Defining civilization is one of those parlor games that cultural anthropologists like to play. When do you cross the line from "culture" to "civilization"? I think commonly accepted criteria are cities and writing. I would add government, Don would disagree, Jay would add commerce, DJ would add science. Maybe it's one of those "know it when you see it" things. Civilizations cluster around rivers, oceans, lakes and roads. Which came first, the road or the civilization? I don't know, but they are entertwined. No network, no civilization.
Jericho, the oldest city (9000 BC), isn't demonstrably part of a larger network of cities and settlements, so Jericho, per se, isn't a civilization. Catal Huyuk (6900 BC) seems to be related to Jarmo and Tepe Yahya, so there's your network but no writing.
We talked about writing yesterday.
The important fact is that when these sites are excavated, the things we see remind us of . . . . us. Naturally, we are the apotheosis of mankind, the crown of creation, so anything that looks like us must be really cool. Indoor toilets that flush are so modern that my grandmother didn't have one, but the people who lived in Mohenjo-Daro did (circa 3000 BC, draining into tiled sewers.)
Scholars of the Minoan era like to talk between themselves about the bare breasts on the Minoan goddesses, while those who study Greek pottery have other things to talk about. Point being that it's plain as day that what appealed to them still appeals to us, 4000 years later. We feel kinship with them, with the IceMan, with the mummies of Urumchi, in a way that Lucy doesn't inspire.
If you exclude cultures that practiced slavery or mass murder, you aren't left with very much. |
