# What criteria needs to be met to consider a people a civilization?



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

I have produced a few posts that have only been shared on this site.  This time I would like to post
one that I recently posted on Quora, in answer to a question there, because I believe that it deserves
some attention.



I won’t regurgitate the traditional archaeological opinions about the formation and creation of civilizations, and the traditional requirements that they insist on, prior to naming a sophisticated group of people a civilization. I will instead share with you my recent translation of one of the earliest so-called civilizations - that of the Sumerians. I’ve spent the past 15 years learning their language and customs. It’s been my full-time job. I have not polished this yet, so please accept a raw form:

Information about the very earliest kings, from the Sumerian Kings List, literally translated by myself, tells us:

The first king was associated with hoeing, gathering and collecting.

Next came a kingdom of irrigation and small collections of sheep

Then Copper and other metal objects come into play

Next the first report of beings, divine properties, and policemen. Odd collection for that period, right? Or did they need policemen to fill the temples?

Next is reported writing boards, and foundations, with words meaning to build.

Then we find weapons being constructed, along with the words “to disappear, to slice, and chopping”.

Next is a period of abuse, defeat, death, ruin, heap, mound, and cry or noise.

And finally came the localized flooding that we learn of in the Bible texts.

This is all over a period of many tens of thousands of years, but you can see the pattern. At what point did they have civilization? To me, when they seemed happy and had enough time to make instruments of metal to help them in their labors.

Religious folk might tell you it was later, when the deities arrived.

Scientists might suggest that it was when they had writing and began to build.

Military leaders would assure you that only when they had the weapons to ensure a “peaceful” existence did civilization begin. But we see that that was followed by ruin.

So, here’s the time to make your own selection, both yourself and the other readers on here - at what point would we consider these early people as being “civilized”?





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: PalaiolagashDate: 2020-03-11 15:00:37Reaction Score: 1


I think your argument is a valid one, the word is so subjective as to be nigh meaningless. The absolutely arbitrary line I draw mentally in my head is when structures were constructed for housing purposes, but many animals make domiciles out of their environment so that does not work. Perhaps at the advent of the utilization of fire? The promethian myths seem like they would be at the heart of such matters, though I will admit that this feels like an arbitrary marker as well.

All in all I suppose it is a worthy question to wonder in general, as I am sure those who are using the word in research papers and articles have their own definitions...

*Edit*

We need less negative options for likes and a positive option for thought provoking. Would feel more appropriate than a mere like.


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-03-11 15:02:48Reaction Score: 1




Palaiolagash said:


> I think your argument is a valid one, the word is so subjective as to be nigh meaningless. The absolutely arbitrary line I draw mentally in my head is when structures were constructed for housing purposes, but many animals make domiciles out of their environment so that does not work. Perhaps at the advent of the utilization of fire? The promethian myths seem like they would be at the heart of such matters, though I will admit that this feels like an arbitrary marker as well.
> 
> All in all I suppose it is a worthy question to wonder in general, as I am sure those who are using the word in research papers and articles have their own definitions...


Yes, they do seem to use this designation, much like "peer-review" to control what we are taught.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2020-03-11 15:16:18Reaction Score: 0


I have a question for your question, because I'm familiar wit all dat.
All of those systems and skills were "given" or instilled in us, "for better or worse". Out the garden.
So... Cycles notwithstanding, why did all of the "higher" civilizations of the past fall to ruin and decay? Our humans just such poor students? Or lazy? Or still WILD?
IMO art and culture ate inherent for creativity. Civilization comes with all of those about to have their asses handed to them again institutions and systems. That if they don't adapt to the consciousness driving them, will fall apart and collapse once again.
Those buildings found all over the world, not the ornate and extravagant ones, you know the ones I mean. "THEY" proclaim civilization loud and clear. With a "ruler" for measuring and rapping knuckles with.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2020-03-11 15:20:28Reaction Score: 1


I too have a question, What criteria needs to be met to consider a people existed?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2020-03-11 15:29:08Reaction Score: 1


I dont know if there is an objective one. More like, "what do we have to learn from that?"
Kinda jumps ship from the momentum HERE, but ultimately it's all that matters.
Some things don't need to be dug up.
And there are other worlds than this one. It's up to individuals to find that out for themselves.
Specificity could unveil themes or movements, but I'm not interested in fixing any more flies in amber or bringing mammoths and dinosaurs back to life.
Perhaps a question of simplicity versus complexity in regards to necessity.
And what the hell was "colonialism" all about? Giving people things they didn't want or need and enslaving them? Good program. If it ain't broke...


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: DorothyDate: 2020-03-11 15:32:20Reaction Score: 1




Jim Duyer said:


> Yes, they do seem to use this designation, much like "peer-review" to control what we are taught.


Interesting, but in simplistic terms I'd like to believe at the demonstration of affection empathy sympathy love song music art carvings. To have a home and community and understanding amongst children thu to elders. Developing structure to support lifes needs and requirements. Including agreements trading and rules/law.

At this point the form of harmonious at least understanding has become a reality and holds an amount of security and an amount of freedom or routine. Any newcomer to this environment threatens the existence if intolerable to that culture.

So I guess I'm saying to pull the 1st three items together


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WorsaaeDate: 2020-03-11 16:36:23Reaction Score: 0


This question is only a question because of our limited language. Our language is not very effective at communicating scale and graduation. The cut-off point is arbitrary but so are colors and many other useful concepts.

One way to formalize it would be to introduce a tier or level or stage system. While not a perfect way to convey gradual change, it tends to work well.
Genetic taxonomy has this exact problem, because biology is fluid and fuzzy.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Red BirdDate: 2020-03-11 19:36:00Reaction Score: 2


I’m pretty sure you mean something broader but my (unpopular) view is that cities are the second biggest problem. It’s not that the people are any better or worse intrinically, just that everything degrades and keeps degrading when people gather in cities. People in rural, or small true communities, have the same stuff going on but the type of structure to handle it better.  Their major problem is when bigger, organized, groups attack them, bringing in the nature of the first problem. You get the drift. 
There are many now who think urban dwellers are much more ‘civilized’.  Note all the recent derogatory farmer comments.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2020-03-11 20:09:06Reaction Score: 1


Culture and civilization aren't the same thing. Socio-political-religious plus economy...
High class. Civilized.
MONEY?!
As opposed to skills, crafts and trades. Barter


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: iwunderwhoDate: 2020-03-11 20:13:41Reaction Score: 1


"Limited Language".  Not really.

"The Second Edition of the 20-volume _Oxford English Dictionary_, published in 1989, contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words." All from 26 letters.

Regarding cities:  Robin Dunbar.  Why we can't have more than 150 friends:  


Most corporations know this and limit their clans to less than 200 individuals.  Also, Apes can only handle 100 members in the communities, else the they go "Ape".

Fortunately, there is a cure for cities numbering in the thousands.  You'd have to drink to that to understand what it is.  This is why I avoid large crowd and drinking.  I don't like going to the dun BARs, or shall we say DUMB are?


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-03-11 21:05:31Reaction Score: 1




Starmonkey said:


> I have a question for your question, because I'm familiar wit all dat.
> All of those systems and skills were "given" or instilled in us, "for better or worse". Out the garden.
> So... Cycles notwithstanding, why did all of the "higher" civilizations of the past fall to ruin and decay? Our humans just such poor students? Or lazy? Or still WILD?
> IMO art and culture ate inherent for creativity. Civilization comes with all of those about to have their asses handed to them again institutions and systems. That if they don't adapt to the consciousness driving them, will fall apart and collapse once again.
> Those buildings found all over the world, not the ornate and extravagant ones, you know the ones I mean. "THEY" proclaim civilization loud and clear. With a "ruler" for measuring and rapping knuckles with.


If you really research into history, as I have been fortunate enough to have had the time to do, you will find that the end usually comes with one or two signs:
First, when people stop loaning to each other as friends and begin to charge interest. The charging of interest when the Amorites entered Sumeria is one of the main reasons for their downfall. Prior to that one friend would loan to another, with a return of like kind, and perhaps some small token of friendship, voluntarily given, in return.
Second, when the people decided that they needed to establish a government with laws and policemen in order to enforce the collection of said interest and to keep account of it.
When the laws of Hammurabi were introduced (and he was an Amorite king), the law changed from the fines and restrictions for crimes that was previously held, to one of an eye for an eye - which is basically Arabic in origin.  Even the Norse and Anglo-Saxons used a system of fines as punishment and not a tooth for a tooth etc.


Dorothy said:


> Interesting, but in simplistic terms I'd like to believe at the demonstration of affection empathy sympathy love song music art carvings. To have a home and community and understanding amongst children thu to elders. Developing structure to support lifes needs and requirements. Including agreements trading and rules/law.
> 
> At this point the form of harmonious at least understanding has become a reality and holds an amount of security and an amount of freedom or routine. Any newcomer to this environment threatens the existence if intolerable to that culture.
> 
> So I guess I'm saying to pull the 1st three items together


Yes.  Believe it or not, I truly believe that we would be better off with a tribal system, rather than the mess we have now.  Perhaps after the end of the world as we know it, we might get it right next time.


----------



## Worsaae (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WorsaaeDate: 2020-03-11 23:17:50Reaction Score: 1


_@Jim Duyer_, In some of our (norse) sagas, if fines were not paid, the consequence would be "hand for hand".


----------



## JimDuyer (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Jim DuyerDate: 2020-03-12 00:31:02Reaction Score: 1




Worsaae said:


> _@Jim Duyer_, In some of our (norse) sagas, if fines were not paid, the consequence would be "hand for hand".


Agreed, and in the Anglo-Saxon history we find that if fines were not paid the person could expect death.  But the first resort was to monetary damages.  They were infinitely more civilized than those from the Levant regions.   Actually, if you wished to live a short lifespan, all you needed to do was cross one of those groups, or go back on your word.  But if you played it straight with them they responded in kind. I would love to have lived during those days.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2020-03-12 01:05:38Reaction Score: 1


Or when the Mafioso moves to town... Pimps and pushers. Hired goons.
By money, later I came to realize specifically "coin of the realm". Stamped metal bearing whatever current ruler's visage.
Would have been trades and cowrie beads and such...
Church and state. The STURCH.
Or the merchant middle men. Taxers upon tax.
Happens when you grow beyond village status.


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: EUAFUDate: 2020-03-12 02:01:31Reaction Score: 1


Civilization arises when the exploitation of man by man and everything that comes from it begins. It is at this point that parasitism begins and an elite forms, that elite invents gods and claim to be descendants of them or in privileged contact with such gods. Subsequently, this elite creates a middle class, the police, tax collectors and others who protect the status quo. This elite says that people who do not have the same type of structure are not civilized and that it is their duty to civilize them, nor that they need to die or be enslaved in the "civilizing" process, which occurs mainly if these "barbarian" peoples are in areas with resources that interest the civilized. This is basically the concept of civilization.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: DorothyDate: 2020-03-12 13:05:44Reaction Score: 1




EUAFU said:


> Civilization arises when the exploitation of man by man and everything that comes from it begins. It is at this point that parasitism begins and an elite forms, that elite invents gods and claim to be descendants of them or in privileged contact with such gods. Subsequently, this elite creates a middle class, the police, tax collectors and others who protect the status quo. This elite says that people who do not have the same type of structure are not civilized and that it is their duty to civilize them, nor that they need to die or be enslaved in the "civilizing" process, which occurs mainly if these "barbarian" peoples are in areas with resources that interest the civilized. This is basically the concept of civilization.


Whilst I can see the process you describe as a particular road travelled, the theory assumes civilization had not yet been reached also paratisim suggests two separate species (it does feel the elite are) are technically not really. And you may agree the elite of any day/time period invert any circumstance to succeed any goal, power of consequence will do that.  This is the point where Elitism separate to form Societies in differing ways causing divides in the civilization with self importance that they are differentuating terms to be civalised and interfering themselves with intelligence education etc as proof
 This originates from perception and in the meantime all manners of every human within their groupings or cultures continue to change according to their perception all whilst civilization had already occurred. 
Today some examine where did we go wrong, what could we do and how if we were reset survivors and superficials or elite choose technology as the civilization driver.


jd755 said:


> I too have a question, What criteria needs to be met to consider a people existed?


Would an old township disintegrated to rubble evidenced by livable means and correctly dating these and human remains suffice as a consideration of a prior existence of people? Some of the ancient sites seemingly have no bones/graves although cremation may have been the practice.


----------

