed or filtered Cost or deadlines take priority over safety If early warning signs were overlooked in this case, it could indicate a broader systemic issue rather than an isolated error. Official Response and Calls for Investigation Following public backlash, officials have stated that the issue is being reviewed and that soldier safety remains a top priority. Some authorities have pledged to examine ventilation systems, internal sensors, and maintenance records for the vehicle. However, critics argue that internal reviews are not enough. There are growing calls for an independent investigation to determine: Whether the “safe” assessment was accurate Who provided the assurance to the minister Whether protocols were followed Without clear answers, confidence in military leadership risks further erosion. A Broader Debate on Accountability This incident highlights a recurring tension in defence policy: the gap between decision-makers and those directly affected by their decisions. When assurances made at high levels conflict with lived experiences on the ground, accountability becomes essential. Transparency advocates argue that admitting mistakes is not a weakness—but failing to address them is. For many observers, the key question is not just whether the vehicle was unsafe, but how warnings were handled once problems emerged. Conclusion: Safety Should Never Be Assumed The controversy surrounding the armoured vehicle serves as a stark reminder that safety cannot be declared—it must be proven, continuously tested, and reassessed. Soldiers rely on trust: trust in their equipment, their leadership, and the systems designed to protect them. When that trust is compromised, restoring it requires honesty, accountability, and meaningful reform. As investigations unfold, the outcome will likely shape future defence decisions and determine whether lessons are truly learned—or repeated.
By Fiaz Ahmed 6 days ago in FYI
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.