Civilization

A dialog on the Ancient Near East list, November-December 1997

Publisher's note: I could not locate Mohan's initial post at the ANE archive: http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html . I have pruned the discussion a bit.

Many anthropologists use the term “state” rather than “civilization,” as the latter term is imprecise and subject to ethnocentric bias. From about the 1500s to the 19th century, for example, the term was used by European anthropologists, etc., to set apart their own societies, which were deemed to represent the highest level of development possible, or pinnacle of “progress”(i.e., were “civilized”), from other societies, which were characterized as “primitive” crude, violent, “arrested cultures,” lacking morals, law, literature, and other “refinements” of “civilized” societies. Alternatively, some anthropologists use the terms large-scale and small scale societies.

For a discussion of the basic issues, and the usage of the terms State/Civilization see: Bodley, John H. CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY: TRIBES, STATES, AND THE GLOBAL SYSTEM (1994), chpt. 7.

My definition is: “an autonomous political entity, controlling a defined territory incorporating many communities, possessing a centralized government and administrative bureaucracy, with powers to issue and enforce legislation, extract taxes, conscript, labor, draft men for military service. State-level societies are also characterized by a degree of social stratification and differential access on the part of higher and lower social strata to the necessary resources and means of production.” (IRRIGATION AND STATE FORMATION IN HUNZA [1996, p. 27], H. Sidky). Others would also incorporate the criterion of scale, etc. The best references to start with would be:

1. Cohen, Paul T.
“Order Under Heaven: Anthropology and the State.” In ASIA’S CULTURAL MOSAIC. Grant Evans, ed. 1993: 175-204.
2. Cohen, Ronald and Elman Service, eds.
ORIGINS OF THE STATE; THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF POLITICAL EVOLUTION (1978).
3. Carneiro, Robert
“Cross-Currents in the theory of state formation.: AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST 1987, 14:756-770.
4. Redman, Charles L.
THE RISE OF CIVILIZATION: FROM EARLY FARMERS TO URBAN SOCIETY IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. (1978).

H. Sidky Dept. Soc/Anthro.
Miami University

In a message dated 97-11-15 07:20:04 EST, you write:

Does anyone know the anthropological/archaeological concept of civilization?

Forgive me if this is a long reply. This is the heart of a book I am currently writing.

Civilization is properly an historical word. It has an essential meaning, as well as connotations that need to be stripped away for the word to have any real meaning. There is no proper academic and common concurrence on the concept, valuable though it may be.

Etymologically, the word should apply to human societies with cities as their centres.

The civilization/barbarism dichotomy is a value judgement that corrupts any real meaning in the word. It goes along with the properly discredited concept of “Progress”. This localizes the word to Classical/Hellennistic Greece and 18th—19th century Europe. The word first came into play as just that, as a singular adjective, the judgement vis-a-vis barbarism, among the 18th century French philosophes (Turgot, Mirabeau).

As a plural noun, the word took form in 19th century Britain, as a parallel word to culture—as in Classical (or French or Chinese) Civilization. This is, I believe, the most useful form of the word. Braudel defines this concept as “ the characteristics common to the collective life of a period or group.”

Spengler uses “civilization” in a different—German—sense. What British/American historians call “civilizations”, Spengler calls “Hoch Kulturen”—High Cultures. Civilization is the later, rationalist and technological phase of a “High Culture”; he considers Civilization to be the demise of Culture.

Carroll Quigley separates human social aggregates into three categories, in a manner that makes the concept of “Civilization” even more useful and in line with its common sense:

1. Social Groups: An aggregate with certain customary relationships, that regards itself as a unit, capable of defining who is in the group and who is not. This can range from a fraternity to a state. A group is generally a part of a larger society (or culture)
2. Societies: “A group whose members have more relationships with one another than they do with outsiders—an integrative, comprehensible unit.”
This is what we usually refer to as a Culture, with all the ramifications thereof, including a large range of relationships—religious, historical, intellectual, economic. A number of clans or tribes or states are part of the larger society with which they may share common elements: religion/myth, language, economics, etc. A society can have a number of component groups.
In a simple society, these groups are often called “peoples”. In a complex society, these groups can be called “nations” (peoples sharing a broad history) or “states” (political entities) (two very different ideas).
3. Civilizations: A subset of Societies. “A complex producing society that has writing and city life” (Quigley) ‘Producing’ means agricultural or industrial as opposed to opportunistic (hunter/gatherer). “Complex” requires more space for definition than I believe Chuck Jones would allow me, but most folks know what it means. (I’ll do it off-list if anyone dares to ask.) I would, however, add the attribute of endurance across time. This brings the definition in line with what we ordinarily understand as “Civilizations” (the plural form), of which there have been perhaps twenty in human history. The Sumerian/Semitic civilization lasted some 2—3,000 years, and left a legacy and influence that carried even longer, through the period of non-creative decay. A civilization also has an element of growth and evolution; once it becomes purely static, it has essentially died. Such was the Egyptian after about 1000 BCE, the Classical/Byzantine after 1000 AD.

I believe that the concept of “legacy” is critical to an understanding of civilization. Consider the legacy of Classical (Greco-Roman) Civ., or of Mexic and Peruvian Civ. (where a new civilization is being created as a synthesis of Mexic/Peruvian and Western). India could be considered to be at the inception of its third civilization, each carrying the legacy of the ones prior. Western European Civilization bears the legacies of both Classican and Semitic Civilizations.

The definitions are not hard and fast or facily definable. Life blends and mixes and leaves no clearly definable boundaries. Was Crete a ‘civilization’ or was it a mercantile mixture/sub-set of Egyptian and Semitic civilizations? (Quien sabe) Was Nubia/Sudan a sub-set of Egyptian civ.? (Yes…) Was there a “Caananite” (Quigley) or an “Arabian/Magian” (Spengler) civilization or just a further extension of the Sumerian/Akkadian/Semitic Civilization? (meaning: where does Judea/Phoenicia fit in) Is Islam a civilization unto itself—a legacy of Sumerian/Semitic or of Classical, or Caananite? The ANE is indeed the bane of any structured definition of Civilizations.

Such ideas can only be discussed if the primary definitions are first agreed upon.

This leads me to the fully politically incorrect postion that there has, as yet, been no real sub-Saharan African civiization before the present, because of the lack of temporal endurance of an Idea. The city-bearing societies of lower Africa were in the past only offshoots of Egyptian and Islamic civilization. (Please, no response from Hubey—I can get real nasty real easily) This civilization, however, I believe is currently taking form, with South Africa as the core nation.

The definition of ‘Civilization’ can only be whatever is generally agreed upon by both social scientists / historians and common usage. General agreement on this topic is quite difficult to come by.

Apologies for the long post, but the subject cannot be stated more succinctly. I would appreciate any comments.

Regards

Randy Foote

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Randy Foote wrote:

Apologies for the long post, but the subject cannot be stated more succinctly. I would appreciate any comments.

Please, do not apologize. Wish some of the short posts were as easy to read. Furthermore, how often do we get well-presented “shop-talk”, with an invitation to comment?

You write:

The definition of ‘Civilization’ can only be whatever is generally agreed upon by both social scientists / historians and common usage. General agreement on this topic is quite difficult to come by.

I would say inpossible.

These are value-laden judgments, and not observational items. There is no way to reach inter-observer agreement.

Imo, this is why the concept of “World-System” is interesting, because it is based on the perception of human groups whose geographical and demographical boundaries could be independently ascertained, that is, the object of study can be defined (see Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas D. Hall “Rise and demise. Comparing World-Systems.” Westview Press)

You also write:

The Sumerian/Semitic civilization lasted some 2—3,000 years, and left a legacy and influence that carried even longer, through the period of non-creative decay.

True, this is “the prevailing paradigm.” Still, it is not only wrong, but very misleading. Let me just quote M. Liverani's “Oriente Antico” to show how subjective this conception is: “la fine di un mondo avviene nel segno della continuita” (p. 893).

The _end_ of the ancient “Sumerian/Semitic” civilization is a pre-judgement that “goes along with the properly discredited concept of “Progress.”

It is upheld even though the historian cannot but note the signs of continuity.

Well, I apologize for this medium-length but confusing post. I’ll try to do better next time.

Sincerely,

Albert Naccache
Lebanese University
anaccash@dm.net.lb

Yes, Albert—you did say one set of confusing things. Are you saying that Sum/Sem civ didn’t end? or didn’t have long-lasting influence? or didn’t have non-creative decay?

(The complete obliteration of even the memory of the Sumerian and Akkadian languages would seem to be a pretty good indication of the end of the civilization. Recall that until the decipherment of cuneiform it was assumed that the “Chaldee” spoken in Ur and Babylon and so on was Aramaic, hence that label for Biblical Aramaic even in the Vulgate and in English versions to render “’aramit” of Dn 2:4.)

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

In a message dated 97-11-16 07:33:01 EST, anaccash@dm.net.lb writes:

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Randy Foote wrote:
The definition of ‘Civilization’ can only be whatever is generally agreed upon by both social scientists / historians and common usage. General agreement on this topic is quite difficult to come by.
I would say inpossible.

These are value-laden judgments, and not observational items. There is no way to reach inter-observer agreement.

It may not be easy to reach inter-observer agreement but the modern trend is certainly trying to ape the more successful physical and mathematical sciences. In the physical sciences one has the concept of dimension. In one sense it is about the physical dimensions that we live in i.e. three space dimensions and one time dimension. That concept is produced in more general settings via extension in two different ways:

1) in one case we have a straightforward idea of a “space” which is removed from our physical space since it only essentially means “variable” or the “independent variables” needed to describe a phenomenon. We have three space dimensions because we need to specify the values of three independent variables to describe the position of anything occupying space in our familiar 3D world. By extension, describing the motion of a rocket in space requires 6 dimensions.

By using this concept we can easily create and work with spaces of 100 dimensions or more. Clearly, the concept of “complexity” which bedevils many in the social sciences can be easily taken care of by the use of higher-dimensional spaces. After all, the concept of space and dimension are used all the time by sociologists and other social scientists without being explicit. Only one more little step needs to be taken.

2) in the second case we extend it even more abstractly by creating whole new concepts for phenomena and calling them dimensions. In this case, the three space dimensions are collapsed into a single dimension called “length” because all three space dimensions are and can be measured as length. Time is another dimension. Then to be able to do science (as we know it) we need a dimension for electrical charge, and one for temperature.

After these are in place, we need to be able to measure values in these dimensions in standardized units, for example, meters, seconds, coulombs (and volts, and amperes), and degrees Celsius (for temperature). Hence for doing mechanics (a branch of physics) we need only the dimensions [L,F,T].

Similarly the previous long post did an excellent job of creating the dimensions of for being able to state what civilization is or might be. The various categories such as size/scale, existence of cities, etc were the “dimensions” of this space. All we need to do is create some standard units for these dimensions and then we will have the means to objectively describe and compare civilizations against each other.

Implicit in all this is the concept of distance. Whenever we make measurements in any dimension we are expressly making comments about distance in that dimension. So we do have the “metric space” for sociology after all, at least, we do have the beginnings of such a space, however dimly seen it may be in the present.

The _end_ of the ancient “Sumerian/Semitic” civilization is a pre-judgement that “goes along with the properly discredited concept of “Progress.”

I guess progress can also be measured objectively, if we need such. Longer life-span certainly is progress. Lack of slavery and existence of equality is certainly progress. It is impossible for humans not to see things the way humans do. We see force, mass, acceleration and do physics. Animals don’t. The fact that all humans can agree on some basic concept of progress is good enough for a start.

Armand

Thanks for the response. Allow me a few comments:

The definition of ‘Civilization’ can only be whatever is generally agreed upon by both social scientists / historians and common usage. General agreement on this topic is quite difficult to come by.

I would say inpossible.

These are value-laden judgments, and not observational items. There is no way to reach inter-observer agreement.

It would be sad to have to jettison another valuable word because it has become so freighted with connotations—condemning ‘Civilization’ to the netherworld where lie ‘Progress', ‘Race’, and many other words that once meant something. That is why I jumped on the chance for us all to develop a clear definition of “civilization”. The word has the added value (not really present in ‘World Systems') of representing something that non-academics have a sense of, if not a clear definition. Further, several serious popular historians whom I greatly respect (Braudel, Spengler, Quigley, Toynbee, Childe) have expended much energy to define ‘civilization’ and keep the word alive.

The _end_ of the ancient “Sumerian/Semitic” civilization is a pre-judgement that “goes along with the properly discredited concept of “Progress.”
It is upheld even though the historian cannot but note the signs of continuity.

The ANE is the rock upon which theories and classifications of civilizations ever founder, because it has been the cauldron of human history. If you could clarify your comment, I would be glad to respond. Are you saying that Islamis civ. is an unbroken continuation of Sumerian/Semitic, rather than a later generation (influenced of course by its ancestor)? That would imply that Western Civilization is actually an unbroken continuation of Classical, and probably Minoan. If one accepts that viewpoint, any attempt to study civilizations as discrete and organic human societies becomes too amorphous to have any real meaning.

Regards

Randy Foote

Friends,

On the topic of civilization, may I suggest a very simple premise to start building on?

That civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully its full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.

Ramona Wheeler http://members.aol.com/tokapu/walkle01.htm

That is a very interesting post, which I enjoyed reading. Regarding your bibliography, I note that M. Fried is missing. When I was a student in the Anthropology Dept. at Columbia in the 1950s, he was considered very hot stuff. Has he been discarded by history?

I also note that you do not mention the existence of an agricultural surplus sufficient to support non-laboring castes as a precondition for the emergence of a state (i.e., Stadt), and therefore an implicit part of the definition.

Best wishes,
Richard H. Stern
email: rstern@ablondifoster.com
web: www.ablondifoster.com
snail: 1130 Conn. Av. NW—Ste. 500,
Wash. DC 20036

On the topic of civilization, may I suggest a very simple premise to start building on?
That civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully its full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.

Respectfully, Ramona, but would not this definition encompass homo erectus as well? After all, they sallied forth from Africa, reached and occupied virtually every corner of the planet apart from the Americas, established communities there, and successfully sustained those communities for periods that were up to ONE MILLION years in duration. Not bad compared to our six thousand or so, and an accomplishment which surely required the trans-generational communication and retention of what in our terms we call “full cultural heritage”, however large or small that heritage was for them and however properly focused that heritage was on what we may for shorthand call “survival” These were human communities too, of course.

Granted, homo erectus eventually became extinct, superceded in large measure by a post-habilis and emergent sapiens diaspora of 150,000 or so years ago.

But in another 900,000 years we may be extinct as well, and should there yet be cognitive thought somewhere to ponder the matter, we would hope they consider what we have done to be “civilization”.

Accordingly, Ramona, it is my own feeling that the definition you propose would be inadequate. In at least one measured span or another, it is hard to envision that any hominid community would fail to meet its criteria. Indeed, if the “human” were removed, certain non-hominid primates could be said to meet the criteria.

Christopher Robbins
New York City
crisica@idt.net

I suggest that collegues find out the topic at hand before jumping in with a response.

The original discussion was re: the use of the term “civilization” by anthropologists/archaeologists. I said that anthropologists use the term “state” rather than “civilization,” as the latter term is imprecise and subject to ethnocentric bias. From about the 1500s to the 19th century, for example, the term was used by European anthropologists, etc., to set apart their own societies, which were deemed to represent the highest level of development possible, or pinnacle of “progress”(i.e., were “civilized”), from other societies, which were characterized as “primitive” crude, violent, “arrested cultures,” lacking morals, law, literature, and other “refinements” of “civilized” societies. Using single traits, liking the presence or absence of writing does not apply cross-culturally and leaves out many societies that should otherwise be defined as state-level social formations.

Aziljian's reply illustrates the problematic nature of the term, leading him/her to make such astonishing remarks about the Romans being more civilized than the Inca? And if the inchoherent remarks about “ Jocks” ? and Academics is a reference to “scale analysis” I suggest he/ she make use of the references I cited earlier. Sorry.

H. Sidky

I think this proposal doesn’t distinguish a “civilization” from a “culture”?

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

Tokapu@aol.com wrote:

Friends, On the topic of civilization, may I suggest a very simple premise to start building on?

That civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully its full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.

Ramona Wheeler

Ramona Wheeler writes:

That civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully its full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.

I don’t believe that this works, not as I understand civilizations. You have described any human culture. “A Civilization” as generally defined differentiates (e.g.) : Egypt or Mesopotamia (3,000 BCE—500 BCE) or Europe (500 AD—??) from (e.g.): any hunter-gatherer culture or static Neolithic culture, among others.

For a Civilization to continue, it must evolve and expand, if only to protect its accumulated wealth from outer forces that have learned its technics. Cultural stasis is generally a sign of decay in a Civilization, or of a culture that is not-yet or no-longer a Civilization.

Also, someone said that Civilization should include writing, which would separate out Peru. I would strongly disagree with that. Writing is a technology, not an essential characteristic. A Civilization would, however, include a non-laboring “elite” that embodies and transmits the Idea of the culture, as well as the means to support that stratum.

Regards

Randy Foote

Several of the messages on the subject of ‘define “civilization”’ seem to start with a couple of unstated assumptions about the meaning of the term ‘civilization’:

that it contrasts with something (usually the anthropological term, ‘culture’; or the generic ‘uncivilized’, which could mean ‘barbarism’ [another anthropological term but now out-of-date]);
and that it therefore represents an advance, or a stage in a developmental progression from ‘savage’ through ‘barbarous', ‘culture’, and the like (similar to the recent progressions made out in those theories of early state formation).

If so, I find these two assumptions loaded, and I hear bells f danger signals. As some of the respondents have already noted, ‘civilization’ tends to be the word we use for ourselves, for those who have participated in the Western Tradition, and for those who were populous and self-conscious about their propagating f covering the earth. In short, this term ‘civilization’ tends to be self-congratulatory, narcissistic, colonizing, and compulsively heterosexist.

I suggest that we get interested in lived lives, rather than states. The complexity of political organization is only one subject, but it has dominated our thinking about the past for far too long.

All this, of course, IMHO (in my humble opinion).

John G. Younger
Dept of Classical Studies
Duke University
email: jyounger@acpub.duke.edu
Durham, NC 27708-0103
http://www.duke.edu/web/jyounger/

GRFoote@aol.com wrote:

For a Civilization to continue, it must evolve and expand, if only to protect its accumulated wealth from outer forces that have learned its technics.

Technology stretches back to making use of stone cutters, and even using sticks as weapons. Where should we draw the line?

Cultural stasis is generally a sign of decay in a Civilization, or of a culture that is not-yet or no-longer a Civilization.

IT is not so clear that there must be endless progress. Is knowledge endless? On the other hand some of our esteemed colleagues seem to think that pre-scientific fields such as linguistics, history, or archaeology have apparently reached a state of bliss from which no further progress is possible. If it were not so, why would they be so hostile to any change or introduction of the only tool that humans have ever developed over the last 100,000 years to discover truth in a systematic way? This way is nothing but the way of science. And it is already accepted that mathematics is its language. That is as true in physics as it is in economics, and as true in analytical chemistry as it is in sociology.

This now looks like a gigantic step in the direction of civilization just like writing originally was. Would our esteemed and distinguished colleagues agree that math is a special language of science the same way writing was the mark of civilization?

Also, someone said that Civilization should include writing, which would separate out Peru. I would strongly disagree with that. Writing is a technology, not an essential characteristic. A Civilization would, however, include a non-laboring “elite” that embodies and transmits the Idea of the culture, as well as the means to support that stratum.

This sounds a little like saying that professors don’t do work :-)

Perhaps by labor, you mean physical labor and also management labor. After all even nomadic societies have chiefs and shamans. Are they a laboring segment of society?

Sincerely,
Ruslan

Mr. Robbins,

I would like to know on what facts/data you base your statement about “homo erectus sallying forth from Africa to populate the world”? I believe you will find that this is 1940s pseudo-science (the likes of which has caused more argument and mis-direction in anthropology). Life magazine stuff.

Regards,

Elmer E. Smalling III
Jenel Systems and Design International, Inc.
Plano, Texas USA
HOME PAGE = http://www.connect.net/smalling
E-mail: smalling@connect.net
esmalling@acm.org smalling@scientist.com

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Christopher Robbins wrote, in concluding a very interesting post:

Indeed, if the “human” were removed, certain non-hominid primates could be said to meet the criteria.
To muse upon the criteria that differentiate “culture” from “civilization”, both of which sharing in “trans-generational communication and retention of what in our terms we call “full cultural heritage”, however large or small that heritage was”, check out:
J.T. Bonner “The Evolution of Culture in Animals” Princeton University Press 1980

Sincerely

Albert Naccache
Lebanese University
anaccash@dm.net.lb

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 08:18, Elmer Smalling III wrote:

Mr. Robbins,
I would like to know on what facts/data you base your statement about “homo erectus sallying forth from Africa to populate the world”? I believe you will find that this is 1940s pseudo-science (the likes of which has caused more argument and mis-direction in anthropology). Life magazine stuff.

Hello Elmer,

Presuming that October 1994 would be sufficiently current to meet your requirement, kindly allow me to cite the following illustrative example: “The most famous early members of our genus, our immediate ancestor Homo erectus, arose a bit later within this subgroup, with the oldest African fossils dated at about 1.8 million years. […]

“Homo erectus became the first intercontinental traveller of our lineage. Populations of this species walked out of Africa, into parts of Europe, and all the way to Eastern China and Indonesia (where, as “Java Man” and “Peking Man” of the old text books, their discovery between 1890 and 1920 began the serious study of ancient human fossils). The recent redating of Indonesian specimens to as much as 1.8 million years old indicates that this migration from Africa may have occurred earlier than previously recognized. […]

One million years ago, Home erectus populations lived on the three continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia.”

Stephen Jay Gould, _The New York Review of Books_, 20 October 1994

I believe, Elmer, that it would not be unfair to say that Stephen Jay Gould is one of if not the leading American paleontologist(s) and with little question one of the most distinguished and prolific scientists in the world in the field of evolutionary history.

Perhaps henceforth you may wish to communicate directly with Professor Gould, at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA, and share with him your insight that all these years he has been teaching “1940s pseudo-science” and “Life magazine stuff”.

The Board of Regents at Harvard University would perhaps also like to be informed of the Plano, Texas critique of the most eminent, celebrated and internationally recognized scholar in Harvard Univertsity's science departments.

I believe Professor Gould may have been born in the early 1940's. Although I am unable to confirm his readership of _Life_ magazine.

Most sincerely,

Christopher Robbins
New York City
crisica@idt.net

Friends,

In order to clarify my suggested definition of “civilization,” “Civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully the full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.” it is necessary to elaborate on the word “coherent.”

“Culture” is more ephemeral than “civilization.” Culture is a group united by a shared jargon. Cultures can come and go in a single generation, a single lifetime. Culture is sustained by living minds and living interactions. Civilization has established more permanent structures to sustain the transmission of its full cultural heritage to succeeding generations, structures above and beyond that sustained by living minds at a given moment. An individual can function within a variety of cultural entities yet be identified with a single civilization. A civilization can encompass a variety of cultural entities yet maintain a single identity.

Because we are now a single global human community, such distinctions between civilizations are blurring and perhaps it's about time.

This also suggests that our modern “boundaries” of ancient civilizations are perhaps too severely drawn. Perhaps a more flexible concept of their extent and intermingling is required. It does make classification a more complex topic. Yet it also forces us to look at the actual individuals and their living moments with a more immediate glance. Categorizing the dead is no more successful than categorizing the living. Perhaps ancient history is better served by the stories of its living individuals than by the names of civilizations.

Ramona Wheeler
http://members.aol.com/tokapu/walkle01.htm

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 19:31, Albert Naccache wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997, Christopher Robbins wrote, in concluding a very interesting post:
Indeed, if the “human” were removed, certain non-hominid primates could be said to meet the criteria.
To muse upon the criteria that differentiate “culture” from “civilization”, both of which sharing in “trans-generational communication and retention of what in our terms we call “full cultural heritage”, however large or small that heritage was”, check out:
J.T. Bonner “The Evolution of Culture in Animals” Princeton University Press 1980
Yes, quite so, Albert. You are right; that really was the point.
I believe that Ramona Wheeler's suggestion was well intended, an honest effort, one presumes, to break the supposedly Eurocentric stranglehold on defining “civilization” in perhaps a bit too convenient a manner to fit a then extant and rather comforting paradigm (viz the literacy frontier, for example—although in regard to the retention and transmission of the institutional knowledge of a culture, the significance of literacy can obviously not be underestimated).
Yet when the definition is so broad as to be able to encompass virtually any and all hominid experience (and even certain non-hominid primates), at one point or another, then the catagorical aspect loses all meaning and the notions of culture and civilization dissolve into miasma.
I make no claim to have an easy solution to this categorical dilemma, though I do believe it is a worthy matter for intellectual and scholastic debate, particularly, perhaps, in a forum such as Ane where the question resonates with both relevance and poignancy.
Is the thetic door to our resolution to be found in the dialectical fusion of J.T. Bonner and Desmond Morris? (-:
Just joking (obviously) (-:
Best regards,
Chris
Christopher Robbins
New York City
crisica@idt.net
P.D.—By the way, Albert, I thank you for the courteous and wise private response your recently sent me on another matter.

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:07:25 EST
From: popeye6@juno.com (Jesse S. Cook III)
Subject: Re: ane Civilization?

On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:13, Ramona Wheeler wrote:
On the topic of civilization, may I suggest a very simple premise to start building on?
That civilization is any self-sustaining human community coherent enough to transmit successfully its full cultural heritage of that community to its succeeding generations.
[cut]
Indeed, if the “human” were removed, certain non-hominid primates could be said to meet the criteria.
Not so. Culture is a purely human characteristic. No other animal has culture.
Jesse S. Cook III popeye6@juno.com

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 17:07:25 EST
From: popeye6@juno.com (Jesse S. Cook III)
Subject: Re: ane Civilization? Culture?

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 13:38:17 -0500 (EST), Ramona Wheeler <Tokapu@aol.com> writes:
“Culture” is more ephemeral than “civilization.” Culture is a group united by a shared jargon. Cultures can come and go in a single generation, a single lifetime.

Obviously, there is culture and there are cultures. Neither is “more ephemeral than ‘civilization’”.

Quite the opposite. Culture is very real and has been for at least 2.5 million years. It consists of all the things that humans have invented in that period of time, material and immaterial, all of which have undergone an evolutionary transformation, e.g., from stone tools to laser tools.

Culture existed for almost 2.5 million years before there was anything that we might label as “civilization”. Civilization, if it exists at all, is part of culture.

A “group that is united by a shared jargon” undoubtedly has a culture, but that culture is not defined by that “shared jargon” nor is it circumscribed by it. The culture consists of a great deal more than the “shared jargon”. The “shared Jargon” is part of the culture. If you know of any culture that has “come and gone” in a single generation (generally considered to be 20 years) or a single lifetime (now about 75 years), please inform the anthropological world about it—you would be famous.

Jesse S. Cook III popeye6@juno.com

It looks as though Tokapu is using “civilization” the way anthropologists use “culture,” and her “culture” refers to something fine enough to fall through the anthropologist's net: perhaps her “cultures” are more the subject matter of sociologists?

(I’ve always kinda felt that sociologists study “us” and anthropologists study “them”—and this sorta fits that view.)

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

As an outsider (an interested layman) perhaps I have no right to comment, but as a somewhat regular user of English I feel compelled to do so. I cannot understand the compulsion to have only a single, narrow definition of ‘civilization.’ Certainly, whatever ‘civilization’ means today is not what it meant 100 years ago, nor what it will mean 100 years hence. It obviously has multiple meanings, or at least a quite broad meaning, to the members of ane. Language is dynamic and constantly changing.

What I think is important is not the ‘meaning’ of ‘civilization,’ but the acceptance of the principle that in good scientific writing, if the denotation or connotation of a term is essential to an anlysis, then the author is bound to provide them. If someone wishes to discuss ‘civilization in the Bight of Benin’ or ‘Nazca civilization’ or ‘Summarian civilization’ the meaning of the word will either be found in context or will be provided or will be the source of an excederin headache for the author.

Mike Dollard
Retired bureaucrat

In a message dated 97-11-19 02:12:58 EST, dollard@crisny.org writes:

What I think is important is not the ‘meaning’ of ‘civilization,’ but the acceptance of the principle that in good scientific writing, if the denotation or connotation of a term is essential to an anlysis, then the author is bound to provide them. If someone wishes to discuss

Are we doing science or entertainment?

I usually think of these two as being the extreme poles of the same dimension. The most perfect example of one is math and the most nearly perfect form of the other is good story telling or being a good joke writer. Even there one might argue that to be able to tell good jokes or to tell good stories one might have to know a lot about human psychology. So perhaps at the entertainment pole we should have painting or sculpture best represent it. In any case, history falls somewhere in between these poles. Mythmaking of the olden and not so golden days is an attempt at science, ( a rather poor attempt). So is astrology and so too with numerology and Ouija board stuff.

But what we really want (allegedly) is to be known to do science in every field (maybe even entertainment). I’d put history at somewhere around 0.2 on a scale of zero to one on the scientific scale. We don’t even get close to philosophy on that account.

Armand

Michael J. Dollard wrote:

As an outsider (an interested layman) perhaps I have no right to comment, but as a somewhat regular user of English I feel compelled to do so. I cannot understand the compulsion to have only a single, narrow definition of ‘civilization.’ Certainly, whatever ‘civilization’ means today is not what it meant 100 years ago, nor what it will mean 100 years hence. It obviously has multiple meanings, or at least a quite broad meaning, to the members of ane. Language is dynamic and constantly changing.
What I think is important is not the ‘meaning’ of ‘civilization,’ but the acceptance of the principle that in good scientific writing, if the denotation or connotation of a term is essential to an anlysis, then the author is bound to provide them. If someone wishes to discuss ‘civilization in the Bight of Benin’ or ‘Nazca civilization’ or ‘Summarian civilization’ the meaning of the word will either be found in context or will be provided or will be the source of an excederin headache for the author.
Mike Dollard
Retired bureaucrat

Can’t argue with that. The problem is that a lot of words _connote_ value judgments—a “civilization” is *better than* a mere “culture”, because for a few hundred years “civilization” was used to label exactly those societies that the labelers preferred. If we don’t want to imply that one society actually *is* better than another (and it is axiomatic in anthropology that no society is better than any other), then we have to either avoid the word entirely in technical contexts, or else (if it's just so useful we can’t possibly do without it) define it very carefully so that it maybe still covers exactly the same things it used to (has the same _denotation_) but is (as best we can) stripped of subjectivity in its use.

Compare “race” (which biology shows has *no* denotation corresponding to its traditional use), and many other words.

Peter T. Daniels
grammatim@worldnet.att.net

Friends,

I believe Peter Daniels has most cogently presented the heart of the problem of finding the definitions we long for here. The definition I presented was a strenuous effort to eliminate all *value* judgements from the definition of civilization.

Daniels said:

“The problem is that a lot of words _connote_ value judgments—a “civilization” is *better than* a mere “culture”, because for a few hundred years “civilization” was used to label exactly those societies that the labelers preferred. If we don’t want to imply that one society actually *is* better than another (and it is axiomatic in anthropology that no society is better than any other), then we have to either avoid the word entirely in technical contexts, or else (if it's just so useful we can’t possibly do without it) define it very carefully so that it maybe still covers exactly the same things it used to (has the same _denotation_) but is (as best we can) stripped of subjectivity in its use. Compare “race” (which biology shows has *no* denotation corresponding to its traditional use), and many other words.—
Peter T. Daniels”

I will add here that, in America especially, we use the term “cult” as a pejorative for “ephemeral cultures” of which we disapprove. Say to yourselves the two terms “The American Star Trek Cult” and “The American Star Trek Culture” and you have two utterly different approaches to what is a genuine, living sub-culture within the American mainstream. Go ahead and laugh. The example was chosen for the immediacy of reaction. But think about it. There are others. Say to yourself “The Christian Cult.” It just won’t do, will it? Neutral definitions of such major terms are frightfully difficult to hold and maintain. I am so glad to hear the leaders in these fields moving towards such an egalitarian approach to the many peoples of our world.

Ramona Wheeler
http://members.aol.com/tokapu/walkle01.htm

I have read with interest the proposed definitions of civilization as well as the probables pointed out when choosing some characteristic(s) of a culture that make(s) it a civilization. Such problems have to do with describing a civilization by some universal characteristics which a culture has in itself while it seems to me that a civilization has to do more with how a culture relates and interacts with other cultures rather than how it is when judged by itself.

Therefore I came to the conclusion that a civilization is a culture which has achievements that are not found at some point in other cultures but which may be taken over by them at a later point. Cultures that are commonly labelled civilizations have had some of those features pointed out in the definitions proposed, such as writing, because writing facilitates cultural exchanges. To the list I would add military power because it seems that military conquests have facilitated cultural exchanges as well, whether that was intended or not. Of course, “civilizing” influences were almost never one way and not always for the good. By viewing civilization as a form of cultural interaction I make it relative and therefore unfit for a definition, but may be that's what it is.

Aurel Ionica
Ionica@library.vanderbilt.edu

In a message dated 97-11-19 13:14:08 EST, Tokapu@aol.com writes:

Daniels said:
“The problem is that a lot of words _connote_ value judgments—a “civilization” is *better than* a mere “culture”, because for a few hundred years “civilization” was used to label exactly those societies that the labelers preferred.
Just because someone used a knife to kill does not mean that we should not use knives. Just because someone used fire to burn his neighbor's hut does not mean that we should not use fire warm ourselves and cook our food. Just because some racists misused concepts does not mean that those concepts are not meaningful. Just because some ignorant people make ridiculous remarks does not mean that no person can make intelligent remark.
So there is no reason why the word civilization cannot be used in a productive and non-racist manner.
If we don’t want to imply that one society actually *is* better than another (and it is axiomatic in anthropology that no society is better than any other), then we have to either avoid the word entirely in technical contexts, or else (if it's just so useful we can’t possibly do without it) define it very carefully so that it maybe still covers exactly the same things it used to (has the same _denotation_) but is (as best we can) stripped of subjectivity in its use.

We can say that one society is older. We can say one society is technologically more advanced. We can say one society has more freedoms. We can say people in one society live longer than in others. We can say people in one society are malnourished.

We can say people in some society are illiterate.

Why can’t we then combine them?

What law of logic, or science prevents us from creating weighted averages? What rules of logic or science prevents us from making generalizations which are correct? What is science if not a body of correct and correlated generalized statements? What rules of logic or science prevent us from making some parts of humanities more scientific?

Compare “race” (which biology shows has *no* denotation corresponding to its traditional use), and many other words.—

How is that? There is a perfect definition of race as you can find in any dictionary. I’ve read about these efforts on the part of some people to try to stamp out racism by claiming that there are no races.

That is like stamping out forest fires by claiming that they don’t exist. The racists will just find another word to replace the word “race”.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of race. The fact that someone acknowledges that there are races does not mean that they are racist. One does not follow from the other.

What law of biology says that there are no races?

Peter T. Daniels